The Benefits of Baby-Face
Academic Level at Time of Presentation
Graduate
Major
Experimental Psychology
List all Project Mentors & Advisor(s)
Sean Rife
Presentation Format
Event
Abstract/Description
Past research has found that ratings of baby-face positively predict ratings of trustworthiness and warmth (Berry & McArthur, 1985; Chang, Lee, & Cheng, 2017), are moderated by gender to predict attractiveness (McArthur & Apatow, 1984; Zheng et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2018), negatively predict ratings of competence (McArthur & Apatow, 1984; Chang, Lee, & Cheng, 2017), and are theorized to negatively predict ratings of threat (Livingston & Pearce, 2009). Individual facial features are more powerful predictors of ratings of baby-face in cultures with analytical thinking styles, while forehead size is more commonly a predictor in countries with holistic thinking styles (Zheng et al., 2009). It is theorized that forehead size indicates that all of the facial features are lower on the face, and that holistic thinking style accounts for where things are located, not just what they are (Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005; Zheng et al., 2009).
The current study investigates these in a cross-cultural replication with Indian faces for Indian and American raters, separately, using the norming data included in the Chicago Faces - Database - India. Facial features are analyzed as predictors of ratings of trustworthiness, warmth, attractiveness, competence, and threat, with baby-face moderating each of these analyses.
Results support that Indian raters have a holistic thinking style and need a combination of features to rate a face as baby-faced. Baby-face positively predicted ratings of attractiveness; gender were not a significant moderator. Baby-face also positively predicted ratings of competence, warmth, and trustworthiness. Results indicate that the relationship between babyface and ratings of threat may be moderated by gender. Forehead size was a significant predictor more frequently for Indian raters, while lip thickness and eye size were more frequently significant for U.S. raters. Ratings of baby-face between the two groups of raters was correlated at .64, indicating cultural differences between the groups.
Fall Scholars Week 2025
Psychology: Completed Projects
The Benefits of Baby-Face
Past research has found that ratings of baby-face positively predict ratings of trustworthiness and warmth (Berry & McArthur, 1985; Chang, Lee, & Cheng, 2017), are moderated by gender to predict attractiveness (McArthur & Apatow, 1984; Zheng et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2018), negatively predict ratings of competence (McArthur & Apatow, 1984; Chang, Lee, & Cheng, 2017), and are theorized to negatively predict ratings of threat (Livingston & Pearce, 2009). Individual facial features are more powerful predictors of ratings of baby-face in cultures with analytical thinking styles, while forehead size is more commonly a predictor in countries with holistic thinking styles (Zheng et al., 2009). It is theorized that forehead size indicates that all of the facial features are lower on the face, and that holistic thinking style accounts for where things are located, not just what they are (Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005; Zheng et al., 2009).
The current study investigates these in a cross-cultural replication with Indian faces for Indian and American raters, separately, using the norming data included in the Chicago Faces - Database - India. Facial features are analyzed as predictors of ratings of trustworthiness, warmth, attractiveness, competence, and threat, with baby-face moderating each of these analyses.
Results support that Indian raters have a holistic thinking style and need a combination of features to rate a face as baby-faced. Baby-face positively predicted ratings of attractiveness; gender were not a significant moderator. Baby-face also positively predicted ratings of competence, warmth, and trustworthiness. Results indicate that the relationship between babyface and ratings of threat may be moderated by gender. Forehead size was a significant predictor more frequently for Indian raters, while lip thickness and eye size were more frequently significant for U.S. raters. Ratings of baby-face between the two groups of raters was correlated at .64, indicating cultural differences between the groups.