Advertisement

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 89–109 | Cite as

Do Babyfaced Adults Receive More Help? The (Cross-Cultural) Case of the Lost Resume

  • Caroline F. KeatingEmail author
  • David W. Randall
  • Timothy Kendrick
  • Katharine A. Gutshall
Article

Abstract

The hypothesis that babyish-looking adult faces would elicit help was tested in a field experiment using the “lost letter” technique. Digitized images of African-American and European-American adult male and female faces were made to look babyish (neotenous) by substituting enlarged eyes and lips for normal ones. Eyes and lips were reduced in size to make faces look mature. As expected, neotenous features made adults appear submissive, weak, naive, feminine, compassionate, and honest, but not more or less attractive, relative to mature features. Neotenous or mature faces were printed on (fictional) resumes, attached to stamped, addressed envelopes, and “lost” in the US (n = 408) and Kenya (n = 176). “Helping” was indexed by whether resumes were posted (returned) or not. Most results supported predictions; across nations, resumes depicting neotenous, white and black female faces and neotenous, white male faces were returned more often than were resumes displaying the mature versions of these faces. Returns for neotenous and mature black male faces, however, were not significantly different. Overall, support was found for the hypothesis that neotenous, submissive-looking facial characteristics cue social approach and elicit help while mature, dominant-looking facial traits cue avoidance.

cross-cultural evolution faces helping neoteny 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alley, T. R. (1988). The effects of growth and aging on facial aesthetics. In T. R. Alley (Ed.), Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 51–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, T., Copper, C., & Mullen, B. (1992). Cross-racial facial identification: A social cognitive integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 296–301.Google Scholar
  3. Barefoot, J. C., & Strickland, L. H. (1977). The confidentiality of "confidential" lost letters. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 123–126.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, D. S., & Landry, J. C. (1997). Facial maturity and daily social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 570–580.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. A. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridges, F. S., Anzalone, D. A., Ryan, S. W., & Anzalone, F. L. (2002). Extensions of the lost letter technique to divisive issues of Creationism, Darwinism, sex, education, and gay and lesbian affiliations. Psychological Reports, 90, 391–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridges, F. S., & Clark, S. M. (2000). Differences in the lost letter responses from smaller rural communities. North American Journal of Psychology, 2, 121–126Google Scholar
  8. Bridges, F. S., Williamson, C. B., Thompson, P. C., & Windsor, M. A. (2001). Lost letter technique: Returned responses to battered and abused women, men, and lesbians. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 263–276.Google Scholar
  9. Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1985). The role of experience and contact in the recognition of faces of own-and other-race persons. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 139–155.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1995). The contributions of appearance to occupational outcomes in civilian and military settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 129–163.Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925–935.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Philhower, C. L. (2002). Dimensions of facial physical attractiveness: The intersection of biology and culture. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.) Advances in visual cognition, volume 1: Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 193–238). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Wu, C., Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the crosscultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279.Google Scholar
  15. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1975). Ethology: The biology of behavior. (second ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Enlow, D. H. (1982). Handbook of facial growth. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, H. (1948). Anatomy of the human body. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
  18. Guthrie, R. D. (1970). Evolution of human threat display organs. In T. Dobzhansky, M. K. Hecht, & W. C. Steere (Eds.) Evolutionary Biology, 4 (pp. 257–302). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  19. Guthrie, R. D. (1976). Body hot spots: The anatomy of human social organ and behavior. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology, 36, 723–748.Google Scholar
  21. Keating, C. F. (1985a). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 61–70.Google Scholar
  22. Keating, C. F. (1985b). Human dominance signals: The primate in us. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 89–108). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Keating, C. F. (2002). Charismatic faces: Social status cues put face appeal in perspective. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz (Eds.), Advances in visual cognition, volume 1: Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive,and social perspectives (pp. 153–192). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  24. Keating, C. F., & Bai, D. (1986). Children's attributions of social dominance from facial cues. Child Development, 57, 1269–1276.Google Scholar
  25. Keating, C. F., & Doyle, J. (2002). The faces of desirable mates and dates contain mixed social status cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 414–424.Google Scholar
  26. Keating, C. F., Mazur, A. C., & Segall, M. H. (1981). A cross-cultural exploration of physiognomic traits of dominance and happiness. Ethology and Sociobiology, 2, 41–48.Google Scholar
  27. Keating, C. F., Randall, D., & Kendrick, T. (1999). Presidential physiognomies: Altered images, altered perceptions. Political Psychology, 20, 593–610.Google Scholar
  28. Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, I, 115–121.Google Scholar
  29. Lippman, B., & Keating, C. F. (2002). The face-ism in racism: An examination of physiognomy's role in the attribution of racial stereotypes to black and white faces. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  30. Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen moglicher Erfahrung. Zietschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 5, 234–409.Google Scholar
  31. Mazur, A. C. (1973). A cross-species comparison of status in small, established groups. American Sociological Review, 38, 513–530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazur, A. C., Mazur, J., & Keating, C. F. (1984). Military rank attainment of a West Point class: Effects of cadets' physical features. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 125–150.Google Scholar
  33. McArthur, L. A., & Berry, D. S. (1987). Cross-cultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 165–192.Google Scholar
  34. McCabe, V. (1988). Facial proportions, perceived age, and caregiving. In T. R. Alley (Ed.), Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 89–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Milgram, S., Mann, L., & Harter, S. (1965). The lost-letter-technique: A tool of social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 437–438.Google Scholar
  36. Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1998). Person perception comes of age: The salience and significance of age in social judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 93–161.Google Scholar
  37. Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1997). Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 569–579.Google Scholar
  38. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D.L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., & Minamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741–742.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., Henzi, S. P., Castles, D. L., & Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pittenger, J. B., Shaw, R. E., & Mark, L. S. (1979). Perceptual information for the age level of faces as a higher order invariant of growth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 481–492.Google Scholar
  41. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A., & Byatt, G. (1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52–58.Google Scholar
  42. Rossi, P. H., & Anderson, A. B. (1982). The factorial survey apporach: An introduction. In P. H. Rossi & S. Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach (pp. 15–67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Secord, P. F., Dukes, W. F., & Bevan, W. (1953). Occupational and physiognomic stereotypes in the perception of photographs. Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 261–270.Google Scholar
  44. Shepherd, J. (1981) Social factors in face recognition. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (eds.)Perceiving and remembering faces (pp. 55–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zebrowitz, L. A., Brownlow, S., & Olson, K. (1992). Baby talk to the babyfaced. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 143–158.Google Scholar
  46. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Collins, M. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 204–223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The impact of litigants' baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603–623.Google Scholar
  48. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (1992). Impressions of babyfaced males and females across the lifespan. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1143–1152.Google Scholar
  49. Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993). They don't all look alike: Individuated impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Zebrowitz, L. A., Tenenbaum, D. R., & Goldstein, L. H. (1991). The impact of job applicants' facial maturity, gender, and academic achievement on hiring recommendations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 525–548.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline F. Keating
    • 1
    Email author
  • David W. Randall
    • 2
  • Timothy Kendrick
    • 2
  • Katharine A. Gutshall
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyColgate UniversityHamilton
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyColgate UniversityHamilton

Personalised recommendations