Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling Cuteness: Moving towards a Biosemiotic Model for Understanding the Perception of Cuteness and Kindchenschema

  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research seeks to expand on the current literature surrounding scientific and aesthetic concepts of cuteness through a biosemiotic lens. By first re-evaluating Konrad Lorenz’s Kindchenschema, and identifying the importance of schematic vs featural perception, we identify the presence of a series of perceptual errors that underlie existing research on cuteness. There is, then, a need to better understand the cognitive structure underlying one’s perception of cuteness. We go on to employ the methodological framework of Modeling Systems Theory to identify and establish the forms that underlie both the encoding and decoding of cute phenomena. In redefining cuteness as a cohesive code, and establishing Kindchenschema as a schematic metaform, we set the foundation for the incorporation of biological and cultural theories of cuteness. This research offers an initial methodological framework for the examination of cute artifacts, that can be utilized in the fields of normative aesthetics, marketing, and design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Brachycephaly describes the morphological trait of a skull shorter than typical of that species. This can be seen in a variety of species, including humans, but is particularly notable in some popular domesticated dog and cat breeds (Steinert et al. 2019).

  2. An article which provides an overview of the various supposed cases of feral children who were raised by animals: https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/feral-children/.

  3. An article discussing this popular meme/myth: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elephants-think-humans-cute/.

  4. The Biophilia Hypothesis, as introduced in the book Biophilia by Edward Wilson (1984), describes an innate, psychological preference for humans towards nature. It is used to explain phenomena such as the keeping of pets and household plants.

  5. Hygge describes a form of affection and comfort, which is often associated with Nordic conceptions of cuteness (Wiking 2016).

  6. Haru Bus. Available at: http://www.harubus.com/.

References

  • Alley, T. R. (1983). Age-related changes in body proportions, body size, and perceived cuteness. Perception and Motion Skills, 56, 615–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, A. (2003). Portable monsters and commodity of cuteness: Pokémon as Japan’s new global power. Postcolonial Studies, 6(3), 381–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragón, O. R., Clark, M. S., Dyer, R. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2015). Dimorphous expressions of positive emotion: Displays of both care and aggression in response to cute stimuli. Psychological Science, 26, 259–273.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bogin, B. (1988). Patterns of human growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: Species preferences. Anthrozoös, 28, 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2016). Pet face: Mechanisms underlying human-animal relationships. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00298.

  • Brentari, C. (2009). Konrad Lorenz’s epistemological criticism towards Jakob von Uexküll. Sign Systems Studies, 37(3), 637–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchan, J. C., Alberts, S. C., Silk, J. B., & Altmann, J. (2003). True paternal care in a multi-male primate society. Nature, 425, 179–181.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, R. J., & Ritter, J. M. (1996). How infant appearance informs: Childcare providers’ responses to babies varying in appearance of age and attractiveness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 85(1), 495–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chersini, N., Hall, N. J., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2018). Dog pups’ attractiveness to humans peaks at weaning age. Anthrozoös, 31(3), 309–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S. (2012). Aesthetic and value judgement of neotenous objects: Cuteness as a design factor and its effects on product evaluation. Dissertation. The University of Michigan. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c650/bb7899d6d70f52a387a8fcf55e485bd036cc.pdf. Accessed 6th January 2020.

  • Christy, J. (1995). Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. The American Naturalist, 142(2), 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danesi, M. (2014). The concept of model in Thomas a. Sebeok’s semiotics. In K. Bankov (Ed.), New semiotics: Between tradition and innovation: 12th world congress of semiotics (pp. 1495–1506). Sofia: IASS Publications & NBU Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: Murray.

  • Dydynski, J., & Mäekivi, N. (2018). Multisensory perception of cuteness in mascots and zoo animals. International Journal of Marketing Semiotics, 6, 2–25.

  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1992). The contribution of typical sex differences in facial maturity to sex role stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(4), 430–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genosko, G. (2005). Natures and cultures of cuteness. Invisible Culture: An Electronic Journal for Visual Studies, 9. http://ivc.lib.rochester.edu/natures-and-cultures-of-cuteness/. Accessed 6th January 2020.

  • Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N. (2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115, 257–263.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gn, J. (2016). A loveable metaphor: On the affect, language and design of ‘cute’. East Asian Journal of Popular Culture, 2(1), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gn, J. (2018). The technology of the cute body. Eidos: A Journal for Philosophy of Culture, 4(6), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1979). Mickey mouse meets Konrad Lorenz. Natural History, 88, 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granot, E., Brashear Alejandro, T., & Russell, L. M. (2013). A socio-marketing analysis of the concept of cute and its consumer culture implications. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(1), 66–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoos, 14(4), 204–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinsohn, R., & Doble, M. (2004). Cooperate or speciate: New theory for the distribution of passerine birds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(2), 55–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinde, R. A., & Barden, L. A. (1985). The evolution of the teddy bear. Animal Behavior, 33, 1371–1373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrdy, S. (2005). Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative breeding model. In S. Carter, L. Ahnert, K. Grossmann, S. Hrdy, M. Lamb, S. Porges, & N. Sachser (Eds.), Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis (pp. 9–32). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology, 36(5), 723–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joye, Y., & De Block, A. (2011). Nature and I are two: A critical examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values, 20(2), 189–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kringelbach, M. L., et al. (2008). A specific and rapid neural signature for parental instinct. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001664.

  • Leach, H. (2003). Human domestication reconsidered. Current Anthropology, 44, 349–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt der Vögel. Journal für Ornithologie, 83(2), 137–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5, 234–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1963). Das sogenannte Böse: Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression. Vienna: Dr. G. Borotha-Schoeler Verlag. English translation (1966): On aggression. London: Methuen & Co.

  • Lorenz, K. (1970). Studies in animal and human behaviour, Volume 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Lorenz, K. (1978). Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung – Grundlagen der Ethologie. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1981). The foundations of ethology. New York: Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madge, L. (1997). Capitalizing on ‘cuteness’: The aesthetics of social relations in a new postwar Japanese order (pp. 155–174). Iudicium Verlag: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, M. W. (2016). Cognitive metaphor theory and the metaphysics of immediacy. Cognitive Science, 40(4), 881–908.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merish, L. (1996). Cuteness and commodity aesthetics: Tom thumb and Shirley Temple. In R. G. Thomson (Ed.), Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the extraordinary body (pp. 185–203). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morreall, J. (1991). Cuteness. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 31(1), 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morreall, J. (1993). The contingency of cuteness: A reply to Sanders. British Journal of Aesthetics, 33(3), 283–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P., Reddy, V., & Bunting, R. C. (1995). The survival of the cutest: Who’s responsible for the evolution of the teddy bear? Animal Behaviour, 50, 1697–1700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nenkov, G., & Scott, M. (2014). So cute I could eat it up. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 325–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J., & Hulland, J. (2008). Considering the future: The conceptualization and measurement of elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 126–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngai, S. (2005). The cuteness of the avant-Garde. Critical Inquiry, 31(4), 811–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitschke, J. B., et al. (2004). Orbitofrontal cortex tracks positive mood in mothers viewing pictures of their newborn infants. Neuroimage, 21, 583–592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nittono, H., & Ihara, N. (2017). Psychophysiological responses to kawaii pictures with or without baby schema. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017709321.

  • Nittono, H., Fukushima, M., Akihiro, Y., & Hiroki, M. (2012). The power of kawaii: Viewing cute images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046362.

  • Patrick, V. M. (2016). Everyday consumer aesthetics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 60–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Villagra, M., Geiger, M., & Schneider, R. (2016). The taming of the neural crest: A developmental perspective on the origins of morphological covariation in domesticated mammals. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160107.

  • Sanders, J. T. (1992). On “cuteness”. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 32(2), 162–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. (1994). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T., & Danesi, M. (2000). The forms of meaning: Modeling systems theory and semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, G. D., & Haidt, J. (2011). Cuteness and disgust: The humanizing and dehumanizing effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 3(3), 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioral carefulness. Emotion, 9(2), 282–286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., & Coan, J. A. (2013). Individual differences in the physical embodiment of care: Prosocially oriented women respond to cuteness by becoming more physically careful. Emotion, 13(1), 151–158.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stavropoulos, K., & Alba, L. (2018). “It’s so cute I could crush it!”: Understanding neural mechanisms of cute aggression. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00300

  • Steinert, K., Kuhne, F., Kramer, M., & Hackbarth, H. (2019). People’s perception of brachycephalic breeds and breed-related welfare problems in Germany. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 33, 96–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struhsaker, T. (1971). Social behavior of mother and infant vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). Animal Behaviour, 19, 233–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theofanopoulou, C., Gastaldon, S., O’Rourke, T., Samuels, B. D., Martins, P. T., et al. (2018). Correction: Self-domestication in Homo sapiens: Insights from comparative genomics. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196700.

  • Volk, A. R., & Quinsey, V. L. (2002). The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences. Human Nature, 13(4), 437–455.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1992). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica, 89(4), 319–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2016). How consumers respond to cute products. In B. Rajeev, C. Seifert, & D. Brei (Eds.), The psychology of design (pp. 149–164). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiking, M. (2016). The little book of hygge: Danish secrets to happy living. London: Penguin Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrangham, R. W. (2019). Hypotheses for the evolution of reduced reactive aggression in the context of human self-domestication. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01914

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu, Jakobi 2, 51005, Tartu, Estonia

    Jason Mario Dydynski

Authors
  1. Jason Mario Dydynski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Mario Dydynski.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dydynski, J.M. Modeling Cuteness: Moving towards a Biosemiotic Model for Understanding the Perception of Cuteness and Kindchenschema. Biosemiotics 13, 223–240 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09386-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09386-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation