The effect of the babyface schema includes three typical responses, namely, the preference response, viewing motivation, and attention bias towards infant faces. It has been theorised that these responses are primarily influenced by infants’ facial structures. However, recent studies have revealed the moderating role of facial expression, suggesting that the strongest effect of the babyface schema may be related to the neutral facial expression; this hypothesis remains to be tested. In this study, the moderating role of facial expression was assessed in three successive experiments (total N = 402). We used a series of images of the same face with multiple expression-standardised images of infants and adults to control for facial structure. The results indicated that the effect sizes of the babyface schema (i.e., response differences between infants and adults) were different for multiple expressions of the same face. Specifically, the effect sizes of neutral faces were significantly greater than those of happy and sad faces according to the preference response (experiment 1, N = 90), viewing motivation (experiment 2, N = 214), and attentional bias (experiment 3, N = 98). These results empirically confirm that neutral infant facial expressions elicit the strongest effect of the babyface schema under the condition of using adult faces as a comparison baseline and matching multiple expressions of the same face.
AradhyeC.VonkJ.AridaD. (2015). Adults’ responsiveness to children’s facial expressions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 135, 56–71.
2.
BroschT.SanderD.SchererK. R. (2007). That baby caught my eye . . . attention capture by infant faces. Emotion, 7, 685–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.685
ChengG.ZhangD. J.SunY. Z.JiaY. C.TaN. (2015). Childless adults with higher secure attachment state have stronger parenting motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.004
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
DingF. Y.ZhangD. J.ChengG. (2016). The effect of secure attachment state and infant facial expressions on childless adults’ parental motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, e1237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01237
7.
EndendijkJ. J.SmitA. K.van BaarA. L.BosP. A. (2020). What a cute baby! Preliminary evidence from a fMRI study for the association between mothers’ neural responses to infant faces and activation of the parental care system. Neuropsychologia, 143, e107493.
8.
FeldmanR. (2015). The adaptive human parental brain: Implications for children’s social development. Trends in Neurosciences, 38, 387–399.
9.
FraleyR. C.MarksM. J. (2007). The null hypothesis significance testing debate and its implications for personality research. In RobinsR. W.FraleyR. C.KruegerR. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 149–169). Guilford Press.
10.
FranklinP.VolkA. A. (2018). A review of infants’ and children’s facial cues’ influence on adults’ perceptions and behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12, 296–321.
Garcia de la ChicaA.CorleyM.Fernandez-DuqueE. (2017). Alloparental behavior. In FuentesA. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of primatology (pp. 1–5). John Wiley.
13.
GlockerM. L.LanglebenD. D.RuparelK.LougheadJ. W.GurR. C.SachserN. (2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115, 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x
14.
GlockerM. L.LanglebenD. D.RuparelK.LougheadJ. W.ValdezJ. N.GriffinM. D.. . . GurR. C. (2009). Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 9115–9119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811620106
15.
HahnA. C.XiaoD.SprengelmeyerR.PerrettD. I. (2013). Gender differences in the incentive salience of adult and infant faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 200–208.
16.
HeereyE. A.GoldJ. M. (2007). Patients with schizophrenia demonstrate dissociation between affective experience and motivated behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.268
17.
JiaY. C.ChengG.DingF. Y.LiB. B.TaN.ZhangD. J. (2019). Mediation effect of adult attachment orientations between perceived parental warmth and the preference for infants. Current Psychology, 38, 1–13.
18.
JiaY. C.ChengG.ZhangD. J.TaN.XiaM.DingF. Y. (2017). Attachment avoidance is significantly related to attentional preference for infant faces: Evidence from eye movement data. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e85. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00085
19.
JiaY. C.DingF. Y.ChengG.ZhangW.LinN.ZhangD. J. (2019). Initial establishment of the same face with multi-expressions’ image database for infants and adults. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 33, 918–924.
20.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 601–625.
21.
KouH.XieQ.BiT. (2020). Mechanisms for the cognitive processing of attractiveness in adult and infant faces: From the evolutionary perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, e436. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00436
22.
KringelbachM. L.LehtonenA.SquireS.HarveyA. G.CraskeM. G.HollidayI. E.. . .CornelissenP. L. (2008). A specific and rapid neural signature for parental instinct. PLOS ONE, 3, e1664.
23.
KringelbachM. L.StarkE. A.AlexanderC.BornsteinM. H.SteinA. (2016). On cuteness: Unlocking the parental brain and beyond. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 545–558.
24.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, e863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
25.
LakensD. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177
26.
LakensD.ScheelA.IsagerP. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
27.
Lorenz. (1943). Die angeborenen formen möglicher erfahrung[The innate forms of potential experience]. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5, 235–409.
28.
LucionM. K.OliveiraV.BizarroL.BischoffA. R.SilveiraP. P.Kauer-Sant’AnnaM. (2017). Attentional bias toward infant faces—Review of the adaptive and clinical relevance. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 114, 1–8.
29.
MeteyardL.DaviesR. A. I. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, e104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092
NittonoH.FukushimaM.YanoA.MoriyaH. (2012). The power of Kawaii: Viewing cute images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus. PLOS ONE, 7, e46362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046362
32.
ParsonsC. E.YoungK. S.Jegindoe ElmholdtE.-M.SteinA.KringelbachM. L. (2017). Interpreting infant emotional expressions: Parenthood has differential effects on men and women. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 554–564.
33.
ParsonsC. E.YoungK. S.KumariN.SteinA.KringelbachM. L. (2011). The motivational salience of infant faces is similar for men and women. PLOS ONE, 6, e20632. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020632
34.
ParsonsC. E.YoungK. S.MohseniH.WoolrichM. W.ThomsenK. R.JoenssonM.. . .KringelbachM. L. (2013). Minor structural abnormalities in the infant face disrupt neural processing: A unique window into early caregiving responses. Social Neuroscience, 8, 268–274.
35.
ParsonsC. E.YoungK. S.ParsonsE.DeanA.MurrayL.GoodacreT.. . . KringelbachM. L. (2011). The effect of cleft lip on adults’ responses to faces: Cross-species findings. PLOS ONE, 6, e25897.
36.
PeltolaM. J.YrttiahoS.PuuraK.ProverbioA. M.MononenN.LehtimakiT.LeppanenJ. M. (2014). Motherhood and oxytocin receptor genetic variation are associated with selective changes in electrocortical responses to infant facial expressions. Emotion, 14, 469–477.
37.
RatcliffR. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.
38.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Jr.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.
39.
SchererK. R.MoorsA. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719–745.
40.
SparkoA. L.ZebrowitzL. A. (2011). Moderating effects of facial expression and movement on the babyface stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 243–257.
41.
SteinA.ArtecheA.LehtonenA.CraskeM.HarveyA.CounsellN.MurrayL. (2010). Interpretation of infant facial expression in the context of maternal postnatal depression. Infant Behavior & Development, 33, 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2010.03.002
42.
SteinA.MurphyS.ArtecheA.LehtonenA.HarveyA.CraskeM. G.HarmerC. (2012). Effects of reboxetine and citalopram on appraisal of infant facial expressions and attentional biases. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 26, 670–676.
43.
StrathearnL.LiJ.FonagyP.MontagueP. R. (2008). What’s in a smile? Maternal brain responses to infant facial cues. Pediatrics, 122, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1566
SwainJ. E. (2011). The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 35, 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.10.017
46.
SwainJ. E. (2017). Stress-sensitive parental brain systems regulate emotion response and motivate sensitive child care. In FilippaM.KuhnP.WestrupB. (Eds.), Early vocal contact and preterm infant brain development: Bridging the gaps between research and practice (pp. 241–269). Springer International Publishing.
47.
SwainJ. E.KimP.SpicerJ.HoS. S.DaytonC. J.ElmadihA.AbelK. M. (2014). Approaching the biology of human parental attachment: Brain imaging, oxytocin and coordinated assessments of mothers and fathers. Brain Research, 1580, 78–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.03.007
48.
TapperK.PothosE. M.LawrenceA. D. (2010). Feast your eyes: Hunger and trait reward drive predict attentional bias for food cues. Emotion, 10, 949–954.
49.
Thompson-BoothC.VidingE.MayesL. C.RutherfordH. J.HodsollS.McCroryE. J. (2014). Here’s looking at you, kid: Attention to infant emotional faces in mothers and non-mothers. Developmental Science, 17, 35–46.
50.
VogtJ.BajandouhY.AlzubaidiU. (2019). Beyond negativity: Motivational relevance as cause of attentional bias to positive stimuli. In AueT.Okon-SingerH. (Eds.), Cognitive biases in health and psychiatric disorders: Neurophysiological foundations (pp. 1–18). Elsevier.
51.
VolkA. A. (2009). Chinese infant facial cues. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 225–240.
52.
VolkA. A.LukjanczukJ. M.QuinseyV. L. (2005). Influence of infant and child facial cues of low body weight on adults’ ratings of adoption preference, cuteness, and health. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of the World Association for Infant Mental Health, 26, 459–469.
53.
VolkA. A.QuinseyV. L. (2002). The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences. Human Nature, 13, 437–455.
