The current study sought to replicate an unexpected finding reported by Speltz et al. (1997): relatively unattractive infants at age 3 months were more likely than attractive infants to show secure maternal attachment at age 12 months, a finding unaffected by the diagnosis of cleft lip and palate (CLP), cleft palate only (CPO), or the absence of a cleft condition.
Design
We evaluated the effects of diagnosis (CLP, CPO, or no diagnosis) and age (3, 12, and 24 months) on facial attractiveness ratings derived from a modified Q-sort method.
Setting
Craniofacial clinic in an urban children's hospital.
Participants
Infants with CLP and CPO and typically developing infants without clefts (n = 126) and their mothers. Ratings were made by 13 adults unfamiliar with cleft conditions.
Main outcome Measures
Facial attractiveness ratings.
Results
Infants with CLP were rated as the least attractive at all time points. At ages 12 and 24 months, infants in the CPO group were rated as less attractive than typical infants but more attractive than infants in the CLP group. Typical infants and those with CLP—utnot CPO—received higher attractiveness ratings with age. As hypothesized, less attractive infants, regardless of diagnosis, were more likely to show secure attachment than were more attractive infants.
Conclusions
We tentatively conclude that the perceived vulnerability of young infants, as indexed by atypical or unattractive facial characteristics, engenders extraordinary protectiveness and responsiveness in some mothers, leading to a higher probability of secure attachment. A test of this hypothesis with a new sample of infants is recommended.
AdamsG.R.. Physical attractiveness research: toward a developmental social psychology of beauty.Hum Dev.1977; 20: 217–239.
2.
AinsworthM.D.S., BleharM.C., WatersE., WallS.. Patterns of Attachment.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;1978.
3.
AinsworthM.D.S., WittigB.. Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-yearolds in a Strange Situation. In: FossB.M., ed. Determinants of Infant Behavior.London: Methuen;1969: 111–136.
4.
AlleyT.R.. Age-related changes in body proportions, body size, and perceived cuteness.Percept Mot Skills.1983; 56: 615–622.
5.
AlleyT.R.. The developmental stability of facial attractiveness: new longitudinal data and a review.Merrill Palmer Q.1993; 39: 265–277.
6.
BayleyN.. Bayley Scales of Infant Development.New York: The Psychological Corporation;1969.
CohenJ.. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educ Psychol Meas.1960; 20: 37–46.
9.
CorterC., TrehubS., BoukydisC., FordL., CelhofferL., MindeK.. Nurses' judgments of the attractiveness of premature infants.Infant Behav Dev.1978; 1: 373–380.
10.
DayD.W.. Craniofacial birth defects. In: HobbsN., PerrinJ.M., eds. Issues in the Care of Children With Chronic Illness.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;1985: 344–365.
11.
Dieterich-MillerC.A., SaffordP.L.. Degree of special needs training and the effect of prematurity labeling.Child Health Care.1990; 19: 112–115.
12.
Eibl-EibesfeldtI.. Ethology: The Biology of Behavior2nd ed.New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston;1975.
13.
EliasonM.J., HardinM.A., OdinW.H.. Factors that influence the ratings of facial appearance for a child with a cleft lip and palate.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1991; 28: 190–194.
14.
FraserF.C.. The genetics of cleft lip and palate.Am J Hum Genet.1970; 22: 336–352.
15.
GoldbergS., GotowiecA., SimmonsR.J.. Infant-mother attachment and behavior problems in healthy and chronically ill preschoolers.Dev Psychopathol.1995; 7: 267–282.
16.
GoldbergS., PerrottaM., MindeK., CorterC.. Maternal behavior and attachment in low-birth-weight twins and singletons.Child Dev.1986; 57: 34–46.
17.
HildebrandtK.A., FitzgeraldH.E.. Adult's perceptions of infant sex and cuteness.Sex Roles.1979; 5: 471–481.
18.
HoeksmaJ.B., KoomenH.M., Van den BoomD.. The development of early attachment behaviours.Early Dev Parent.1996; 5: 135–147.
19.
HollingsheadA.B.. Four Factor Index of Social Status.New Haven, CT: Yale University;1975.
20.
HorvathT., SzmigelskyL., FentonL.A.. Some attractiveness parameters from birth to four years.Percept Mot Skills.1987; 64: 1243–1248.
21.
JonesD., HillK.. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations.Hum Nat.1993; 4: 271–296.
22.
KarrakerK.H.. Adult attention to infants in a newborn nursery.Nurs Res.1986; 35: 358–363.
23.
KatzI.. Stigma: A Social Psychological Analysis.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;1981.
24.
KriensO.. Documentation of cleft lip, alveolus, and palate. In: BardachJ., MorrisH.L., eds. Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and Palate.Philadelphia: WB Saunders;1990: 127–133.
25.
LangloisJ.H.. The origins and functions of appearance-based stereotypes: theoretical and applied implications. In: EderR.A., ed. Developmental Perspectives on Craniofacial Problems.New York: Springer-Verlag;1995: 22–47.
LangloisJ.H., StyczynskiL.. The effects of physical attractiveness on the behavioral attributions and peer preferences in acquainted children.Int J Behav Dev.1979; 2: 325–341.
28.
MainM., SolomanJ.. Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In: GreenbergM.T., CicchettiD., CummingsM.E., eds. Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention.Chicago: University of Chicago Press;1990: 121–160.
29.
MarisC.L., EndrigaM.C., OmnellL.M., SpeltzM.L.. Psychosocial adjustment in twin pairs with hemifacial microsomia.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1999; 1: 43–50.
30.
MarisC.L., EndrigaM.C., SpeltzM.L., JonesK., DeKlyenM.. Are infants with orofacial clefts at risk for insecure mother child attachments?Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000; 37: 257–265.
31.
McLellanB., McKelvieS.J.. Effects of age and gender on perceived facial attractiveness.Can J Behav Sci.1993; 25: 135–142.
32.
NyantangaL.. The Q sort theory and technique.Nurse Educ Today.1989; 9: 347–350.
33.
ParkeR.D., SawinD.B.. Infant characteristics and behavior as elicitors of maternal and paternal responsivity in the newborn period. Presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development; April 1975; Denver, Colorado.
34.
PashayanH.M., FraserF.C.. Facial features associated with predisposition to cleft lip.Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser.1971; 7: 58–63.
35.
PruzinskyT.. Social and psychological effects of major craniofacial deformity.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 578–584.
36.
RichardsonS.A.. Attitudes and behavior towards the physically handicapped.Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser.1976; 12: 15–34.
37.
RitterJ.M., CaseyR.J., LangloisJ.H.. Adults' responses to infants varying in appearance of age and attractiveness.Child Dev.1991; 62: 68–82.
38.
RumseyN., BullR.. The effects of facial disfigurement on social interaction.Hum Learn.1986; 5: 203–208.
39.
SarnatB.G.. A retrospective of personal craniofacial research and clinical practice.Plast Reconstr Surg.1996; 100: 132–153.
40.
ShepardB., MagaiC.. Socioemotional development in children with craniofacial anomalies. In: EderR.A., ed. Craniofacial Anomalies.New York: Springer-Verlag;1995: 76–95.
41.
SpeltzM.L., EndrigaM.C., FisherP.A., MasonC.A.. Early predictors of attachment in infants with cleft lip and/or palate.Child Dev.1997; 68: 12–25.
42.
SternglanzS.H.. Adult preferences for infantile facial features: an ethological approach.Anim Behav.1977; 25: 108–115.
43.
TobiasenJ.. Psychosocial correlates of congenital facial clefts: a conceptualization and model.Cleft Palate J.1984; 21: 131–139.
44.
TobiasenJ.. Social psychological models of craniofacial anomalies: examples of cleft lip and palate. In: EderR.A., ed. Craniofacial Anomalies: Psychological Perspectives.New York: Springer-Verlag;1995: 233–257.
45.
TobiasenJ.M., SpeltzM.L.. Cleft palate: a psychosocial developmental perspective. In: BerkowitzS., ed. Cleft Lip and Palate: Perspectives in Management.Vol 2. San Diego: Singular Publishing;1996: 15–24.
