Phases of Research: Steps in Gathering and Evaluating Evidence
The following are the general steps for conducting a research study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Step 1 – Observing some phenomenon
Step 2 – Formulating hypotheses and predictions
Step 3 – Testing through empirical research
Step 4 – Drawing conclusions
Step 5 – Evaluating conclusions
Step 1: Observing Some Phenomenon
All research begins with a single idea. These ideas come to us through our observations of some
phenomenon. These ideas do not need to be full-‐fledged research projects, yet. All that is
needed is a curiosity of the topic. These curiosities are called variables. Variables vary. In other
words, they change. Scientists develop theories about these curiosities. Theories, according to
your book, is a “broad idea or set of closely related ideas that attempts to explain observations”
(King, 2010, e-‐text). The benefit of coming up with a theory is that they can then be used to
help us formulate hypotheses and make predictions.
Example (that we will use throughout the steps): Let’s say you notice that you are more easily
able to remember phone numbers when you eat a piece of candy as you repeat the phone
number to yourself. So, you wonder if there is a connection between candy and memory.
Step 2: Formulating Hypotheses and Predictions
A hypothesis is a prediction. Specifically, it’s a prediction that can be tested. It should be
specific, and it should be something that can be tested. How do you come up with specific
hypotheses? You examine the literature on that phenomenon in order to see what other
researchers have done, how they’ve conceptualized and tested that phenomenon.
Example: You examine the literature on “memory enhancement” and you notice that other
researchers have examined how certain herbs and eating a healthy diet can improve memory.
However, you notice that no one has examined if sugar can improve memory. So, you
hypothesize that “College students who ingest 4 grams of sugar before studying a list of phone
numbers will have better memory than college students who do not ingest sugar.”
Step 3: Testing Through Empirical Research
This step involves testing the hypothesis. We do that by conducting empirical research, which is,
simply, collecting and analyzing data. In this step, you must define the important terms and
variables in your study, decide on the best research method to test your hypothesis, and
determine which statistical analysis to use to analyze the data.
You should create an operational definition of all the important terms. An
operational definition is a definition that specifies how something will be measured.
Example: What is “memory?” We must come up with some way to measure
memory. In our example, we might define memory as the number of phone
numbers college students are able to recall/write down.
You also need to come up with the Independent Variable (IV) and the Dependent
Variable (DV). An IV is usually defined as the variable that has some influence over
the dependent variable. You have control over the independent variable. It’s what
you manipulate in your study. The DV is the variable that changes in response to, or
is influenced by, the IV.
Example: In our example, the amount of sugar given to college students would be
the IV. We are giving one set of college students 2 grams of sugar, and the other set
of college students no sugar. The DV would be the number of phone numbers
remembered. We think that the number of phone numbers remembered (the DV)
changes in response to whether sugar is taken, or not (the IV), before trying to
remember the numbers.
Step 4: Drawing Conclusions
Once a researcher has finished collecting data, he/she must analyze the data. After analyzing
the data, the researcher draws conclusions. Specifically, the researcher determines if the
hypothesis is supported or not supported.
Step 5: Evaluating Conclusions
Research is continuously evaluated by the researcher who initially did the study as well as other
researchers. Theories can be revised, methods can be revised, more research can be conducted.
It is a (mostly) never-‐ending process.
Understanding a Journal Article
Most of us are familiar with reading a recipe for making a food dish. Recipes are typically made up of
two parts: a list of ingredients and instructions on how to make the food. Our familiarity with this
structure helps when it comes time to actually preparing the food. For example, if we are heading to
the store, we can quickly scan the list of ingredients to see what we need to purchase. In addition, the
step-‐by-‐step instructions can help even the most novice of cooks make delicious dishes!
The primary goal of this document is to help you become familiar with how to read published research
that uses APA Style. Just like a recipe, it has a specific structure and writing style that, when
understood, helps readers understand the material.
A typical research article (from a scholarly journal) has 7 main parts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Title
An article’s title is often the very first thing read. The title should illustrate the main topic of the
research and include important variables. The title should help you to form some expectation of
what the article will be about.
Abstract
The Abstract is a brief summary of the entire article, usually no more than 120 words. The
purpose is to give the reader a quick review of the content of the article. Many times, readers
will use an article’s title and abstract to decide whether it is relevant or not to their topic.
The abstract usually contains a very concise summary of:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
the article’s problem that is being investigated or the hypothesis,
pertinent information on the participants,
brief overview of the methods used,
brief summary of the statistical analyses,
results of the study, and
implications of the study.
Not all abstracts will have this information, and it is your responsibility to NEVER USE ONLY THE
ABSTRACT when writing a paper. The Abstract can, however, be used as a good starting point to
help you with the rest of the article.
Introduction
The Introduction is the first part of the body of the paper (note that it is usually not labeled as
such since it is assumed that the first part of the body of the paper is the Introduction). It
usually begins with a broad statement of the phenomenon being investigated, then narrows the
focus to the specific hypothesis or hypotheses of the study. The purpose of this section is to
introduce readers to the overall phenomenon that is being tested as well as to provide some
justification for the hypothesis. In order to do this, the author(s) should review past research on
the topic and discuss those findings. One of the biggest problems many students encounter
when reading an Introduction section is distinguishing between discussions of “past research”
and information about the “current study.” The following is the basic structure of a typical
Introduction (keep in mind that not all published articles follow this structure; however, you can
use it as a guide):
Introducing the Problem: The paper typically begins by broadly specifying the research
problem (or what is being studied). This part is usually 1-‐2 paragraphs long, and may
include the research questions, a description relating the hypothesis and experimental
design to the research problem, and the theoretical implication of the research.
Background Literature: This part will be the longest part of the Introduction. It consists
of a review of previous research that is relevant to the current study. Since a researcher
must provide a rationale/reason for why a hypothesis should be tested, it is important
to discuss what has been done in the past.
Purpose, Rationale, and Hypothesis: The final part of the Introduction includes formally
stating the study’s purpose, rationale, and specific hypothesis/hypotheses. The
previous parts should naturally lead up to this. As a reader, you should be able to
understand what is being tested and why. Keep in mind that sometimes hypotheses are
spelled out for the reader; other times, they may be listed as predictions (“the
researchers predict…”) or “we believe such and such will happen.”
Method Section
The purpose of the Method section is to provide the reader with a detailed description of how
the study was conducted. Think of this section as the “step-‐by-‐step instructions” you would find
in a recipe. The reason the Method section is so in depth is because it should act as “step-‐by-‐
step instructions” in case someone wants to replicate (re-‐do) the study. This section is also
divided into subparts (which are usually labeled):
Participants/Subjects: First and foremost, the correct term currently being used to
describe human participants in a study is “participants.” The term “subjects” is used
when referring to animals. Please adhere to this “rule” when you write your own
papers. Older articles may use the term “subjects” when referring to humans; however,
this is outdated and no longer considered acceptable or correct.
This subsection contains information such as:
•
•
•
•
number of participants and how they were selected and assigned to groups
major demographic characteristics
description of agreements and payments made
statements of ethical principles used in relation to the participants.
For nonhuman subjects, the information includes:
•
•
•
•
genus, species
strain number or location of supplier
number, sex, age, weight, and physiological condition
ethical guidelines on treatment and handling.
The purpose of this subsection is to allow the reader to make comparisons across
different studies. For example, if you read a study that only used human male
participants, then you may decide that the results can only occur in men and are not
more generalizable to women.
Materials/Apparatus/Measures: All the physical aspects of the research design are
described in this subsection (what tests were used, what type of computer, etc).
Remember that the purpose of the Method section is to act as a “recipe” for someone
else to replicate the study. So, the researcher has to list these things. (Consider this to
be the “ingredients” in your food recipe).
Procedure: This subsection provides a detailed account of what happened in the study.
(Consider this to be the “step-‐by-‐step” instructions part of your food recipe).
In general, focus your attention on the Participant and Procedure subsections. If you need
specific information, go back to the Materials/Apparatus/Measures subsection.
Results
The Results section is the part where the author(s) report the statistical analyses used in the
research. Authors typically report results of each hypothesis in the order that they appear in the
introduction to assist the reader in his/her comprehension.
It is often difficult for undergraduate students to understand the Results section, even after
taking Statistics I and II. In general, if you’re reading the article to write a literature review for
an undergraduate class, you will want to ignore the numbers and focus more on what group
performed better. In fact, it may be easier to rely on the next section (the Discussion) for an
explanation of the findings using non-‐statistical language.
Discussion
The Discussion section reviews, interprets, and evaluates the results of the study. This section
typically begins by listing the hypothesis/hypotheses then stating if the results supported or
contradicted them. Next, the author(s) usually discuss the similarities and differences between
the current findings and the findings of previous research. Any weaknesses of the study are also
reviewed, and suggestions are made on improving the research design. Finally, the discussion
section usually ends with the writer providing directions for future research.
References
The last important section in any journal article is the list of references. It lists, in alphabetical
order (usually), anything that was cited throughout the paper. There is a specific format that is
used. The References can be used to help you find related articles for any topic you need to
research. If you are doing a paper on a specific topic and you need help finding articles, the
References section is a great place to start!
Outlining a Journal Article
Note: You should download and read the Ceci & Bronfenbrenner pdf file which can be found in the
“Writing Assignment 1” folder on Blackboard.
In general, when you outline a journal article, you are analyzing it. The typical outline of a journal article
takes the following (basic) form:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Research Question(s)/Purpose of the article
Hypothesis/Hypotheses
Variables
a. Independent Variable
b. Dependent Variable
Methodology
a. Who participated?
b. What did they do?
Major Findings
I have used this basic outline to analyze the Ceci and Bronfenbrenner (1985) article as an example for
each of you. You should pay close attention to how I put the information in my own words. Remember
not to copy the information word-‐for-‐word, but, instead, to put the information in your own words.
I.
Research Question(s)/Purpose of the article
Every article has a purpose or main research question to guide it. Sometimes, this is
formally stated. Other times, the reader must extract the information. You can find this
information in the article’s Introduction (you may also find it in the Abstract, but I would not
rely on that).
For the Ceci and Bronfenbrenner article, it begins by reviewing past research on prospective
memory. In the 4th paragraph that begins with “In this study…”, the authors state the
purpose of the article. Did you find it? Filling out my outline, this is what I would write for
(I.):
The main purpose of this study is to examine a strategy called “strategic time
monitoring,” which is used by children when they have to perform a prospective
memory task.
II.
Hypothesis/Hypotheses
You can usually find the hypothesis/hypotheses in the Introduction. Sometimes they are
formally stated (as they are in the Ceci and Bronfenbrenner article); other times, they are
phrased as “We believe such and such will happen” or “We think this will happen.” Look for
those key phrases in identifying the hypothesis/hypotheses.
For the Ceci and Bronfenbrenner article, the hypotheses are labeled individually. Filling out
my outline, this is what I would write for (II.) (note that I am focusing on one hypothesis
even though there are many in this article):
III.
Clock checking will be higher in the laboratory than at home.
Variables
The answer to finding both the independent and dependent variables is usually found in the
Introduction and Method sections (and sometimes the Abstract). You can also figure out
these variables from the hypothesis/hypotheses.
It is usually best to first figure out what the variables are, then figure out which one is the IV
and which one is the DV. For the Ceci and Bronfenbrenner article, going by the hypothesis
that I identified above, I can see that the 2 main variables are “clock checking” and “location
of experiment.” I know that the IV influences (or changes) the DV. Ask yourself: is clock
checking influencing the location of the experiment? Or is the location of the experiment
influencing clock checking? Well, one clearly makes more sense than the other (keep in
mind, it won’t always be this easy, so you really need to pay close attention to the
hypothesis/hypotheses and Method sections). So, filling out my outline for (III.):
IV.
a. Independent Variable
Location of experiment
b. Dependent Variable
Clock checking
Method
For this part of the outline, you want to read through the Method section to see who
participated in the study and what they had to do. Under the “who participated” section,
you’ll want to briefly state who participated in the study. Under the other section, you want
to describe what the participants were instructed to do.
This seems to be the section that most students have trouble with. Students seem to
include too much information, in general. You want to include enough information so that
the reader has an idea of who was in the study and what occurred in the study, but you do
not need a very minute amount of detail.
For the Ceci and Bronfenbrenner article, you will find the participants listed in the first
subsection under the Method heading (notice that this article is an older article, and the
author(s) use the term “Subjects” here. Despite their term, you should use “Participants”).
You can find the Procedure in the subsection. Filling out my outline for (IV.):
a. Who Participated?
96 children, half of whom were 10 years old, and half who were 14 years old.
b. What did they do?
They were asked to bake cupcakes, and put them in the oven by a certain time and
to remove them 30 minutes later. While waiting for the cupcakes, the children were
told they could play PacMan in an adjoining room. The experimenters also pointed
out a wall clock.
V.
Major Findings
Did the results of the experiment support the hypothesis/hypotheses? What were the
major findings? What happened? Think about the research article as a story: it starts by
making a prediction and ends with telling us if they were right. Usually, if the article is well-‐
written, the answer is at the beginning of the Discussion section. However, you may have to
look around the Discussion for it.
For the Ceci and Bronfenbrenner article, did children have more instances of clock checking
in the laboratory as compared to the home? The answer can be found in the very first
paragraph of the Discussion. Thus, filling out the outline for (V.):
The hypothesis was supported. Children tended to do more clock-‐checking while baking
cupcakes in the laboratory as compared to in their home, which could meant that
children were more comfortable in their home than in the laboratory.
So, what would my outline look like without all the extra explanation:
Outline of Ceci and Bronfenbrenner (1985) Prospective Memory in Children
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Research Question(s)/Purpose of the article
The main purpose of this study is to examine a strategy called “strategic time monitoring,”
which is used by children when they have to perform a prospective memory task.
Hypothesis/Hypotheses
Clock checking will be higher in the laboratory than at home.
Variables
a. Independent Variable
Location of experiment
b. Dependent Variable
Clock checking
Methodology
a. Who participated?
V.
96 children, half of whom were 10 years old, and half who were 14 years old.
b. What did they do?
They were asked to bake cupcakes, and put them in the oven by a certain time and to
remove them 30 minutes later. While waiting for the cupcakes, the children were told
they could play PacMan in an adjoining room. The experimenters also pointed out a
wall clock.
Major Findings
The hypothesis was supported. Children tended to do more clock-‐checking while baking
cupcakes in the laboratory as compared to in their home, which could meant that children
were more comfortable in their home than in the laboratory.
Emotion
2009, Vol. 9, No. 2, 282–286
© 2009 American Psychological Association
1528-3542/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014904
Viewing Cute Images Increases Behavioral Carefulness
Gary D. Sherman, Jonathan Haidt, and James A. Coan
University of Virginia
Infantile physical morphology—marked by its “cuteness”—is thought to be a potent elicitor of caregiving, yet little is known about how cuteness may shape immediate behavior. To examine the function of
cuteness and its role in caregiving, the authors tested whether perceiving cuteness can enhance behavioral
carefulness, which would facilitate caring for a small, delicate child. In 2 experiments, viewing very cute
images (puppies and kittens)—as opposed to slightly cute images (dogs and cats)—led to superior
performance on a subsequent fine-motor dexterity task (the children’s game “Operation”). This suggests
that the human sensitivity to those possessing cute features may be an adaptation that facilitates caring
for delicate human young.
Keywords: cuteness, nurturance, care, fine-motor skill
Standard laboratory dexterity tasks score performance as the
number of objects successfully moved per second. Because cuteness may not make people faster (only more careful), we used a
similar task that was not time dependent: the classic children’s
game “Operation” (Hasbro, Pawtucket, RI), in which participants
use tweezers to remove small objects (body parts) from confined
spaces. This task is similar to standard fine-motor dexterity tasks
(e.g., the O’Connor tweezer dexterity task, Lafayette Instrument,
Lafayette, IN), but performance can be quantified without reference to speed. Because positive actions directed toward a child
likely require physical gentleness, we also used a grip-strength
gauge as a measure of physical weakness/gentleness.
In addition, during the viewing of the slide show we monitored
heart rate and electrodermal responding. This allowed us to (a)
detect changes in autonomic physiology that might facilitate finemotor coordination, and (b) to assess whether any shifts in behavior can be attributed to general physiological arousal. Finally,
given that responsiveness to cuteness may be rooted in maternal
caregiving, and given that women are generally more responsive to
cuteness than are men (e.g., they smile more at cute children;
Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1978), we tested only women in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, we tested both men and women.
Several factors entered into our choice of images to use as stimuli
in these experiments. Some studies of cuteness have used simple
schematic drawings as stimuli (e.g., Alley, 1983b). This approach
allows for the manipulation of the size and proportion of specific
craniofacial features (e.g., eye size), but the stimuli tend to be relatively weak as emotion elicitors. When assessing self-report outcomes
(e.g., hypothetical willingness to defend the child), this may not be
problematic. Given our interest in manipulating carefulness, however,
we believed that more powerful stimuli were necessary. We used
photographs of real animals, young and mature.
Humans are highly attuned to the physical features that characterize
their young, such as a large rounded forehead, large low-set eyes, and
a small chin (Alley, 1981, 1983a; Huckstedt, 1965). Those who
possess these features are deemed “cute” and are the object of a
variety of nurturing and affectionate impulses, such as high-pitched
vocalizations (i.e., “baby talk”; Spindler, 1961; Zebrowitz, Brownlow,
& Olson, 1992), preferential looking (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald,
1981), leniency (McCabe, 1988), and protectiveness (Alley, 1983b).
This research suggests that the tendency to respond emotionally to
infantile physical features may promote the provision of care, especially to infants, who are otherwise helpless due to their physical and
neural immaturity. However, the exact ways in which cuteness may
enhance care are not yet fully understood. Cuteness might simply and
only strengthen adults’ emotional attachments to infants, thereby
increasing their willingness to care for them. Alternatively, the affective “cute response” may include a behavioral component that facilitates caregiving itself. Because caring for a small, delicate child
requires one to act with great care, we reasoned that cuteness cues
might stimulate increased attention to, and control of, motor behavior.
We therefore predicted that seeing cuteness will increase behavioral
carefulness. In two experiments, we tested this prediction by having
participants view a slide show that contained images of animals. We
varied the age—and thus cuteness— of the animals experimentally
(varying the age of animals depicted in photographs influences perceived cuteness across a range of species, including dogs and cats;
Sanefuji, Ohgami, & Hashiya, 2007). Because high levels of carefulness seem more critical for fine-motor movements (e.g., brain surgery) than for gross-motor movements (e.g., running), we used performance on a fine-motor dexterity task as an index of behavioral
carefulness.
Gary D. Sherman, Jonathan Haidt, and James A. Coan, Department of
Psychology, University of Virginia.
The research presented in this paper was supported in part by a National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to Gary D. Sherman.
We thank Jesse Graham, Selin Kesebir, and Patrick Seder for their help.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gary D.
Sherman, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, P.O. Box
400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400. E-mail: gds6d@virginia.edu
Experiment 1
Method
Participants. Forty University of Virginia undergraduate
women participated for partial course credit (mean age ⫽ 18.46).
282
BRIEF REPORTS
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (low
cuteness or high cuteness).
Stimuli. The slide show consisted of three sections, each with
nine images. The first (baseline) and third (post) sections featured
neutral images of house interiors and were identical in content
across conditions. The middle (main) section featured images of
animals— either puppies and kittens (high cuteness) or dogs and
cats (low cuteness), depending on condition. Each image was
presented for 10 s, with a 3-s black screen providing a transition
between images.
We validated the main stimuli by having an independent sample
(N ⫽ 17) rate the images on cuteness and interestingness using
6-point scales ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Compared to the low-cuteness images, the high-cuteness images were
considered cuter (M ⫽ 3.98 vs. M ⫽ 1.37), t(16) ⫽ 15.21, p ⬍
.001, and more interesting (M ⫽ 2.44 vs. M ⫽ 1.77), t(16) ⫽ 3.35,
p ⬍ .01.
Measures. A Biopac MP100 System (Biopac Systems, Goleta,
CA), sampling at 1,000 Hz, was used for physiological data
acquisition. An electrocardiogram (ECG) measured heart activity
via three general purpose electrodes attached to each participant
(Lead 1 configuration). Acqknowledge 3.7.2 software (Biopac
Systems, Goleta, CA) extracted interbeat intervals (IBIs), which
were then visually inspected and manually corrected for artifacts. An
absolute measurement of skin conductance level (SCL) was obtained
by placing two electrodes on the volar surface of the medial phalanges
of the first and third fingers of the nondominant hand. We used Redux
Electrolyte Paste (Parker Laboratories, Fairfield, NJ) as a conductant.
To compute the change in heart rate (HR) and SCL from baseline to
the main section, we computed mean HR and SCL levels for these
sections using CMet Software (for HR; Allen, 2002; available from
http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu) and Acqknowledge 3.7.2
software (for SCL).
A slide show after the questionnaire assessed emotional impact
(“How much did this slide show affect you emotionally?”), physical impact (“How much did this slide show affect you physically?”), and peak intensity of specific emotions (happiness, entertainment, amusement, calmness, tenderness, sadness, fear, and
surprise) on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5
(extremely). At the end of the experiment, participants used the
same 6-point scale to rate the cuteness and interestingness of the
animal slide show. In addition, mood was assessed at the beginning of the experiment and after the slide show using a 100-point
scale ranging from 1 (the worst I have ever felt), to 100 (the best
I have ever felt).
In the operation task, the participant used a pair of tweezers to
remove various small plastic body parts from the “patient” without
touching the tweezers to the sides of each compartment. Participants had one chance to remove each of 12 body parts, and
performance was scored as the number of body parts successfully
removed. Finally, grip strength was measured using a hand dynamometer.
Procedure. The experimenter told participants (who were run
individually) that their physiology would be monitored while they
performed several tasks. After a partial hookup was complete
(ECG was not attached yet to keep participants’ dominant hand
free for the behavioral tasks), participants were given the hand
dynamometer and asked to squeeze it as hard as possible. Participants then played the Operation game while the experimenter
283
observed unobtrusively and recorded their scores. Next, the ECG
was attached and participants moved to the viewing chamber (a
separate area of the experiment room, enclosed by a curtain), were
seated, and watched the slide show on a projection screen. Afterward, the ECG was removed. Participants then squeezed the hand
dynamometer again, completed the questionnaire, and then played
the Operation game once again. Participants then answered the
final two self-report items.
Results and Discussion
The means for all self-report variables are presented in Table 1,
along with the results of t tests of the difference in the mean for
each item as a function of condition. The most intensely experienced emotions— happiness, calmness, tenderness, amusement,
and entertainment—were experienced more intensely in the highcuteness condition than in the low-cuteness condition ( ps ⬍ .05
for all except calmness, for which p ⬍ .10) and the high-cuteness
slide show was rated as more interesting and cuter than the
low-cuteness slide show ( ps ⬍ .05).
The mean change for each behavioral and physiological variable
as a function of condition is presented in Table 2. As predicted,
cuteness increased performance on a subsequent task requiring
extreme carefulness: participants showed significantly greater improvement in performance (from before to after the slide show) on
the operation task in the high-cuteness condition than in the
low-cuteness condition, t(38) ⫽ 1.99, p ⫽ .05, d ⫽ 0.63. Contrary
to predictions, the manipulation of cuteness did not influence
change in grip strength (t ⬍ 1). HR did increase more in the
high-cuteness condition (M ⫽ 1.64) than in the low-cuteness
condition (M ⫽ .02), t(37) ⫽ 1.89, p ⫽ .07, d ⫽ 0.61, but no effect
of cuteness on change in SCL was observed (t ⬍ 1).
Because the stimuli used in the two conditions differed on a
variety of dimensions beyond cuteness (e.g., interestingness, positivity), we examined the correlations between change in operation
performance and the self-report variables. Change in performance
was positively correlated with ratings of cuteness (r ⫽ .29, p ⫽
.07) and self-reported intensity of tenderness (r ⫽ .34, p ⬍ .05) but
not with ratings of interest (r ⫽ .09, p ⫽ .60) or intensity of
happiness, amusement, entertainment, calmness, sadness, or surprise (rs between ⫺.07 and .16, ps ⬎ .33). This pattern suggests
that the effect of cuteness on participants’ carefulness in executing
fine-motor movements was likely due to the images’ cuteness and
tenderness-inducing qualities rather than their general positivity or
interestingness.
Experiment 2
In Experiment 1, viewing images of puppies and kittens enhanced fine-motor performance, supporting the hypothesis that
cuteness increases behavioral carefulness. Although the pattern of
correlations suggests that cuteness was the critical dimension
responsible for this effect, the images differed on several dimensions, precluding us from ruling out other extraneous influences
(e.g., positive affect). In Experiment 2, we aimed to replicate the
main finding of Experiment 1 (that cuteness increased carefulness)
with two entirely new sets of stimuli that were pretested to match
across conditions in the levels of positive affect and interest they
evoked. This matching allows us to isolate the effect of cuteness
BRIEF REPORTS
284
Table 1
Means (SE) for Self-Report Items by Experiment and Condition
Experiment 1
Variable
General
Emotional impact
Physical impact
Change in mood
Emotion
Happiness
Calmness
Tenderness
Amusement
Entertainment
Surprise
Sadness
Fear
Ratings
Interesting
Cute
Experiment 2
Low cute
High cute
p
Low cute
High cute
p
1.35 (.21)
.40 (.15)
⫺.79 (2.21)
2.40 (.23)
.65 (.21)
6.29 (1.88)
.002
.34
.02
2.14 (.27)
.93 (.24)
4.12 (1.49)
1.54 (.23)
1.00 (.19)
2.54 (1.63)
.09
.81
.48
1.75 (.34)
2.45 (.36)
1.30 (.31)
.85 (.21)
.60 (.21)
.60 (.22)
.50 (.19)
.20 (.12)
3.60 (.27)
3.40 (.37)
2.55 (.39)
2.30 (.31)
1.90 (.36)
.60 (.27)
.55 (.27)
.10 (.10)
⬍.001
.07
.02
⬍.001
.003
1.00
.88
.52
2.82 (.28)
3.00 (.33)
2.04 (.29)
2.14 (.29)
1.39 (.24)
.75 (.19)
.50 (.19)
.46 (.16)
2.71 (.30)
3.57 (.24)
2.54 (.30)
2.29 (.31)
1.29 (.27)
.43 (.17)
.43 (.14)
.21 (.12)
.79
.17
.23
.74
.77
.22
.76
.21
1.75 (.25)
3.15 (.27)
2.60 (.31)
4.75 (.10)
.04
⬍.001
2.57 (.27)
3.07 (.31)
2.50 (.27)
4.29 (.20)
.85
.002
Note. Ratings were given on 6-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). p ⫽ result of t test of
difference in means between conditions.
from these factors that may alter fine-motor performance independently. We also included male participants to test whether the
effect of cuteness on carefulness was specific to women.
Method
Participants. Fifty-six University of Virginia undergraduates
participated for partial course credit (23 women, 33 men; mean
age ⫽ 18.80). We tested for, and report, any main or interactive
effects of gender.
Stimuli. Because the two sets of stimuli used in Experiment 1
differed on more dimensions than cuteness, we created a new
low-cuteness image set that included more interesting dog images
as well as several images of lions and tigers. Although this expands
the range of animals to include more exotic felines (that are rarely
kept as pets), this was necessary to achieve a level of interest,
emotional power, and positivity similar to that of the puppy and
kitten images. In addition, to enhance the generalizability of any
findings, we used a new set of puppy and kitten images. An
independent sample (N ⫽ 12) assessed the following dimensions:
cute, interesting, enjoyable, and exciting using 6-point scales ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Compared to the lowcuteness images, the high-cuteness images were rated as being
cuter (M ⫽ 4.43 vs. M ⫽ 2.86), t(16) ⫽ 9.23, p ⬍ .001. The two
sets of images, however, were equally interesting (M ⫽ 3.37 vs.
M ⫽ 3.50), equally enjoyable (M ⫽ 3.67 vs. M ⫽ 3.40), and
equally exciting (M ⫽ 1.55 vs. M ⫽ 1.89) (all ts ⬍ 1.63, ps ⬎ .12).
Measures and Procedure. The measures and procedure of
Experiment 2 were identical to those of Experiment 1, except for
one minor change: after the slide show, completion of the questionnaire followed playing the Operation game. This change was
made to rule out the possibility that the effect of cuteness on carefulness in Experiment 1 was due to the secondary act of reflecting on,
and writing about, one’s emotional experience (of tenderness and
other emotions) rather than the primary act of viewing the images.
Table 2
Mean Difference Scores (SE) for Physiological and Behavioral Variables by Experiment
and Condition
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Variable
Low cute
High cute
p
Low cute
High cute
p
Change in:
Operation
Grip strength
HR
SCL
.60 (.44)
⫺3.35 (1.56)
.02 (.46)
⫺.79ⴱ (.15)
1.80ⴱ (.41)
⫺4.35 (2.33)
1.64ⴱ (.72)
⫺.67ⴱ (.21)
.05
.72
.07
.64
.46 (.29)
1.93 (1.31)
.73ⴱ (.35)
⫺.76ⴱ (.18)
1.32ⴱ (.33)
2.43 (1.16)
1.17† (.63)
⫺.59ⴱ (.15)
.05
.78
.54
.48
Note. Operation measured in body parts (maximum ⫽ 12). Grip strength was measured in pounds per square
inch. Heart rate (HR) was measured in beats per minute. Skin conductance level (SCL) was measured in
micromhos. p ⫽ significance level for test of whether difference scores varied by condition (independentsamples t test). Difference scores marked with a symbol differed significantly from zero (one-sample t test).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. † p ⬍ .10.
BRIEF REPORTS
Having participants wait to report on their emotional experience
until after the fine-motor dexterity task allowed our carefulness
measure to immediately follow the viewing of the images.
Results and Discussion
The means for all self-report variables are presented in Table 1,
along with the results of t tests of the difference in the mean for
each item as a function of condition. The two sets of stimuli used
were nearly identical except for the critical dimension of cuteness.
Notably, the two conditions did not differ on change in mood or on
any specific emotion. This was true even of tenderness—an emotion putatively related to cuteness—although the difference between the means was in the predicted direction.1 This means that
the two slide shows were matched on the degree to which they
elicited positive affect. Therefore, our cuteness manipulation was
effective in isolating the specific effect of cuteness from the more
general potential influences of positive emotion or mood. In addition, it is noteworthy that our inclusion of several lion and tiger
images as low-cuteness stimuli did not amplify any negative
emotions. For example, the self-reported intensity of fear did not
differ by condition and was extremely low in both conditions.
The mean change of each behavioral and physiological variable
as a function of condition is presented in Table 2. Replicating the
main finding of Experiment 1, participants showed significantly
greater improvement on the operation task in the high-cuteness
condition than in the low-cuteness condition, t(54) ⫽ 1.97, p ⫽
.05, d ⫽ 0.48. Although there was a trend for women (d ⫽ 1.03)
to show a larger effect of condition than men (d ⫽ 0.24), this was
not statistically significant: Gender ⫻ Condition interaction, F(1,
52) ⫽ 1.36, p ⫽ .25. As in Experiment 1, cuteness did not affect
change in grip strength (t ⬍ 1). Unlike in Experiment 1, in which
cuteness was associated with increased HR, neither change in HR
nor change in SCL differed by condition (ts ⬍ 1). Together, this
pattern makes it unlikely that the observed effect of cuteness on
operation performance was due to general physiological arousal.
Although change in HR did not differ by condition, it increased
slightly in both conditions, perhaps because viewing pictures of
animals (whether high or low in cuteness) triggers excitement and
an approach orientation.
Unlike in Experiment 1, change in operation performance was
not significantly related to any self-report items (rs between ⫺.13
and .19, ps ⬎ .15). The failure to replicate the relationship between
self-reported tenderness and behavioral carefulness found in Experiment 1 may have been due to the longer delay in Experiment
2 between the slide show and completion of the questionnaire. The
further self-report emotional assessments get from the event in
question, the more people’s responses tend to reflect their beliefs
about emotion rather than emotion itself (Robinson & Clore,
2002a, 2002b). Thus, self-reports of tenderness in Experiment 2
may have been less indicative of the intensity of experienced
tenderness than those obtained in Experiment 1.
285
tion), an effect that cannot be attributed to general positivity (e.g.,
mood or specific positive emotion) or arousal (measured via selfreport and autonomic physiology). This behavioral shift toward
increased carefulness makes sense as an adaptation for caring for
small children, and is consistent with the view that cuteness is a
releaser of the human caregiving system (Lorenz, 1950/1971).
Moreover, this finding suggests that cuteness does not just influence one’s willingness to engage in caregiving behaviors but also
influences the ability of one to do so. That is, cuteness not only
compels us to care for cute things but also prepares us to do so via
its effects on behavioral carefulness.
This finding fits nicely with the embodied cognition perspective
that emphasizes the way affective states are constrained by, and
expressed in, the body (Barrett & Lindquist, 2008). Our finding
suggests that the tenderness elicited by something “cute” is more
than just a positive affective feeling state—it can literally make
people more physically tender in their motor behavior. Research
has demonstrated an ideomotor effect whereby the processing of
positive stimuli facilitates pulling a lever, the basic motor behavior
involved in pulling desired objects closer (presumably reflecting a
behavioral predisposition for approach; Chen & Bargh, 1999;
Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004). The current finding may be a novel
manifestation of the extension of this effect beyond simple valence-approach/avoid relationships. Having a specific kind of positive affective orientation toward an object (finding it cute and
experiencing tender feelings) can influence the specific kind of
motor actions one is prepared to make (careful, tender movements).
Contrary to predictions, cuteness did not make people any
weaker, at least as we measured it. It is possible that had we not
instructed participants to squeeze as hard as possible (which may
have amplified variance associated with trait strength and limited
variance associated with state strength), that cuteness would have
had a noticeable effect. That is, cuteness may not make people
physically weaker but may make them less willing to exert their
full strength. Another concern is that grip strength is often used as
a measure of motivation. If cuteness triggered an approachoriented motivational state this may have counteracted any shift
toward gentleness.
This is the first investigation to document that immediate shifts
in carefulness—indexed here by fine-motor performance— can be
elicited by cuteness cues. This suggests that two factors—the
importance of physical contact in early mammalian development
and the extremely delicate nature of human young—may have
exerted evolutionary pressures favoring those who could respond
to the presence of cues colloquially described as “cute” with
increased carefulness.
1
Women reported more tenderness and sadness and rated the images as
cuter and more interesting, regardless of condition, than did men.
References
General Discussion
In two experiments, we found that exposure to images of young,
cute animals (kittens and puppies) increased performance on a task
that demanded extreme carefulness in order to successfully execute finely tuned motor movements (the children’s game Opera-
Allen, J. J. B. (2002). Calculating metrics of cardiac chronotropy: A
pragmatic overview. Psychophysiology, 39, S18.
Alley, T. R. (1981). Head shape and the perception of cuteness. Developmental Psychology, 17, 650 – 654.
Alley, T. R. (1983a). Age-related changes in body proportions, body size,
and perceived cuteness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 615– 622.
286
BRIEF REPORTS
Alley, T. R. (1983b). Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 411– 427.
Barrett, L. F., & Lindquist, K. A. (2008). The embodiment of emotion. In
G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social,
cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 237–262). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation:
Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1978). Adults’ responses to infants
varying in perceived cuteness. Behavioural Processes, 3, 159 –172.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1981). Mothers’ responses to
infant physical appearance. Infant Mental Health Journal, 2, 56 – 64.
Huckstedt, B. (1965). Experimentelle untersuchungen zum “kindchenschema.” [Experimental studies on the “baby schema”]. Zeitschrift fur
Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 12, 421– 450.
Lorenz, K. (1971). Studies in animal and human behaviour, Vol. 2.
(R. Martin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1950).
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.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002a). Belief and feeling: Evidence for
an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin,
128, 934 –960.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002b). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: Evidence for two judgment processes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 198 –215.
Rotteveel, M., & Phaf, R. H. (2004). Automatic affective evaluation does
not automatically predispose for arm flexion and extension. Emotion, 4,
156 –172.
Sanefuji, W., Ohgami, H., & Hashiya, K. (2007). Development of preference for baby faces across species in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal
of Ethology, 25, 249 –254.
Spindler, P. (1961). Studien zur vererbung von verhaltensweisen. 3. Verhalten gegenuber jungen katzen. [Studies on the transmission of behavioral patterns. 3. Behavior toward young cats]. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 25, 60 – 80.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Brownlow, S., & Olson, K. (1992). Baby talk to the
babyfaced. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 143–158.
Received July 17, 2008
Revision received October 31, 2008
Accepted November 10, 2008 䡲
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
Purchase answer to see full
attachment