Did Teddy Bears Culturally Evolve to Be Cuter? A Preregistered Replication
In: Journal of Cognition and CultureSearch for other papers by Quentin Borredon in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Zeynep Bulamac in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Camélia Crozat in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Emmanuel Dayre in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Estelle Fuchs in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Marie Hallo in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Lou Kerzreho in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Pauline Lavagne d’Ortigue in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Theodore Lellouche in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Hossein Samani in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Sammy Penel in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Nina Ryszefld in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Tavleen Sandhu in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Aure Timsit in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Janne Yrjö-Koskinen in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Olivier Morin in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Edgar Dubourg in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This pre-registered replication study explores the impact of perceived cuteness on the evolution of cultural artifacts, testing whether neotenic traits – eye size, forehead height, and head roundness – have increased in teddy bears over time. In previous research, Hinde & Barden (1980) found an increase in teddy bear neoteny while Gould (1985) found that Mickey Mouse’s features became more neotenic with time. However, both studies lacked statistical power (15 teddy bears and 3 Mickey Mouse drawings). We collected data from eight major teddy bear manufacturers over nine decades (N = 250; 1900–1980). We found that the forehead height of teddy bears significantly increased over time. Conversely, our prediction that heads became rounder and eyes became bigger were not supported. We outline four key methodological limitations that future research should address to deepen our understanding of the cultural evolution of cuteness and of cultural artifacts more broadly – i.e., sampling bias, metadata inaccuracy, categorization ambiguity, and function ambiguity.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Brooks, V., & Hochberg, J. (1960). A psychophysical study of “cuteness.” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 205–205. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.11.6.205-205.
-
Cockrill, P. (1991). Ultimate Teddy Bear Book (First Canadian Edition). Dk Publishing Inc.
-
Cockrill, P., Anderson, P., & Coit, J. (1993). The Teddy Bear Encyclopedia (First Edition). Dk Pub.
-
Fullard, W., & Reiling, A. M. (1976). An Investigation of Lorenz’s “Babyness.” Child Development, 47(4), 1191. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128462.
-
Gardner, B. T., & Wallach, L. (1965). Shapes of Figures Identified as a Baby’s Head. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 20(1), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1965.20.1.135.
-
Gessey-Jones, T., Connaughton, C., Dunbar, R., Kenna, R., MacCarron, P., O’Conchobhair, C., & Yose, J. (2020). Narrative structure of A Song of Ice and Fire creates a fictional world with realistic measures of social complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 202006465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006465117.
-
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(3), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x.
-
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Valdez, J. N., Griffin, M. D., Sachser, N., & Gur, R. C. (2009). Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(22), 9115–9119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811620106.
-
Gould, S. J. (1980). A Biological Homage to Mickey Mouse. Ecotone, 4(1–2), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1353/ect.2008.0045.
-
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1978). Adults’ responses to infants varying in perceived cuteness. Behavioural Processes, 3(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(78)90042-6.
-
Hinde, R. A., & Barden, L. A. (1985). The evolution of the teddy bear. Animal Behaviour, 33(4), 1371–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(85)80205-0.
-
Hockenberry. (1999). Teddy Bears: A Complete Guide to History, Collecting, and Care. Hungry Minds Inc., U.S.
-
Little, A. C. (2012). Manipulation of Infant‐Like Traits Affects Perceived Cuteness of Infant, Adult and Cat Faces. Ethology, 118(8), 775–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02068.x.
-
Lorenz, K. (1950). Part and Parcels in Animal and Human Societies. In Studies in Animal and Human Behaviour. Volume II: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674430426.
-
Petit, É. (2015). Les ours et peluches FADAP. les Éditions de la Fenestrelle.
-
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell.
-
Sternglanz, S. H., Gray, J. L., & Murakami, M. (1977). Adult preferences for infantile facial features: An ethological approach. Animal Behaviour, 25, 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(77)90072-0.
-
Tribot, A.-S., Blanc, N., Brassac, T., Guilhaumon, F., Casajus, N., & Mouquet, N. (2023). What makes a teddy bear comforting? A participatory study reveals the prevalence of sensory characteristics and emotional bonds in the perception of comforting teddy bears. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2170273.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 532 | 532 | 279 |
| Full Text Views | 8 | 8 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 16 | 16 | 7 |
Did Teddy Bears Culturally Evolve to Be Cuter? A Preregistered Replication
In: Journal of Cognition and CultureSearch for other papers by Quentin Borredon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Zeynep Bulamac in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Camélia Crozat in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Emmanuel Dayre in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Estelle Fuchs in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marie Hallo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lou Kerzreho in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pauline Lavagne d’Ortigue in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Theodore Lellouche in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hossein Samani in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sammy Penel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nina Ryszefld in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tavleen Sandhu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Aure Timsit in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Janne Yrjö-Koskinen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Olivier Morin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Edgar Dubourg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This pre-registered replication study explores the impact of perceived cuteness on the evolution of cultural artifacts, testing whether neotenic traits – eye size, forehead height, and head roundness – have increased in teddy bears over time. In previous research, Hinde & Barden (1980) found an increase in teddy bear neoteny while Gould (1985) found that Mickey Mouse’s features became more neotenic with time. However, both studies lacked statistical power (15 teddy bears and 3 Mickey Mouse drawings). We collected data from eight major teddy bear manufacturers over nine decades (N = 250; 1900–1980). We found that the forehead height of teddy bears significantly increased over time. Conversely, our prediction that heads became rounder and eyes became bigger were not supported. We outline four key methodological limitations that future research should address to deepen our understanding of the cultural evolution of cuteness and of cultural artifacts more broadly – i.e., sampling bias, metadata inaccuracy, categorization ambiguity, and function ambiguity.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 532 | 532 | 279 |
| Full Text Views | 8 | 8 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 16 | 16 | 7 |