Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
Developmental Psychology
1992, Vol. 28, No. 6,1143-1152
Impressions of Babyfaced Individuals Across the Life Span
Joann M. Montepare
Leslie A. Zebrowitz
Tufts University
Brandeis University
Four questions were addressed concerning perceptions of babyfaced individuals from infancy to
older adulthood: (a) Do perceivers make reliable babyface judgments at each age; (b) does a babyface have the same effects on trait impressions at each age; (c) are the effects of a babyface independent of the effects of attractiveness; and (d) what facial maturity features are associated with babyface ratings, and do these features predict trait impressions? Ratings of portrait photographs revealed that perceivers reliably detect variations in babyfaceness across the life span. Facial
measurements revealed that large eyes, a round face, thin eyebrows, and a small nose bridge
characterized a babyface. Trait impressions showed a babyface overgeneralization effect at each
age: Babyfaced individuals were perceived to have more childlike traits than their maturefaced
peers, and this effect was independent of attractiveness.
Considerable evidence indicates that appearance has a significant impact on social perceptions and social interactions,
which may have important implications for personality development. Not only is appearance one of the initial qualities that
children and adults mention in their descriptions of people
(Fiske & Cox, 1979; Livesley & Bromley, 1973), but it also influences the traits they ascribe to others (see Alley, 1988; Bull &
Rumsey, 1988; and McArthur, 1982, for reviews of pertinent
research). Moreover, people's physical appearance influences
the desire to become acquainted with them (Lyman, Hatelid, &
Macurdy, 1981) as well as the nature of their social interactions
(e.g., Langlois, 1986; Reis, Nezlek, & Wheeler, 1980; Reis,
Wheeler, Spiegel, Kernis, Nezlek, & Perri, 1982; Snyder, Tanke,
& Berscheid, 1977). Developmental theorists have argued that
these effects of appearance on social perceptions and social
interactions may yield self-fulfilling prophecy effects, whereby
people with certain appearance qualities develop the traits that
are expected (Adams, 1977; Langlois, 1986; Sorrell & Nowak,
1981).
One appearance quality that has been shown to influence
social perceptions and social interactions is facial attractiveness. Impressions of attractive people have been characterized
as a positive halo effect, whereby those who are physically attractive are perceived more positively than the unattractive on a
variety of dimensions (see Adams, 1977; Berscheid & Walster,
Portions of this research were presented at the 42nd annual meeting
of the Gerontological Society of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
on November 1989. This research was supported by National Institute
of Mental Health Grant No. BSR-5-R01-MH42684 to Leslie A. Zebrowitz.
We thank Sheila Brownlow, Liz Tighe, Susan McDonald, and Karen
Hoffman for their help in collecting data. We also thank Katherine
Hildebrandt Karraker for sharing with us her slides of infant faces and
Barbara Burek for procuring the slides ofolder adults from the archives
of the Institute for Human Development at the University of California, Berkeley.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leslie A. Zebrowitz, Department of Psychology, Brandeis University,
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254.
1974, for reviews). Moreover, the positive halo effect for facial
attractiveness has been demonstrated for reactions to targets
ranging from infants to older adults (e.g, Berkowitz & Frodi,
1979; Dion, 1972,1974; Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1983; Johnson & Pittenger, 1984; Langlois, 1986; Stephan & Langlois,
1984). Finally, facial attractiveness has been shown to have a
variety of social interaction consequences (see Bull & Rumsey,
1988, for a review of pertinent research).
A second appearance quality that influences social perceptions and social interactions is facial babyishness. Impressions
of babyfaced people have been characterized as an overgeneralization effect, whereby adults with facial structures that ethologists identify as babyish (e.g., Guthrie, 1976; Lorenz, 1943) are
perceived to have childlike traits. More specifically, adults with
the babyish facial features of large eyes, thin and high eyebrows,
a large cranium, a small chin, and a curved rather than an
angular face are perceived as more socially dependent, intellectually naive, physically weak, honest, and warm than their maturefaced peers (Berry & McArthur, 1985; Keating, 1985;
McArthur & Apatow, 1983-1984; Zebrowitz-McArthur &
Montepare, 1989). A babyface has also been shown to have
numerous social interaction consequences. (See Alley, 1988, for
relevant reviews and also Berry & Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988;
Zebrowitz, Kendall-Tackett, & Fafel, 1991; Zebrowitz &
McDonald, 1991; Zebrowitz, Tenenbaum, & Goldstein, 1991.)
Facial attractiveness and babyishness are most likely to have
an impact on personality development if perceivers can reliably
identify these qualities in targets across the life span and if an
attractive face or a babyface elicits the same trait expectations at
various ages. Research has demonstrated that both of these
conditions are met for attractiveness (e.g, Berkowitz & Frodi,
1979; Dion, 1972,1974; Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1983; Johnson & Pittenger, 1984; Langlois, 1986; Stephan & Langlois,
1984). On the other hand, there has been no systematic investigation of these questions regarding a babyface, although there
is some evidence for the cross-age generality of the overgeneralization effect for perceptions of competence. Specifically, not
only are babyfaced adults perceived to be naive (Berry &
McArthur, 1985; McArthur & Apatow, 1983-1984), but also
1143
LESLIE A. ZEBROWITZ AND JOANN M. MONTEPARE
1144
babyfaced infants may be perceived as less competent than
those with a more mature appearance (Ritter, Casey, & Langlois, 1991). Because the effects of infants' babyfaceness, presumed age, and attractiveness were not separated in the Ritter
et al. study, the question remains as to whether maturefaced and
babyfaced infants will be perceived to have different competencies when they are equally attractive and when their ages are
known to perceivers.
The present study had four goals. The first goal was to determine whether perceivers make reliable judgments about the
facial babyishness of male and female targets across the life
span, including infants, preschoolers, young children, adolescents, young adults, and older adults. The second goal was to
systematically investigate whether the babyface overgeneralization effect holds true for targets across the life span. The third
goal was to determine whether the effects on impressions of a
babyface are independent of the effects of attractiveness which,
as noted earlier, has also been shown to influence impressions.
A final goal was to identify the facial features associated with a
babyface for male and female targets across the life span and to
determine whether these features influence trait impressions.
Method
Subjects
Three hundred and forty two students who were enrolled in an introductory psychology class participated for partial course credit. Approximately equal numbers of men and women were randomly assigned to
rate targets representing one of six age groups: infants (N = 32), preschoolers (AT = 48), fifth graders (iV = 48), eighth graders (N = 48),
young adults (iV= 118),1 and older adults (N = 48). Subjects assigned to
the infant group rated both male and female targets, whereas subjects
assigned to the other age groups rated either male or female targets. For
each group of targets, subjects viewed one of two orders of faces and
completed ratings in one of two orders.
Facial Stimuli
The facial stimuli consisted of black-and-white slides depicting the
faces of White male and female targets at each of the six age levels.
Slides within each age level were selected with the goal of achieving a
range of babyface and attractiveness values, and they consequently do
not represent a random sample of faces at each age. The slides of infants
were drawn from a set of faces used in research by Hildebrandt and
Fitzgerald (1979). They consisted of 12 boys and 12 girls ranging in age
from 5 to 9 months. The slides of children were made from yearbook
photographs of children attending a private school and included 24
boys and 24 girls representing each of three grade levels: preschool,
fifth grade, and eighth grade. The slides of the young adults were made
from yearbook photographs of 20 men who were college seniors and 20
women who were high school seniors. The slides of the young adult
men were those used by Berry and McArthur (1985). The slides of the
older adults were obtained from the Berkeley Growth and Guidance
study archives of the Institute of Human Development at the University of California, Berkeley, and included 24 men and 24 women between 52 and 54 years of age.
Subjects who rated infants, children, or older adults were told a specific age or school grade for each target group so that judgments about
targets within each group would not reflect variations in their presumed ages. Infants were described as 6 months old; preschoolers were
described as 3'/2 years old; the school grade was given for fifth and
eighth graders; and older adults were described as 60 years old. Although the age of the young adults had not been specified when the
faces were rated for previous investigations (Berry & McArthur, 1985;
Zebrowitz, Tenenbaum, & Goldstein, 1991), subjects in these studies
estimated the targets' ages so that presumed age could be statistically
controlled. The real ages of infants were also statistically controlled
(see footnote 5).
Two slide orders were generated for each group of targets. Male and
female infant faces were presented in blocks such that all of the male
faces were presented before the female faces in one order, whereas the
sequence of male and female faces was reversed in the other order. For
the remaining target groups, one order of slides was a random sequence and the other was the reverse of the first with one exception:
The second order of the eighth grade target faces consisted ofa random
order different from the first order.
Dependent Measures
Impression ratings. Targets were rated on scales reflecting dimensions that had been influenced by variations in facial babyishness in
past research with young adult faces (e.g., Berry & McArthur, 1986).
Two types of rating scales were used: behavioral scales and bipolar trait
scales. For the behavioral scales, subjects indicated on 7-point scales
with endpoints labelled definitely no and definitely yes the extent to
which the targets were likely to perform certain behaviors. The bipolar
trait scales consisted of 7-point scales along which subjects indicated
the extent to which the target possessed a particular trait as opposed to
its polar opposite.
A detailed description of the rating scales appears in Table 1, where
it can be seen that some scales were varied slightly across the different
age groups so that they were age appropriate. Also, young adult targets
were rated only on trait scales, because these data had been collected in
previous research that did not use the behavioral scales. The scales
were grouped intofivea priori composites paralleling the dimensions
used in past research on impressions of babyfaced adults (e.g., Berry &
McArthur, 1986): social autonomy, physical weakness, naivete,
warmth, and honesty. The last dimension was not represented for infant targets, because it was assumed that they would be rated uniformly high on the deceitful/straightforward scale. For each composite,
the behaviors described in Table 1 were scored in a positive direction,
as were the second poles of the trait scales.
In addition to rating the targets' traits and likely behaviors, subjects
rated how maturefaced/babyfaced and how unattractive/attractive
each target was on 7-point bipolar scales. Subjects whoratedthe young
adults—for whom ages were not supplied—also estimated the age, in
years, of each target. Ratings of the targets on all scales could range
between 1 and 7 and were coded so that higher scores represented
greater social autonomy, physical weakness, naivete, warmth, honesty,
babyfaceness, or attractiveness.
Facial characteristics. Five age-related facial characteristics were
1
Eighty of these subjects had previously rated targets' naivete,
warmth, and honesty in research by Berry and McArthur (1985). The
remaining 38 subjects rated physical weakness and social autonomy,
which had not been included in the previous research.
1145
BABYFACES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
Table 1
Dependent Measures and Reliability Coefficients Within the Six Age Groups
Preschool
Infant
Composites/individual
impression scales
Matureface/babyface
Not at all attractive/very
attractive
Social autonomy"
Dependent/ 1
independent "
Submissive/dominating0
Not homesick at camp
Not cry when parents
leave the room
Not give in to friends
Not listen to parents
when they say "Don't
touch"
Naivete*
Sophisticated/naived
Not know right from
wrong like an adult
Not know it is naughty
to do certain things
Not able to follow
complicated
instructions
Fooled into thinking a
toy is gone if hidden
behind your back
Physical weakness*
Physically strong/
physically weak
Not strong enough to
take a toy from a baby
of the same age
Warmth*
Not at all affectionate/
very affectionate'
Enjoy being hugged
Honesty'
8th grade
5th grade
Young adult
Older adult
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
.87
.91
.86
.93
.96
.96
.91
.93
.98
.87
.92
.91
.86
.94
.75
.90
.87
.90
.83
.96
.90
.98
.93
.95
.84
.96
.89
.94
.96
.83
.95
.95
.90
.92
.91
.92
.83
.84
.67
.90
.66
.79
.81
.79
.66
.89
.92
.88
.93
.88
.83
.90
.86
.89
.87
.82
.62
.78
.61
.91
.79
.88
.79
.92
.83
.82
.90
.85
.57
.87
.91
.64
.82
.76
.85
.89
.89
.65
.92
.86
.86
.91
.90
.90
.72
.79
.87
.88
.52
.81
.94
.88
.74
.62
.74
.83
.57
.83
.76
.83
.75
.87
.74
.83
.77
.90
.87
.95
.96
.94
.90
.89
.96
.95
.74
.90
.90
.90
.92
.94
.92
.79
.96
.96
.91
.83
.79
.87
.84
.85
.94
.94
.91
.86
.91
.80
.84
.85
.81
.86
.89
.82
.98
.74
.97
.72
.93
.91
.80
.93
.91
.77
.91
.95
.77
.79
.92
.92
.89
.83
.75
.83
.95
.83
.89
.89
.84
.89
.91
.90
.96
.90
.84
b
Note. M = male; F = female. * Cronbach alpha coefficients for composite measures. Scales for infants were very dependent/not very dependent. c Scales for infants were very submissive/not very submissive. d Scales for infants were not very naive/very naive and for adults were shrewd/
naive. ' Scales for young adult men were cold/warm and cruel/kind. 'Scales for young adults were dishonest/honest; scales for all others were
deceitful/straightforward.
determined from facial measurements made independently by two
judges who projected each slide onto a wall and measured the facial
features depicted in Figure 1 to the nearest '/is of an inch. The specific
facial characteristics included eye area, eyebrow height, eye separation, chin area, and cranium height. All of these features had been
shown in previous research to predict babyface ratings (Berry &
McArthur, 1985; Zebrowitz-McArthur & Montepare, 1989).
In addition to the foregoing linear facial measures, three qualitative
ratings were made of other facial features that had been shown to be
associated with babyface ratings. Specifically, two independent judges
rated the following facial characteristics ofeach target on 7-point bipolar scales: thin eyebrows/thick eyebrows, small nosebridge/large nosebridge, and round face/angular face. Faces were coded as round to the
extent that face length and width appeared equal, and the jaw was
rounded. They were coded as angular to the extent that face length
appeared greater than width, and the jaw was angular. A neutral rating
was given to faces that appeared equal in length and width and had an
angular jaw or to faces that had greater length than width and a
rounded jaw. Ratings of smiling were also obtained for use in the data
analyses as a control variable. Specifically, the two judges rated the
amount of smiling displayed by each target on 7-point scales with
endpoints labeled little smile/big smile.
Procedure
Subjects were informed that the study dealt with how people's physical appearance influences perceivers' impressions of them and that
their task was to rate faces of different people on a series ofscales. Each
face was presented for 8 s with a 2-s interslide interval, during which
time subjects made their ratings on one scale. After the first rating of
all of the faces was completed, subjects viewed the set of target faces a
second time and completed the second rating. This procedure was
repeated until all of the ratings had been made.
LESLIE A. ZEBROWITZ AND JOANN M. MONTEPARE
1146
4.
10
Figure 1. Facial measurements. (The methods for calculating physiognomic measures were as follows:
Eyesize was the product of eye height [4; distance between top and bottom of eye at center] and eye width
[5; distance between inner and outer corners of the eye]. Eyebrow height was the distance from the pupil
center to the eyebrow [3]. Eye separation was the distance between the inner corners of each eye [6]. Chin
area was the product of the width at the point halfway between the bottom lip and the base of the chin [9]
and the-distance from the lower lip center to the base of the chin [10]. Cranium height was the distance
from the middle of the pupil to the top of the head minus half of hair length [2 ]. To correct for variations in
face size, all vertical measures were divided by face length [1 ], horizontal measures [5 ] and [6 ] were divided
by face width [7], and horizontal measure [9] was divided by face width [8].)
Two orders of rating scales were generated for each target group. For
infant targets, half of the subjects rated the targets on a random order
of the behavioral and trait scales, and this rating order was reversed for
the remaining subjects. For the child and older adult targets, half of the
subjects rated the targets on a random order of the set of trait scales
followed by a random order of the set of the behavioral scales. The
random order of scales within each set was reversed for the remaining
subjects, but the trait scales still preceded the behavioral scales. For the
young adult targets, for whom only trait scales were used, half of the
subjects rated the targets on a random sequence of the scales, and this
rating order was reversed for the remaining subjects. For every target
group, ratings of attractiveness and babyfaceness were made after all
trait and behavioral ratings had been completed, with half of the subjects making babyface ratingsfirstand half of the subjects rating attractiveness first. These ratings were made last so that subjects would not
be explicitly aware of variations along these appearance dimensions
when making their impression ratings.
Results
Data Base
Facial measures. Pearson correlation coefficients between
the two judges' measurements of facial features revealed high
reliability except for the size of the infants' nose bridge. The low
reliability for this measure (.33 for boys and .44 for girls) reflected a tendency for the judges' ratings to be clustered at the
floor of the scale owing to the absence of a noticeable nose
bridge in most infants. The average reliability across all target
age and sex groups for each facial measure was .80 for eye area,
.84 for eyebrow height, .83 for eye separation, .80 for eyebrow
thickness, .87 for cranium height, .84 for chin area, .82 for facial
roundness, .74 for smiling, and .84 for nosebridge size, excluding infants. The reliable facial measurements and ratings made
by the two judges were averaged to yield a single score for each
target for use in subsequent analyses.
Cronbach's coefficients computed across subjects' babyface
and attractiveness ratings for male and female targets at each
age revealed high reliability (see Table 1). Thus, facial babyishness and facial attractiveness reliably differentiate individuals
of both sexes and all ages. Having demonstrated acceptable
interrater reliability, mean babyface and attractiveness ratings
for each face were computed across subjects. These means and
standard deviations are presented in Table 2.
To determine whether the variability in babyface ratings provided equivalent potential for the prediction of trait impres-
BABYFACES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Babyface and
Attractiveness Ratings Within the Six Age Groups
Female
Male
Age group
SD
M
M
SD
Babyface ratings
Infant
Preschool
5th grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
0.74
4.62
0.81
4.15
4.45
1.32
4.29
0.98
3.93
0.97
3.65
1.00
FM1(6,2O«) = 3.22
4.21
4.10
4.00
3.86
3.54
3.54
FmJii1,20) =
0.96
1.21
1.17
1.03
0.73
1.04
2.77
Attractiveness ratings
Infant
Preschool
Sth grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
4.02
4.07
3.88
3.75
3.54
3.37
FmJ,6, 20) =
0.77
0.76
0.81
0.74
0.76
0.76
1.20
0.75
0.90
0.96
0.81
0.97
0.86
F^t i,20) = 1.65
4.05
4.09
3.72
3.81
3.97
3.11
Note. For infants, n = 12; for young adults, n = 20; for all others, n = 24.
For all Fma values, p > .05.
" df= the harmonic mean of the cell «s.
sions across the different age groups, we performed tests of
heterogeneity of variance. Hartley's test revealed that the average variance in babyface ratings did not differ significantly
across the six age groups for male or for female targets, both
ps > .05 (see Table 2).2
Impression measures. Standardized Cronbach's coefficients
computed across subjects' impressions ratings for male and female targets at each age revealed high reliability (see Table 1).
Having demonstrated acceptable interrater reliability, mean
impression ratings for each face were computed across subjects.
Next, composite scores for social autonomy, physical weakness,
naivete, warmth, and honesty were computed by averaging
across mean impression ratings included in the five a priori
groupings of the rating scales. As shown in Table 1, the alpha
coefficients calculated for each composite were highly significant.3
Impact of a Babyface on Impressions
To assess whether previously documented effects of a babyface held true for male and female targets at different age levels,
we computed Pearson correlation coefficients between babyface ratings and the composite impression scores within each
target group. These coefficients appear in Table 3 and provide
strong evidence for cross-age and cross-gender generality in impressions elicited by a babyface. With few exceptions, babyfaced male and female targets in all age groups were perceived
as less socially autonomous, physically weaker, more naive, and
warmer than their more mature-looking peers. A babyface was
also positively correlated with perceived honesty, although this
1147
effect did not always achieve significance. Table 3 also includes
correlations between babyface and attractiveness ratings, as
well as correlations between attractiveness and trait composites
for the interested reader.4
Although the correlations shown in Table 3 indicate that facial babyishness and attractiveness were significantly correlated only in the infant age group, we performed a series of
forced-entry regression analyses to establish that the effects of a
babyface on impressions were independent of any linear attractiveness effects. Degree of smiling was also entered as a predictor in these analyses along with the babyface and attractiveness
ratings, because smiling was not held constant in the facial
photographs and it has been shown to affect social perceptions
(Cunningham, 1986; Keating, Mazur, & Segall, 1981).
The resultant partial correlations between babyface and trait
ratings controlling for the linear effects of attractiveness and
smiling are presented in Table 3. A babyface continued to predict impressions of low social autonomy, high physical weakness, high naivete, high warmth, and high honesty.5 An exception to the general tendency for the effects of a babyface to hold
up in the partial correlations was obtained for ratings of infants'
2
Note that the means in Table 2 reveal a linear decrease in babyface
ratings with increasing age for both male and female targets, linear
Fs(l, 122) = 6.60 and 6.66, respectively, both ps < .01, as well as marginally higher babyface ratings for female targets, F(\, 244) = 3.26, p<.07.
There was also a linear decrease in attractiveness ratings with increasing age for male and female targets, linear Fs(l, 122) = 13.07 and 10.59,
respectively, both ps < .001, but no sex differences in attractiveness,
F<1.
3
A factor analysis revealed that the five composites could be reduced to two: power, comprised of high social autonomy, low naivete,
and high physical strength; and social goodness, comprised of high
warmth and honesty. However, all five composites were retained for
two reasons: (a) They parallel thefiverating dimensions used in past
research with adult targets; and (b) although high social autonomy, low
naivete, and high physical strength can be statistically grouped, each
may relate differently to the appearance variables. For example, past
research has shown that attractiveness creates impressions of high
competence (i.e., low naivete), but there is no evidence that it creates
impressions of physical strength.
4
Although various relationships have been hypothesized between
facial babyishness and attractiveness in adults, past research has not
yielded consistent effects, and the presentfindingsare therefore not at
variance with the existing literature (see Berry, 1991; Cunningham,
1986,1990; Keating, 1985; McArthur & Apatow, 1983-1984).
5
It should be recalled that subjects were told a specific age or grade
level for all targets except young adults, so that babyface effects would
not be confounded with variations in presumed age. To assess the
effects of presumed age for young adults, the regressions were repeated, adding subjects' mean age estimates for each target as a predictor. Although presumed age occasionally predicted impressions, the
babyface effect lost significance in only one instance, as a predictor of
men's physical weakness. Because infants' actual ages were known to
the researchers, and because small variations in age may have contributed to impression effects, the regression analyses were also repeated
for infants, controlling for actual age. The predictive power ofbabyfaceness remained highly significant for all impressions, and actual age
emerged as a significant predictor only for perceived warmth, with
which it was negatively related. Thus the effects of babyfaceness cannot be accounted for by variations in presumed or actual age.
1148
LESLIE A. ZEBROWITZ AND JOANN M. MONTEPARE
Table 3
Zero-Order and Partial Correlations ofBabyface and Attractiveness Ratings With Impression Scores Within the Six Age Groups
Zero-order correlation
Babyface
Impression/age group
Social autonomy
Infant
Preschool
5th grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
Naivete
Infant
Preschool
5th grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
Physical weakness
Infant
Preschool
5th grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
Warmth
Infant
Preschool
5th grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
Honesty
Infant
Preschool
5th grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
Attractiveness
Infant
Preschool
5 th grade
8th grade
Young adult
Older adult
Partial correlation
Attractive
M
F
-.78**
-.61**
-.84***
-.94***
-.78***
-.57**
-.66*
-.78***
-.86***
-.83***
-.50*
-.81***
.85***
.65***
.86***
.64***
.81***
.70***
M
Attractive1"
Babyface*
F
M
F
-.80**
-.66***
-.88***
-.94***
-.76***
-.68***
-.56f
-.85***
-.86***
-.80***
-.49*
-.61**
M
F
.29
.34
.20
.07
.13
.02
-.45
-.21
.20
.02
.07
.17
-.52
.19
.07
.15
-.21
.08
-.59*
.17
.28
.21
-.11
-.05
.81***
.89***
.90***
.82***
.54*
.82***
.46
-.52**
-.23
-.62***
.16
-.08
•55f
-.48*
-.54**
-.49*
.17
-.05
.95*"*
.82***
.94***
.74***
.81***
.74***
.75**
.91***
.96***
.81***
.53*
.65***
-.77**
-.76***
-.64***
-.70***
-.26
-.14
.34
-.49*
-.87***
-.54**
.16
-.35
.60
.50*
.93***
.92***
.81***
.17
•55f
.79***
.86***
.72***
.46*
.62***
.44
-.06
-.01
-.09
.19
-.20
.60*
-.30
-.12
.06
.34
-.03
.55f
.51*
.94***
.91***
.80***
.34
.35
.85***
.87***
.72***
.46f
,36f
-.06
-.13
-.31
.06
-.21
-.08
.44
-.06
.16
.33
.34
-.19
.82***
.46*
.78***
.74***
.78***
.55**
.70*
.52**
.73***
.44*
.27
.76***
.86***
.42*
.56**
—
.27
.68***
.46*
.70***
.40*
—
.62***
.35
.26
.36
.69***
—
.23
.81***
.08
.17
-.12
.38t
.12
.23
.56**
.59**
-36f
.36t
.60**
.49*
.66*
.24
.31
.21
.52*
.55**
.39
.58**
94**.
.84***
.72***
.56**
—
.17
.31
.07
.25
.40*
—
.26
.67***
.55**
.62**
.43*
.50
.71***
.60f
.58**
.44*
.57**
.48*
.62**
.46
.48*
.68***
.31
.57*
.77***
—
.71***
.44*
.25
.37
.49*
—
.22
.31
.49*
.50*
.51*
—
.47*
,40t
.14
.26
.40f
.64***
.85***
.58**
.34
,49t
-.29
-.20
-.22
.06
.07
Note. For infants, n = 12; for young adults, n = 20; for all others, n = 24. " These partial correlations control for linear effects of attractiveness and
smiling. b These partial correlations control for linear effects of babyfaceness and smiling.
ip<A0.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***/><.001.
warmth. Whereas the zero-order correlations revealed a positive relationship between a babyface and the perceived warmth
of infants, this relationship was not significant in the partial
correlations because of the positive correlation between attractiveness and babyfaceness. The regression analyses also revealed some independent effects on impressions of attractiveness when the linear effects of babyfaceness and smiling were
controlled. Specifically, attractiveness tended to predict impressions of high warmth, high honesty, and low naivete (see
Table 3).
Structural Components of a Babyface
Having demonstrated that a babyface influences impressions across the life span, we attempted to identify the facial
features that gave rise to the perception ofa babyface. Because a
babyface is a configural quality that cannot be captured by any
single structural feature, we performed regression analyses to
determine the predictive power of a constellation of features.
Specifically we entered the eight facial structure measures as
predictors of babyface ratings in hierarchical regression analy-
1149
BABYFACES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
ses within target sex using the combined data for preschoolers
through older adults. Infants were omitted from these analyses,
because one of the facial predictors, nosebridge size, had not
been reliable for that group. In these analyses, targets' age
group was entered on thefirststep as a control variable, and the
facial measures were entered as predictors using a stepwise procedure on the second step.
The subset of significant predictors that emerged for male
faces included a round as opposed to an angular face, large eyes,
and thin eyebrows, which together accounted for 32% of the
adjusted variance in babyface ratings over and above that explained by age group alone, F(4,111) = 16.01, p < .0001. The
subset of significant predictorsforfemale faces included a small
nose bridge and a round face, accounting for 25% of the adjusted variance in babyface ratings over and above that explained by age group alone, F(3,112) = 15.24, p < .0001. Stepwise regressions performed within each target age and sex
grouping yielded results quite similar to those from the crossage regressions. In particular, a rounder face was a significant
predictor for male targets in every age group except eighth
graders, and a smaller nosebridge was a significant predictor for
female targets in every age group except older adults. We incorporated the physiognomic predictors of babyface ratings into
structural babyface composites for use in subsequent analyses
by converting their values to z scores within their respective
target age and sex group and then computing the average of the
transformed scores.
Because the measure of nosebridge size was unreliable for
infants, a separate regression analysis was performed for these
targets in which the seven facial measures excluding nosebridge
were entered as predictors of babyface ratings within each target sex. A single predictor emerged for male infants—large
eyes—accounting for 42% of the adjusted variance in babyface
ratings, F(l, 10) = 8.86, p < .05, and eye size was used as a
structural babyface index for male infants. The regression
equation was not significant for female infants, and consequently the one facial component that was most highly correlated with babyface ratings—a large cranium, r(10) = .55, p <
. 10—was used as a structural babyface index for female infants.
These structural babyface composites were more highly correlated with infant babyface ratings than the composites derived
from the other age groups with nosebridge deleted. The average
intercorrelation between babyface ratings and the structural
babyface composite scores across all age groups was .60 for both
male and female targets (see Table 4).
Table 4 reports the correlations between trait impressions
and the structural babyface composite for each target group.
Male targets who were independently determined to have the
babyish features of relatively large eyes, thin eyebrows, and
round faces (or, in the case of infants, large eyes) are perceived as
less socially autonomous, physically weaker, more naive,
warmer, and more honest than those with smaller eyes, thicker
eyebrows, and more angular faces. This pattern of results replicated across all age groups, although the correlations were not
significant for preschool boys and, in some cases, older men,
which are the two age groups for which the male structural
babyface composite was most weakly correlated with babyface
ratings. Table 4 also reveals that female targets who were inde-
pendently determined to have the babyish features of relatively
small nosebridges and round faces (or, for infants, a large cranium) were also perceived as less autonomous, weaker, and
more naive, though not consistently warmer or more honest
than those with larger nosebridges and more angular faces.
This pattern of results replicated across all age groups, although
the correlations were not significant for infants or older adult
women.6
Discussion
The present findings reveal that perceivers do reliably detect
variations in facial babyishness across the life span. There are
babyfaced babies, babyfaced children, babyfaced adolescents,
babyfaced young adults, and babyfaced older adults of both
sexes. The present study also determined that babyface ratings
have an objective referent in structural features that generalize
across the life span. Specifically, larger eyes, thinner eyebrows,
and a rounder face are characteristic of more babyfaced males
from infancy through older adulthood, whereas a smaller nosebridge and a rounder face are characteristic of more babyfaced
females.
The fact that somewhat different facial features emerged as
the best predictors of a babyface for males and females may
reflect idiosyncracies in the faces of the targets used in this
research. Evidence to indicate that the same facial features may
predict babyface ratings for certain male and female faces is
provided by the finding that eye size, a significant predictor for
male infants as well as for male targets in the cross-age regressions, did emerge as a significant predictor for preschool and
fifth grade girls in within-age regressions. Also, nose bridge
size, a significant predictor only for female targets in the crossage regressions, emerged as a significant predictor for fifth and
eighth grade boys in within-age regressions. Thus, there is some
evidence to suggest that the components of a babyface do generalize across targets of both sexes.
Although there are similarities in the determinants of a babyface across sex, it is also possible that the most salient determinants differ somewhat for male and female faces. In particular,
the finding that larger eyes and thinner eyebrows were more
strongly associated with babyface ratings for men could reflect
the fact that women in our culture often pluck their eyebrows
and apply makeup to enlarge the appearance of their eyes,
making large eyes and thin eyebrows less salient markers of a
babyface for women. Consistent with this suggestion, female
targets in the present study had significantly thinner eyebrows
and larger eyes than male targets, and both of these effects were
6
We also performed regression analyses to determine which, if any,
of the measured features predicted attractiveness ratings. For male
preschoolers through older adult males, the only significant predictor
was large eyes, which accounted for 3% of the adjusted variance. For
female preschoolers and adults, the only significant predictor was high
eyebrows, which accounted for 6% of the adjusted variance. The prediction of attractiveness was no better in within-age regression analyses than in these cross-age analyses, and it was no better in separate
analyses of the ratings of male and female subjects than in the analyses
for all subjects combined.
LESLIE A. ZEBROWITZ AND JOANN M. MONTEPARE
1150
Table 4
Zero-Order Correlations Between the Structural Babyface Composites and Impression
and Perceived Babyface Scores Within the Six Age Groups
Impression
Social autonomy
M
F
Physical weakness
M
F
Naivete
M
F
Warmth
M
F
Honesty
M
F
Babyface
M
F
Infant
Preschool
5th
grade
8th
grade
Young
adult
Older
adult
-.64***
-.69***
-.48*
-.76***
-.61**
-.28
-.81***
-.44
-•39f
-.47*
-.69***
-.42*
.81***
.43
.33f
.42*
.73***
.42*
.59**
.47*
•41t
.62**
.45*
.18
.66**
.52t
.25
.58**
.77***
.53**
.17
.66***
.56**
.70***
.48*
.27
.58**
.39
.01
.17
.45*
.26
.62***
.12
.53*
.14
.09
.31
.15
•34f
.54**
.06
.50*
.02
.46*
—
.40t
.37t
.35f
.44*
.67***
.76***
.61**
.67***
.64***
.72***
.55*
.32
.59**
.68*
•55t
Note. For male targets, the structural babyface composite is large eyes for infants, and large eyes, thin
eyebrows, and round face for all other age groups. For female targets, the structural babyface composite is a
large cranium for infants, and a small nosebridge and a round face for all other age groups. For infants, n =
12; for young adults, n = 20; for all others, n = 24.
0. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
significant only for adults. There were no significant sex differences in any of the other features that were included in the
babyface composites.
Perceivers not only agreed as to who was baby faced, but they
also shared common expectations concerning the traits possessed by these targets: The babyface overgeneralization effect
held true for male and female targets across the life span. With
the linear effects of attractiveness and smiling held constant,
more babyfaced male and female targets from infancy to older
adulthood were perceived as less socially autonomous and
more naive than their more maturefaced peers. Specifically, the
more babyfaced targets were perceived as more dependent,
more submissive, more naive and easily fooled, less likely to
know right from wrong, and less able to follow complicated
instructions. More babyfaced individuals were also perceived
as physically weaker, albeit only at a marginal level of significance for infants and older adults.
Babyfaced male and female targets not only were perceived
as more childlike in the domains of social, intellectual, and
physical power, but they were also perceived as warmer and
more honest. Specifically, they were rated as more affectionate
and desirous of being hugged, kinder, warmer, more straightforward, and more honest than their maturefaced peers, although the last effect cannot be generalized to infants because
their perceived honesty was not assessed. Also, it should be
noted that the effects of a babyface and attractiveness on impressions of infants' warmth were not independent of each
other. Finally, the strong correlations between trait ratings and
the structural babyface composite demonstrate that the correlations between trait and babyface ratings do not merely reflect
carryover effects from subjects' trait ratings to their babyface
ratings. Rather, these trait ratings are evoked by a specific constellation of infantile facial features that can be measured objectively.
Although the foregoing effects of a babyface on social perceptions held true with the linear effects of attractiveness controlled, the question remains as to the joint effects of various
degrees of facial babyishness and attractiveness. A recent study
by Berry (1991) simultaneously manipulated three levels of facial babyishness and attractiveness in young adult faces and
found that the perception of highly babyfaced men and women
as less powerful than their least babyfaced peers held true at all
levels of attractiveness. Similarly, the perception of highly babyfaced men as more sincere than those low in facial babyishness
held true at all levels of attractiveness. However, the perception
of highly babyfaced women as more sincere did not hold true
for women low in attractiveness. Given this evidence of an interactive effect of facial babyishness and attractiveness, it would
be interesting to investigate their joint effects on impressions
across the life span as Berry (1991) did at a single age level.
In addition to providing evidence for cross-age generality of
the babyface overgeneralization effect, the present results reaffirm the cross-age generality of the attractiveness halo effect.
With babyface ratings and smiling held constant, more attractive male and female targets from preschoolers to older adults
tended to be perceived as warmer and more honest than their
less attractive peers. In contrast to these findings, attractiveness
had no effect on perceptions of the targets' social autonomy or
physical weakness. This could reflect the fact that these traits
do not have the strong evaluative connotations of warmth and
honesty and consequently do not engage the attractiveness halo
effect. On the other hand, being physically strong, dominant,
1151
BABYFACES ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN
and independent are certainly positive traits in our society, particularly for men, which suggests that the attractiveness halo
may be more specific than previously assumed. Finally, attractiveness, like a babyface, had an independent effect on perceptions of naivete, albeit in the opposite direction. Whereas a
babyface increased impressions of naivete, an attractive face
diminished such impressions, which is consistent with past evidence for an attractiveness halo effect on judgments of intellectual competence.
The pattern of results on the naivete measures for infants
clarifies the contribution of facial maturity and attractiveness
to thefindingsof Ritter et al. (1991). These authors found that
6-month-old infants who were both relatively young looking
(i.e., babyfaced) and attractive were rated less positively on specific measures of cognitive skills, such as uncovering a hidden
toy, but more positively on global measures of cognitive competency. To explain these findings, Ritter et al. suggested that
ratings of specific skills were influenced by infants' facial maturity, whereas global ratings were influenced by their attractiveness. The partial correlations in the present study support this
argument: Infant babyfaceness decreased the positivity of competence (naivete) ratings, whereas infant attractiveness increased the positivity of these ratings, at least for male infants.
Thus, attractiveness has the same halo effect on the perceived
competence of infants as on the perceived competence of individuals from other age groups so long as facial babyishness is
controlled.
The presentfindingsclearly demonstrate that facial babyishness, like attractiveness, has the potential to influence personality development across the life span. Individuals of all ages are
reliably differentiated along this dimension. Moreover, a babyface elicits the same strong trait expectations, regardless of the
target's age, and these expectations may result in their being
treated in ways that elicit confirmatory behavior. Indeed, recent research reveals that parents assign less intellectually demanding tasks to babyfaced children and also respond differently to their misdeeds (Zebrowitz, Kendall-Tackett, & Fafel,
1991). Whereas the existent cross-sectional research reveals
strong effects of facial babyishness on social perceptions and
social interactions, longitudinal research investigating the stability of facial babyishness across the life span is needed to
further clarify its likely impact on personality development.
It is noteworthy that Zebrowitz, Kendall-Tackett, and Fafel
(1991) selected babyfaced and maturefaced children on the
basis of the ratings provided by undergraduates in the present
study, and they found that parents' facial maturity ratings
showed strong agreement with those of the undergraduates.
This demonstrates that the impressions documented in the
present study generalize beyond the population of college students. Additional research also indicates that impressions of
babyfaced individuals generalize across perceiver's race and age
(McArthur & Berry, 1987; Montepare & Zebrowitz-McArthur,
1989). Finally, although the faces investigated in the present
study were selected to represent a range of values on the babyface dimension, there is reason to believe that the results would
generalize to a more random sample of faces. More specifically,
a recent investigation revealed a significant impact of litigant
facial maturity on adjudications in small claims court, where
over 1,000 faces were represented (Zebrowitz & McDonald,
1991). Thus, the effects of a babyface across the life span that
were documented in the present study should hold true across a
wide range of perceivers and targets.
References
Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research. Toward a developmental social psychology of beauty. Human Development, 20,
217-239.
Alley, T. R. (Ed.). (1988). Social and applied aspects ofperceiving faces.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1979). Reactions to a child's mistakes as
affected by her/his looks and speech. Social Psychology Quarterly,
42, 420-425.
Berry, D. S. (1991). Attractive faces are not all created equal: Joint
effects of facial babyishness and attractiveness on social perception.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 523-531.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,
48, 312-323.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces:
The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception.
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3-18.
Berry, D. S., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988). What's in a face? Facial
maturity and the attribution of legal responsibility. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 23-33.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp.
158-216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bull, R., & Rumsey, N. (1988). The social psychology offacial appearance. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial
beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
Cunningham, M. R. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
61-72.
Dion, K. K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's
transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,
207-213.
Dion, K. K. (1974). Children's physical attractiveness and sex as determinants of adult punitiveness. Developmental Psychology, 10, 772778.
Fiske, S. T., & Cox, M. G. (1979). Person concepts: The effect of target
familiarity and descriptive purpose on the process of describing
others. Journal of Personality, 47, 136-161.
Guthrie, R. D. (1976). Body hot spots: The anatomy of human social
organs and behavior. New "York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1979). Facial feature determinants of perceived infant attractiveness. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 329-339.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1983). The infant's physical
attractiveness: Its effect on bonding and attachment. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 4,3-12.
Johnson, D. E, & Pittenger, J. B. (1984). Attribution, the attractiveness
stereotype and the elderly. Developmental Psychology, 20, 11681172.
Keating, C. F. (1985). Human dominance signals: The primate in us. In
S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal
behavior (pp. 89-108). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Keating, C. F, Mazur, A., & Segall, M. H. (1981). A cross-cultural
exploration of physiognomic traits of dominance and happiness.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 2, 41-48.
1152
LESLIE A. ZEBROWITZ AND JOANN M. MONTEPARE
Langlois, J. H. (1986). From the eye of the beholder to behavioral reality: The development of social behaviors and social relations as a
function of physical attractiveness. In C. P. Herman, M. P Zanna, &
E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario symposium, Vol. 3 (pp. 23-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Livesiey, W J., & Bromley, D. B. (1973). Person perception in childhood
and adolescence. London: Wiley.
Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen moglicher Arfahrung
[The innate forms of potential experience]. Zietschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 5, 234-409.
Lyman, B., Hatelid, D., & Macurdy, C. (1981). Stimulus person cues in
first impression attraction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 59-66.
McArthur, L. Z. (1982). Judging a book by its cover: A cognitive analysis of the relationship between physical appearance and stereotyping. In A. Hastorf & A. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp.
149-211). New York: Elsevier/North-Holland.
McArthur, L. Z., & Apatow, K. (1983-1984). Impressions of babyfaced
adults. Social Cognition, 2, 315-342.
McArthur, L. Z., & Berry, D. S. (1987). Cross-cultural agreement in
perceptions of babyfaced adults. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 18,165-192.
Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. Z. (1989). Children's perceptions of babyfaced adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 467472.
Reis, H. T., Nezlek, J., & Wheeler, L. (1980). Physical attractiveness in
social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
604-617.
Reis, H. T., Wheeler, L., Spiegel, N., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J., & Perri,
M. (1982). Physical attractiveness in social interaction: II. Why does
appearance affect social experience? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 979-996.
Ritter, J. M., Casey, R. J., & Langlois, J. H. (1991). Adults' responses to
infants varying in appearance of age and attractiveness. Child Development, 62, 68-82.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and
social behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.
Sorrell, G. T, & Nowak, C. A. (1981). The role of physical attractiveness
as a contributor to individual development. In R. M. Lerner & N. A.
Busch-Rossnagel (Eds.), Individuals as producers of their development: A life span perspective (pp. 389-446). London: Academic
Press.
Stephan, C, & Langlois, J. H. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attributions
of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child
Development, 55, 576-585.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Kendall-Tackett, K., & Fafel, X (1991). The impact of
children's facial maturity on parental expectations and punishments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 221-238.
Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. (1991). The impact of litigants' babyfacedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts.
Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603-623.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Tenenbaum, D. R., & Goldstein, L. H. (1991). The
impact of job applicants' facial maturity, sex, and academic achievement on hiring recommendations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21. 525-548.
Zebrowitz-McArthur, L., & Montepare, J. M. (1989). Contributions of
a babyface and a childlike voice to impressions of moving and talking faces. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13,189-203.
Received June 15,1990
Revision received August 9,1991
Accepted October 7,1991 •