Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Rev. Susan Baller-Shepard: Wild And Precious Lives: Godspeed…
27 Fantastic Books For Kids Of All Ages
Pretty Baby - Do Attractive Babies Get Better Care?
Filed under: Opinions
.jpg)
Do pretty babies get better care?. Photo: sxc.hu
What they found was interesting. Men were more likely to linger over attractive babies, choosing the button that held the image on the screen. Women, on the other hand, hurried abnormal babies off the screen, making a greater effort -- say researchers -- to avoid those faces.
Study authors think they know what this study means, and it isn't good news for unattractive babies. "Our study shows how beauty can affect parental attitudes," study senior author Dr. Igor Elman says in a news release, "It shows women are more invested in raising healthy babies and that they are more prone to reject unattractive kids."
As usual, it's the mother's fault.
So does this study really hold water? The moms I talked to didn't think so. Mom of three Ilona Peltz tells this story:
"My oldest is 23. She was the most beautiful baby ever. I swear. So when the nurses tried to get me to buy the picture they'd taken to use for our birth announcements, I refused. It was such an awful picture! I said to my husband, 'Ugh! They've made her look like a slug with eyeballs!' Only years later did the possibility occur to me that just maybe -- a few hours after birth -- she really did look like a slug with eyeballs."
Peltz's point is that while not all babies are beautiful, moms don't really care. My friend Laura agrees: "I'm of no use," she said when I asked her about this study. "I have no opinion because my two are the most beautiful children on the planet."
Researchers were not trying to measure's a mother's ability to love her own child of course, a point that Bev Sklar, a mom of two who blogs at That's Fit makes. "Okay, so women didn't look as long at the ugly infant pictures. But it's ludicrous to then question a mother's love for her less-than-attractive infant."
I think she has a point. The study authors translated the mothers' desire not to look at pictures of abnormal babies as a lack of emotion or caring for that baby. I see just the opposite. Mothers tend to be more sensitive towards the needs of children, so I suspect they looked away because the suffering made them uncomfortable. Sort of like how some moms refuse to read horrific news stories about children -- it's just too hard to deal with.
Still, researchers aren't ready to let moms, dads or other caregivers off the hook. A 2005 study found that parents were more attentive to attractive offspring, and this recent study seems to support that.
What do you think? Do you think appearance has anything to do with the way a parent loves or cares for a child? Or do these researchers need to go back to the drawing board?











ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
6-29-2009 @ 11:18AM
Jenn said...I totally agree that when it is your OWN child, they appear gorgeous - that big head or squinty eyes like an adorable quirk. The findings may apply more to daycare situations instead of parenting.
Reply
6-29-2009 @ 11:48AM
SKL said...Your comment that moms feel more sensitive to the suffering is what I thought too.
Moms will see the beauty in their own child. If the mouth is deformed, Mom will notice the beautiful eyes that much more. This is true not only for biological moms, but also for adoptive moms where the maternal instinct is there. If anything, the knowledge that a deformed baby/child is an orphan is that much more likely to inspire prospective moms to open their homes (medical cost considerations aside).
The study probably has implications for institutionalized care and hospital care, but not for maternal care.
So yeah, it's back to the drawing board for those researchers. It's kind of scary that such short-sighted, inexperienced humans are trying to explain and influence human emotions and behavior.
6-29-2009 @ 12:00PM
bmfap said...sounds like a study that was going to draw that conclusion no matter what. There's just no linkeage between the data and conclusions.
Reply
6-29-2009 @ 1:39PM
CLM said...Was this even peer-reviewed before being released? I hate to make sexist judgments, but I can't help but note the lead researcher is male, and frankly the conclusions of the researchers seem to reflect their own biases rather than the results of the data. It's a pretty unscientific leap on their part. As indicated by other posters here, there is clearly more than one possibility for the results. Something the researchers do not appear to have controlled for (sorry about the dangling participle).
Reply
7-26-2009 @ 1:34AM
Amber said...Wow, these so called study authors are misleading. It isn't an issue of attractiveness. "some normal, others with facial deformities" Anyone with any sort of empathy wouldn't enjoy staring at an innocent baby with a facial deformity. In personal experience I find mothers tend to notice only the positives of their own children and see past the "flaws." The conclusions made were utter bullshit. I wonder what monkey was in charge of this.
Reply
7-27-2009 @ 9:29PM
lorhonks said...Need baby pictures??
Check out my websites...
http://photographybylauren.weebly.com
http://wix.com/laurenandjoe/unlimited
http://unlimitedphotographs.weebly.com
Reply