Unattractive kids less liked by parents, study shows

[Jason]

EurekAlert Story

Researchers show parents give unattractive children less attention
A researcher at the University of Alberta has shown that parents are more likely to give better care and pay closer attention to good-looking children compared to unattractive ones. Dr. Andrew Harrell presented his findings recently at the Warren E. Kalbach Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta.

Harrell's findings are based on an observational study of children and shopping cart safety. With the approval of management at 14 different supermarkets, Harrell's team of researchers observed parents and their two to five-year-old children for 10 minutes each, noting if the child was buckled into the grocery-cart seat, and how often the child wandered more than 10 feet away. The researchers independently graded each child on a scale of one to 10 on attractiveness.

Findings showed that 1.2 per cent of the least attractive children were buckled in, compared with 13.3 per cent of the most attractive youngsters. The observers also noticed the less attractive children were allowed to wander further away and more often from their parents. In total, there were 426 observations at the 14 supermarkets.

Harrell, who has been researching shopping cart safety since 1990 and has published a total of 13 articles on the topic, figures his latest results are based on a parent's instinctive Darwinian response: we're unconsciously more likely to lavish attention on attractive children simply because they're our best genetic material.

"Attractiveness as a predictor of behaviour, especially parenting behaviour, has been around a long time," said Harrell, a father of five and a grandfather of three. "Most parents will react to these results with shock and dismay. They'll say, 'I love all my kids, and I don't discriminate on the basis of attractiveness.' The whole point of our research is that people do."

 

[brewnog]

Doesn't surprise me. I'd be gutted if I had an ugly kid.

 

[Moses]

WoW! I can't believe that they say this in a very-confident way as if it is facts! LOL

Some somments:
-What is attractive?
[X hair Y eyes Z face W hieght/wight ...etc varies from a person to another, despite some 'unity' in some directions in how human look at this (very almost all humans found male-female humans more attractive than male-female goats ) ]

-Richer people or the more educated care usualy more about their appearance-hygiene and thus they have more boost in physical attractiveness features.

-LOL? As far as my modest knowldge, i guess attractivenss depends as well on personality , similarities between mates, and physical characteristics in both males and females. This research considered only physical characteristics for the study, which make it at least inaccurate..

Thats my 3 cents

 

[Jason]

Moses,

Hmmm... attractiveness is subjective, but only to a degree.

Who do you rate as more attractive?

http://www.kidscant.com/rants/reno3.jpg ?

Kevin Costner or http://www.cyranos.ch/doppbeat.jpg ?

http://www.bangkokpost.net/education/images01/nv07ab.jpg ?

I really don't think it's all that subjective...

 

[Chi Meson]

I agree with Moses. THis sounds like the most arbitrary, subjective study. The way a kid is dressed will affect how "attractive" he looks. A dirty and disheveled child will always appear more unattractive than a clean "attractively-dressed" child. The latter child will probably also have a more attentive parent.

Seems more study is needed, I don't buy it yet.

 

[learningphysics]

For the most part, it is not subjective. If it was... then everyone could be a supermodel. The article is obviously about "physical attractiveness".

 

[Jason]

Originally posted by Chi Meson
Seems more study is needed, I don't buy it yet.

I agree. Again, I don't know that how good the methodology was, I haven't read the actual study. But I remember the story that came out of Boulder Colorado, the Jon Benet Ramsey story. I think that particular story had legs because of the attractiveness of the victim.

 

[SpaceTiger]

One doesn't need to subscribe to an absolute notion of beauty to find differing rates of opinion on a particular person's looks. There are known correlations between various quantitative measures of beauty (relative proportions and symmetries on the face, for example) and polls of the general public.

 

[Moses]

Moses,

Hmmm... attractiveness is subjective, but only to a degree.

Who do you rate as more attractive?

http://www.kidscant.com/rants/reno3.jpg ?

Kevin Costner or http://www.cyranos.ch/doppbeat.jpg ?

http://www.bangkokpost.net/education/images01/nv07ab.jpg ?

I really don't think it's all that subjective...

Actually we both don't disagree here! That was my point when i said that we humans have some-how [main criteria] for attractivenes , that's why not for example we got attracted to animals for example, since we only think about humans.

However, even among humans there is a BIG difference in preference despite the iamn stream. What i found 10's my friends found 7's ! And the opposite some times happened and we laugh at each other as why this happened!

Even i am a male, i can't say this women is attractive without talking to her. But i do admit that i can say she is really good looking.

I hope i made my point more clear

 

[Moses]

One doesn't need to subscribe to an absolute notion of beauty to find differing rates of opinion on a particular person's looks. There are known correlations between various quantitative measures of beauty (relative proportions and symmetries on the face, for example) and polls of the general public.

http://www.amuseyourself.com/celebrity-symmetry/spears-britney.html

Here is a page making fun of how wrong the idea between the correlation between symmetry and attractiveness. Which MANY psychologist [including my teacher at a course] consider a prime factor.

[even my book has a sentence which insistthat the most key factor in attractivenss is face-symmetry!]

want to say sth that could be related somehow: Britney spears in my scale is not 10 in physical attractivenss [still decently high]. Even i am sure its 10+ for many people. On the other hand, some celebrities/girls in the streets i find 10 in physical attractivenes, while they might not pass even 8 let's say by other ppl scale [regardless how the scale works, 2 points out of 10 is 'significant' difference that cannot be negleted ]

Edit: For those who did not go to the link, i mentioned Britney spears since it the firts face appeard at the page to 'test' symmetry and its relation to attractiveness...

 

[SpaceTiger]

Here is a page making fun of how wrong the idea between the correlation between symmetry and attractiveness. Which MANY psychologist [including my teacher at a course] consider a prime factor.

Despite what many political commentators would like to think, mockery doesn't really constitute an argument. The correlations aren't with any symmetry, just very specific ones.

want to say sth that could be related somehow: Britney spears in my scale is not 10 in physical attractivenss [still decently high]. Even i am sure its 10+ for many people.

You're missing the point. The poll results are statistical, they don't mean that everybody must find specific people attractive.

 

[Moses]

Despite what many political commentators would like to think, mockery doesn't really constitute an argument. The correlations aren't with any symmetry, just very specific ones. [/QOUTE]

At that link its a valid argument. However, its not a scientific article, but its a website for amusement. Still its a vaild argument against the [big] correlation between symmetry and attractiveness that many scientists calims.

[QOUTE=SpaceTiger] You're missing the point. The poll results are statistical, they don't mean that everybody must find specific people attractive.

lol, or may be my opint missed across in its way
I do agree abuot hte poll issue you said. My point is [which i guess you would agree] there is a significant difference that cannot be negleted in deciding which is attractive to people.

People saying: Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder or (beer)holder has some truth in it :rofl:

 

[SpaceTiger]

My point is [which i guess you would agree] there is a significant difference that cannot be negleted in deciding which is attractive to people.

But that isn't in opposition to the claims of psychologists. Any such arguments would have to be statistical, they're just trying to explain why and what this means for other aspects of life.

 

[Moses]

But that isn't in opposition to the claims of psychologists. Any such arguments would have to be statistical, they're just trying to explain why and what this means for other aspects of life.

I see, but their exaplnation abuot this correlation could be seen as somehow[exaggerated] if its not wrong.

back to the main study. There is a crucial mistake i see the the people who run the tudy fall into; The got the results without isolatin the subject from other independent variables.

For example: They shuold make sure that the only [almost only] variable dffer between kids is how physically attractive they are, and then measure the independant variable of how they parent caer level is [e.g. parents have similar backgrounds, level of education, income, culture...etc]

So many variables were not in conrtol here, so i am not sure if the study has a decent level of accuracy to take its results with considerable seruiosness.

I might be wrong

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not squarely on topic, but: I used to live next to a young mother who was an ethnic Chinese from Vietnam, who had an 8 year old son. She pinned my ears back one day by commenting on how ugly her poor son was, right in front of him, and lamenting that, when grown, he'd probably never find a wife.
I couldn't see anything about the kid to merit this assessment.

Last year the explanation for her comment was revealed to me in a TV program on Chinese Culture: it is believed to be extremely bad luck to ever refer to any child as attractive because this may be overheard by an unattractive god who will become envious and cause trouble. All Chinese children, therefore, are regarded as unattractive, especially the attractive ones.

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, I really have to agree with Moses that attractiveness is very subjective. Unless the study defined certain objective criteria, such as facial symmetry, as SpaceTiger suggested, or whether their hair was combed or disheveled, I don't know how you can rate the kids as attractive or unattractive.

And don't all parents think their own kid is the cutest? So, what the researcher thinks is unattractive, the parent may not. That researcher may even subconsciously be ranking the more unruly children as less cute simply because of their behavior. I know I find a misbehaving child who is allowed to climb store shelves and screaming for things to be rather irritating, so would have a hard time describing them as "cute as a button" like I might the kid dressed in a neat little outfit and sitting quietly smiling at everybody.

Also, unless these parents were handed random children to watch over or had adopted children, couldn't you interpret it that ugly parents are bad parents? Afterall, genetics tells us that kids tend to resemble their parents.

Or, heck, maybe the causality is backward and those less attractive kids are less attractive because their parents don't pay much attention, so they've gotten banged up and fallen over on their faces a few more times than the kids with attentive parents?

I think a more important study might involve how attentive other caretakers might be to kids who are deemed more or less attractive by them. Does the teacher give the cutest kid in the class more attention than the scruffy looking one? Or do the daycare workers spend more play time with the kids they think are cutest?

 

[ek]

The study is worthless, everyone in Edmonton is ugly.

:rofl:

*Flames Fan*

 

[Moses]

An interesting issue i came across while reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X book:

Malcolm X thought that his father favoured him more than his othyer brothers nad sisters since he was having 'red' hair, and he was the lighest one. [at that time, we all know how horrible racism on color was going on 'and still?' and that affect people judgin on color]

However, on the other hand, Malcolm X thouhgt his mother was treating him the WORST amon his brothers and sisters, for the same exact reason! That he is the lighests colored, and she had bad experince of white popel rapin her mom which is why his african-american mother is very light skinned.

The point i am trying to say that for the same features, people can percive it differently, and thus react differntly. What attract some one [regardless why] amy repel another [regardles if it is justified or not]

 

[Jason]

Originally posted by Moonbear
Okay, I really have to agree with Moses that attractiveness is very subjective. Unless the study defined certain objective criteria, such as facial symmetry, as SpaceTiger suggested, or whether their hair was combed or disheveled, I don't know how you can rate the kids as attractive or unattractive.

Really? You think that if everybody on this thread saw 20 pictures of kids and were ask to rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, our ratings would be that different. Check out Hot or Not and see how often your scores vs. the average are off by more than 1.5.

ABC's John Stossel had a whole show, which looked at the research of attractiveness. There were four or five segments, which showed how kids and teenagers, where more inclined to give positive qualities (like intelligence, kindness, honesty) to attractive people than unattractive. Employers were more likely to hire and give better salaries to attractive job applicants. Amazingly not only were men more likely to hire good looking woman, and woman employers, good looking men, but they were even more likely to hire attractive people of the same sex. I do not remember the details but I am pretty sure one of the segments was about teachers who gave more attention, and were more lenient to attractive kids.

 

[SpaceTiger]

The main point of my posts was to argue that we can measure "attractiveness" in useful, quantitative ways. I wasn't trying to defend this particular study. But let me look at it in more detail anyway.

So many variables were not in conrtol here, so i am not sure if the study has a decent level of accuracy to take its results with considerable seruiosness.

That depends on what you're trying to show. If you're trying to show correlation, then such things are irrelevant; that is, you can just measure the two quantities and plot them. If you're trying to show causation, however, that's an entirely different ballgame. I'm not even sure they've done the former, as their means of measuring attractiveness sound fishy. It sounds like they had the researchers rate the attractiveness of the kids. Aside from giving very small number statistics, this has the inherent bias that the researchers had already observed the behavior before making their rating.

Even if they did it correctly, they're trying to measure various functions of multiple causal variables. Now, these functions (e.g. seat-belt buckling, wandering distance, etc.) may include attractiveness as one of the directly causal variables, but we don't know for sure. There will be many other things that also correlate with attractiveness that could really be the root cause of the trend. For example, attractive children might get more attention from other people, making them more sociable and forceful, making the parents pay more attention to them, making the parents more likely to do the above things. It's a bit of a stretch, but certainly possible. Another possibility is one you mentioned, the correlation between attractiveness and wealth, but that only makes sense if their statistics are done globally. If they compare numbers within a given family, that sort of thing can be factored out.

Thus, even if we trust their measurements of attractiveness, I'm hesitant to say that parents pay less attention to the less attractive kids because they're less attractive. I would say it's the most likely explanation, however. If anybody knows where I can find the original article on this, I'd be curious to see it.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't understand how someone can make the conclusion that less attractive children are cared for less by their parents based on this study. Were all 14 of these researchers using the same criteria for attractiveness? Did they take into account cultural beliefs, as zooby pointed out? Did the parents only have one child with them? Keeping track of two children is much more difficult. According to this study if two or more children went shopping with a parent then they would be less likely to be attractive. As Moonbear mentioned, the study doesn't take into account the personalities of the children at all. An unruly or inquisitive child will be more likely to wander off. Does this make them less physically attractive?

On the flip side, It can not be assumed that a parent will care for all their children similarly. There may be preferential treatment that a parent is not even consciously aware of. Attractiveness is at least partially quantifiable. The problem is discovering if the lack of parental attention is because of attractiveness. It shouldn't assume the cause is attractiveness without taking into account other variables. The study needs to prove that its criteria are accurate for making a correlation between attractiveness and parental care. I think they did a poor job of it.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not even sure they've done the former, as their means of measuring attractiveness sound fishy. It sounds like they had the researchers rate the attractiveness of the kids. Aside from giving very small number statistics, this has the inherent bias that the researchers had already observed the behavior before making their rating.

That's my biggest concern in the way it was presented here anyway. Besides, people may have some sense of different people looking attractive as adults, but these were 2 to 5 year olds. Honestly, at that age, most kids all still look a lot alike to me, and they are all kind of cute. Plus, some people think chubby kids are cute and others think the skinny ones are cute.

 

[Evo]

That study really has no scientific basis as Moses pointed out. The parent could be having a bad day, so not paying as much attention as usual. They don't know anything about the adult, perhaps they're not good with children, or are generally unconcerned. They don't even know if the kids are the children of the adults observed. They've made an awful lot of assumptions.

 

[Jason]

Originally posted by Evo
That study really has no scientific basis as Moses pointed out.

Most social studies don't.

 

[SOS2008]

What a hilarious study--all kids are unattractive! :rofl: Seriously, there are so many variables that would need to be controlled for, some already mentioned such as cultural practices, obedience, favoritism (that may not be based on societal measures of attractiveness), etc.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Or, heck, maybe the causality is backward and those less attractive kids are less attractive because their parents don't pay much attention, so they've gotten banged up and fallen over on their faces a few more times than the kids with attentive parents?

This is an important point. An important factor in attractiveness is health. A poorly nourished kid (macaroni and cheese every night cause it's cheap) is not going to be the best manifestation of his genetic potential. Parental neglect can absolutely preceed, and cause a drop in, the attractiveness of their kids.

 

[Chi Meson]

Perhaps the study has discovered that "good parents are better parents." What a breakthrough!

 

[Moonbear]

Perhaps the study has discovered that "good parents are better parents." What a breakthrough!

:rofl: Doesn't it sound more like the sort of study that a statistics student does just because they need a data set for a class project rather than because they are really interested in studying the question properly?

I was also thinking of a different angle on this (don't ask, it was running through my mind as I was drifting off to sleep last night). How do they determine that a child spending time away from the parent is bad parenting? They don't say that the children were out of eyesight, or even acting mischievous in any way, just away from the parent. Perhaps those kids have better parents who allow them to explore their surroundings at a safe distance rather than keeping them strapped into a shopping cart or clinging to their leg? There's a lot of difference between a parent whose kid runs up and down the store aisle asking, "Can I have this?" for every item they find and being told firmly, "No" each time and one whose kid is strapped into a shopping cart seat to keep them from falling out while they suck on a lollipop so the parent isn't bothered by them while his/her back is turned choosing which sugary breakfast cereal to buy them.

Then again, maybe the study was nothing like the news report of it. The authors of the study may be reading the article and scratching their heads trying to figure out how the reporter got all that out of a study simply reporting on use of shopping cart safety belts. If anyone has a source for the original article, it would really be much better than trying to guess at the methods from a news story on it. Though, nonetheless, this sort of thing is a fun exercise to remind us of the need to be careful of introducing our own biases into our experimental methodology.

 

[Moonbear]

Here's a slightly more detailed story, with the following statement at the end:

Famed models such Jodie Kidd and Erin O’Connor often complain of having been thought ugly at school. Dr Reissland concurs with the popular adage that ugly ducklings become beautiful adults.

"Supermodels have a face which is something special, with different features. As children they may be thought of as unattractive, but as they become older it becomes an advantage."

http://lifestyle.scotsman.com/home/headlines_specific.cfm?articleid=9180

 

[Jason]

There's plenty of kids out there that are ugly and should put a paper bag over their heads. Though, I wouldn't blame the kid. God knows how damn hideous his/her parents are. I've never heard of a good-looking couple that produced an ugly child. Unless the child was originally a good-looking kid but was disfigured cause of an accident or a disease. It's these kind of ugly kids that I'd feel sorry for. As for me, it doesn't matter if I breed with a drop dead gorgeous babe or a woman with looks that would put Medusa to shame. Cause of me, my kids are always going to come out beautiful. If the woman I breed with is beautiful as well, our kids will look like angels.

 

[Evo]

I've never heard of a good-looking couple that produced an ugly child.

I have and I've seen ugly parents with attractive offspring. Also siblings can look as different as night and day, one ugly and one beautiful. It's a crapshoot.

And how many people would be able to eat squash through a picket fence without having spent years with braces on their teeth?

 

[Huckleberry]

And how many people would be able to eat squash through a picket fence without having spent years with braces on their teeth?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Took me a second to get the full visual effect on that. I've heard variations on that joke, but somehow reading it made a much more distinct visual image.

 

[ShawnD]

*original post deleted*



Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of saying "cute kids get more attention", what if it's "attention whores are cuter"?

It's the difference between saying "ugly people are more likely to be meth addicts" and "meth addicts are ugly people". The ugliness was not a cause; it was an effect.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Eat squash through a picket fence?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have and I've seen ugly parents with attractive offspring.

Did you just call your parents ugly?