The Effect of Cleft Lip on Adults' Responses to Faces: Cross-Species Findings

Abstract

Cleft lip and palate is the most common of the congenital conditions affecting the face and cranial bones and is associated with a raised risk of difficulties in infant-caregiver interaction; the reasons for such difficulties are not fully understood. Here, we report two experiments designed to explore how adults respond to infant faces with and without cleft lip, using behavioural measures of attractiveness appraisal (‘liking’) and willingness to work to view or remove the images (‘wanting’). We found that infants with cleft lip were rated as less attractive and were viewed for shorter durations than healthy infants, an effect that was particularly apparent where the cleft lip was severe. Women rated the infant faces as more attractive than men did, but there were no differences in men and women's viewing times of these faces. In a second experiment, we found that the presence of a cleft lip in domestic animals affected adults' ‘liking’ and ‘wanting’ responses in a comparable way to that seen for human infants. Adults' responses were also remarkably similar for images of infants and animals with cleft lip, although no gender difference in attractiveness ratings or viewing times emerged for animals. We suggest that the presence of a cleft lip can substantially change the way in which adults respond to human and animal faces. Furthermore, women may respond in different ways to men when asked to appraise infant attractiveness, despite the fact that men and women ‘want’ to view images of infants for similar durations.

Aesthetic and Incentive Salience of Cute Infant Faces: Studies of Observer Sex, Oral Contraception and Menstrual Cycle

“…The two studies looking at aesthetic and incentive salience of disfigured infant faces showed discrepant results. In one study [14], women gave higher ratings then men, but viewing time for faces with abnormalities did not differ between men and women. In the second study [13], men and women gave similar ratings for infant faces with abnormalities, but viewing time was longer for men than for women.…”

“…Two studies looked at the responses of men and women to infant faces with and without facial abnormalities [13], [14], one study looked at cute and less cute infant faces [15], and one study used computer-manipulated cute and less cute infant faces as well as attractive and less attractive adult faces [16]. In three of the four studies, women rated non-disfigured infant faces as more attractive than did men (‘liking’), but in a ‘pay per view’ task, both men and women showed the same effort to look at these faces (‘wanting’) [13], [14], [15]. In addition, cute infant faces were ‘liked’ and ‘wanted’ more by men and women than less cute infant faces [15].…”

On Cuteness: Unlocking the Parental Brain and Beyond

“…These problems can at least partly be attributed to early disruptions in mother-child interactions—specifically a lack of all-important maternal responsiveness [83]. Non-parents report finding infants with cleft lip less “cute” than typical infants [84], and when viewing cleft-lip infant faces, early activity in the orbitofrontal cortex is significantly diminished compared to viewing typical infant faces [39, 84]. …”

“…A-D) Behavioural findings to images of human and animal with cleft lips show significantly stronger liking and wanting of non-cleft stimuli [84]. E) Neuroimaging findings of significantly diminished fast processing (<140ms) in OFC of cleft infant faces compared to cute infant faces in nonparents [39].…”

Interpreting infant vocal distress: The ameliorative effect of musical training in depression.

“…A plethora of recent studies have examined how adults respond to infant faces (Lobmaier, Bolte, Mast, & Dobel, 2010; Parsons, Young, Kumari, Stein, & Kringelbach, 2011; Parsons, Young, Parsons, et al, 2011; Sprengelmeyer et al, 2009). Adults have been shown to be remarkably attuned to infant facial configuration, and emerging evidence suggests that the specialized processing of infant faces may be supported by affective neural circuits (Kringelbach et al, 2008; Parsons, Young, Murray, Stein, & Kringelbach, 2010).…”