Tag: psych

  • What Even Is Cuteness?

    Have you ever seen something so cute you want to squeeze it? Maybe it was a puppy or kitten, or perhaps a teddy bear or doll. You may wonder why you feel this way – after all, it seems rather strange to mimic violence against something endearing. What makes cute things just so emotionally powerful, and what makes them cute in the first place?

     

    Cuteness as Affect

    In an article by the University of Oxford, Associate Professor Morten Kringelbach explains that cute things draw in our senses, attract our attention and spark rapid brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex – a region associated with emotion in pleasure. In fact, the presence of something cute (in the case of this research article, a baby’s face) can activate the orbitofrontal cortex in 140 ms, or just under a seventh of a second (Kringelbach, 2016). Cuteness overloads the emotional state of the brain, drawing in mental attention and the five senses.

    The feeling of cuteness, what researchers call its “affect,” has very interesting roots. From a biological perspective, an emotional response to cuteness may be derived from an evolutionary need to protect babies from harm. As Dr. Kringelbach explains, the evolved instinct to protect and care for babies may drive our wider perceptions of cuteness. Humans tend to express affection not only for babies and small children, but also for animals with baby-like features, and even dolls, teddy-bears, and miniature objects. These animals and objects trigger similar evolutionary protective desires – as well as a drawing in of attention and a general increase in emotional pleasure.

    If cuteness is an evolutionary instinct to care and protect, why do we feel “cuteness aggression” – the “urge to squeeze or bite cute things” without causing harm (Alba and Stavropoulos, 2018)? Researchers at the University of California, Riverside, took on this challenge and made some interesting findings. Summarizing greatly, cuteness aggression was found to be an evolutionary response to the overwhelming emotions of experiencing cuteness (Alba and Stavropoulos, 2018). Evolutionarily, it would be less than ideal if early humans were “incapacitated” with emotion (as the researchers put it) in the presence of cuteness, and thus experienced a counter-emotion (scientifically called a “dimorphous expression” – when human action expresses the opposite feeling as to what they feel, like laughing when you cry). In the case of overwhelming cuteness, this dimorphous expression of playful harm held an evolutionary role to stop early humans from being too affected by cuteness.

     

    Cuteness as Aesthetic

    While this simple definition of cuteness – an evolutionary instinct to care for and be emotionally attached to babies (and by extension, baby-like animals and objects) – contains an incomplete and shallow understanding of how cuteness exists as a concept in society. As Joshua Paul Dale writes in his academic publication, The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness, “cuteness occupies both the aesthetic and affective realms” – and the modern extent of research places extensive focus on the affective side and avoids discussing the aesthetic. Note that in this usage, Dale does not mean aesthetic to mean cottage-core or punk – instead, the word is used within its sociological background, to understand how cuteness exists in the modern world.

    Dale writes that the emotional response of cuteness is “manipulated for a variety of purposes” – including commercial, artistic, and social (Dale, 2016). The feeling of cuteness is emotionally powerful, and for that reason, is manipulated (malevolently and selfishly at times, yes, but also largely in acts of self-expression) to produce action. As Dr. Kringelbach discovered in her article for the University of Oxford, cuteness invites such powerful emotions that it drives the subject to action, causing them to put in work to continue to be able to receive and engage with the source (Kringelbach, 2016). Socially, cuteness has further effect than its core, biological and evolutionary response. In the modern world, cuteness causes the subject “catharsis” (as Dale writes) that fosters a need to protect a vulnerable object from harm (Dale, 2016). This effect of cuteness links it to vulnerability, a link that Dale dives into (in more depth than is relevant for this article) to understand the connections between violence and cuteness. Remember that cute thing you wanted to squeeze? The association between cuteness and vulnerability may be why. As Dale writes, cuteness is disarming and tender, but also “involves a cognitive reaction in which the power differential between subject and object comes into play” (Dale, 2016). Cuteness is, in many ways, an expression of a power dynamic.

    So… what is cuteness? There’s the affective component: baby-like things trigger a biological response that draws attention and fosters feelings of care, and there’s the aesthetic component: cuteness is linked with vulnerability, intensity of emotion, and power dynamics, defining its socially constructed half. Together, these components create the feeling of cuteness that we understand today. It’s youthful, tender, disarming, attention-grabbing, and (in large part, but not entirely) biological.

     

    References

    Dale, J. P. (2016). The Appeal of the Cute Object: Desire, Domestication, and Agency. In The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness (1st ed., pp. 35–55). essay, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Kringelbach, M. L. (2016). How cute things hijack our brains and drive behaviour University of Oxford. How cute things hijack our brains and drive behaviour. https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/how-cute-things-hijack-our-brains-and-drive-behaviour

    Stavropoulos, K. K., & Alba, L. A. (2018). “It’s so cute I could crush it!”: Understanding neural mechanisms of cute aggression. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00300

  • Kiki vs. Bouba: A Psychological Phenomenon


    Begin by taking this fun quiz! –> Are These More “Bouba” Or “Kiki”? (buzzfeed.com)

    Were you among the majority that named the spiky figure Kiki and the round figure Bouba? It seems that this is the case for many individuals. This question of “Kiki or Bouba” emerged with the famous psychological experiment conducted by neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran and Edward Hubbard (Ramachandran and Hubbard, 2001). They asked American and Tamil Speakers to match one of the names to each of the two figures. The results were overwhelmingly the same; enough so to have a significant meaning. However, the real question now is, “Why?”

    There are many theories to answer this specific question. The three that rise to the top are the linguistic, semantic, and perceptual hypotheses (Chen et al., 2021). The linguistic point of view theorizes that this is a result of the sensory-motor connections that humans make when learning speech. The semantic approach, on the other hand, highlights that people may have speech associations to certain meanings. Lastly, the perceptual hypothesis looks into the features of sounds, such as varying frequencies, in relation to the connections people make to those shapes. These hypotheses continue being tested in various ways to narrow down the potential cause of this fascinating effect.

    On a similar note, have you ever associated a certain sound with a color or a number with a texture? When reviewing the literature of this phenomenon, a common term that is brought up is synesthesia. This term refers to the phenomenon that occurs when one particular sense is stimulated, but an individual actually experiences another sense (Huang, 2019). For example, hearing music but seeing colors as a result, or associating certain numbers to different colors. The reason this phenomenon is closely associated with the Kiki-Bouba Effect is because some scientists believe that the same underlying cognitive mechanisms take place for both (Ramachandran and Hubbard, 2001).

    However, the Kiki-Bouba Effect is not just relevant to shapes and sounds as many studies have branched out and broadened this topic to other senses in recent years. For example, one study looks at different tastes in association with the Kiki-Bouba shapes (Bremner et al., 2012). Here it was found that taste and shape do not translate in the same way across cultures.

    Although this may be very fun to think about… many people bring up other potential explanations and there are even some who doubt the veracity of the original conclusions found. One example is the debate on the shapes of the words and the actual shapes. This can be seen in the more “pointy” look of the letters used to spell Kiki compared to the more “rounded” letters used to spell Bouba.

    Another concept brings up the idea of the frequency that a shape that looks like that would make if it were to break in relation to the associated Kiki-Bouba names. For example, a more jagged item would have a higher-frequency noise when dropped, which would correlate to the higher frequency emitted by the word “Kiki.” This could be related to the idea of onomatopoeias, which are words that sound like the thing they are describing.

    With all of this in mind, all current research on this phenomenon is in the stage of finding out why this occurs. By answering that question, much could be unlocked. For one, it would reveal a fundamental component of understanding human perception. In knowing this, we could possibly even create robots that can perceive the world like we do!

     

    Bibliography:

    Abe, K. A. (2015, April 10). Are these more “Bouba” or “kiki”? BuzzFeed. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeed.com/keijiroabe/are-these-more-bouba-or-kiki-17wkb. 

    Bremner, A. J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K. J., & Spence, C. (2013). “Bouba” and “kiki” in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape–sound matches, but different shape–taste matches to Westerners. Cognition, 126(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.007 

    Chen, Y.-C., Huang, P.-C., & Spence, C. (2021). Global shape perception contributes to crossmodal correspondences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000811

    Huang, H. (2019, June 28). What’s the neuroscience behind the Bouba/Kiki Effect? NBB in Paris. Retrieved from https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/nbbparis/2019/06/28/whats-the-neuroscience-behind-the-bouba-kiki-effect/

    Ramachandran V, Hubbard E (2001) Synaesthesia—A Window Into Perception, Thought and Language