↓ Skip to main content

What's in the Chinese Babyface? Cultural Differences in Understanding the Babyface

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What's in the Chinese Babyface? Cultural Differences in Understanding the Babyface
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00819
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenwen Zheng, Qian Yang, Kaiping Peng, Feng Yu

Abstract

We investigated the cultural differences in understanding and reacting to the babyface in an effort to identify both cultural and gender biases in the universal hypothesis that the babyfaced individuals are perceived as naïve, cute, innocent, and more trustworthy. Sixty-six Chinese and Sixty-six American participants were required to evaluate Chinese faces selected from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)-Pose, Expression, Accessories, and Lighting (PEAL) Large-Scale Chinese Face Database. In our study, we applied Active Shape Models, a modern technique of machine learning to measure facial features. We found some cultural similarities and also found that a Chinese babyface has bigger eyes, higher eyebrows, a smaller chin, and greater WHR (Facial width-to-height ratio), and looks more attractive and warmer. New findings demonstrate that Chinese babyfaces have a lower forehead and closer pupil distance (PD). We found that when evaluating the babyfacedness of a face, Chinese are more concerned with the combination of all facial features and American are more sensitive to specific highlighted babyfaced features. The Chinese babyface tended to be perceived as more babyfaced for American participants, but not less competent for Chinese participants.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 2%
Singapore 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2023.
All research outputs
#15,833,550
of 26,352,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,665
of 35,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,747
of 356,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#250
of 439 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,352,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,193 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 439 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.