User loginLive Discussions
Most popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksA Skeptical Blog |
Tip jarFor entertainment onlyThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 7 guests online.
... |
My family got no ugly people so I wouldn't knowSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on May 3, 2005 - 7:01am.
on Health Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift Parents would certainly deny it, but Canadian researchers have made a startling assertion: parents take better care of pretty children than they do ugly ones. Researchers at the University of Alberta carefully observed how parents treated their children during trips to the supermarket. They found that physical attractiveness made a big difference. The researchers noted if the parents belted their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, how often the parents' attention lapsed and the number of times the children were allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities like standing up in the shopping cart. They also rated each child's physical attractiveness on a 10-point scale. The findings, not yet published, were presented at the Warren E. Kalbach Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta. When it came to buckling up, pretty and ugly children were treated in starkly different ways, with seat belt use increasing in direct proportion to attractiveness. When a woman was in charge, 4 percent of the homeliest children were strapped in compared with 13.3 percent of the most attractive children. The difference was even more acute when fathers led the shopping expedition - in those cases, none of the least attractive children were secured with seat belts, while 12.5 percent of the prettiest children were. Homely children were also more often out of sight of their parents, and they were more often allowed to wander more than 10 feet away. Age - of parent and child - also played a role. Younger adults were more likely to buckle their children into the seat, and younger children were more often buckled in. Older adults, in contrast, were inclined to let children wander out of sight and more likely to allow them to engage in physically dangerous activities. Although the researchers were unsure why, good-looking boys were usually kept in closer proximity to the adults taking care of them than were pretty girls. The researchers speculated that girls might be considered more competent and better able to act independently than boys of the same age. The researchers made more than 400 observations of child-parent interactions in 14 supermarkets. Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the Population Research Laboratory at the University of Alberta and the leader of the research team, sees an evolutionary reason for the findings: pretty children, he says, represent the best genetic legacy, and therefore they get more care. This study seems to use an analytical method based on evolutionary psychology. I'm not so much skeptical of EP in principle, so much as concerned that it's being used in a reductionist way. Usually I see it used to explain trivial things, like why men tend to prefer younger companions.
Another issue with EP in praxis is that it tends to accommodate an understandable human preference for "women are like A, men are like B" generalizations. In social sciences, such statements are nearly always wrong. Women may have a greater propensity to A than men, and men a greater propensity to B than women, but A or B may be minority behavior for both. That said, the human preference for prettiness is perhaps the most relentless, remorseless force in human relations. It is incredibly powerful, and affects all types of interractions. One thing the article doesn't mention is the effect of the caregiver's level of attractiveness. I guess it's just me but I have never seen a ugly child or toddler. Secondly, ugliness is very subjective (straight vs. nappy hair, anyone?). The researchers state older parents were
less likely to buckle an ugly child than a younger parent. How
did the researcher know it was a parent and not a grandparent, or a
uncle or aunt? It sounded to me these observations were done
without the adult's knowlege, perhaps via video. If so, how did
the researchers know the relationship of the child to the adult? |
|
Did the study include parents who treat "ugly" and "pretty" siblings differently? Correlation does not imply causation.
Maybe people who are likely to have pretty children are generally pretty themselves, and because they've had better life opportunities because of their appearance, are better parents. Or maybe children are considered pretty when their parents groom them, and parents that groom are more attentive. I think you would be hard pressed to find a parent that was truly aware that their child was unattractive unless there was some specific physical deformity. I don't see many unattractive toddlers. Generally all of them are naturally cute.
However, at least in the Black community, I have seen a parent treat a child with a preferred skin tone or hair texture better than others. I'm sure Whites might be affected by the blond hair/blue eyed preference. But this would only really come into focus if there are siblings.