1. How did students' fine motor skills change after they looked at cute photos?
Researchers Hiroshi Nittono and colleagues at Hiroshima University asked college students to participate in three experiments. They compared performance on fine manual tasks right after viewing photos of puppies and kittens versus photos of adult dogs and cats [1]. The improvement in scores averaged about 43.9% after seeing the baby animal photos, compared to only about 11.9% after seeing the adult animals [1]. In a task where participants had to find specific items on a screen, performance improved by about 15.7% after viewing cute images, versus just 1.4% in the comparison group [1].
The researchers thought that cute images might narrow the range of attention and encourage careful behavior [1]. However, the participants in experiments 1 and 2 were each groups of 48 college students. This means we cannot say this effect happens in every situation in daily life [1]. So, what specific features of a face create that feeling of "cute"?
2. What did Konrad Lorenz say makes something look cute?
The idea that "cuteness" is a bundle of facial features is attributed to ethologist Konrad Lorenz [2]. It is reported that in a 1943 paper, he called baby-like features the Kindchenschema (baby schema) [2]. Some sources say it first appeared in 1940, so this article uses "the 1943 paper" as the reference [2].
The features said to define it include a large head, a broad and protruding forehead, large eyes, plump cheeks, small nose and mouth, and short, thick limbs [3]. The basic idea is that when these features are present together, they trigger a feeling of cuteness and a desire to care for the subject [3]. However, Lorenz’s original text has not been verified, so this list comes from descriptions in later research [3]. Can this idea actually be tested?
3. Are bigger eyes always cuter in edited baby photos?
Researchers have tried to test the baby schema in experiments. Glocker and colleagues edited photos of babies’ faces to create images with high baby schema features (round face, high forehead) and low ones (thin face, low forehead) [3]. When 122 college students viewed them, the high-schema faces were rated as significantly cuter and more likely to evoke a desire for care [3]. This is considered the first experimental evidence using actual baby face photos. However, this was an evaluation experiment; participants did not actually provide care [3].
Another study changed eye size by up to ±15% in photos of adults and babies with various expressions [4]. Larger eyes were rated as cuter, and smiling faces were also rated as cuter [4]. Interestingly, the reason for the limit is that increasing eye size beyond 15% makes them protrude from the face outline or overlap with eyebrows, looking unnatural [4]. Therefore, changes were capped at 15%. This study was small, involving only 24 and 14 participants [4]. It seems that "bigger is not infinitely cuter." Does the brain react to these features before we even answer with words?
Safety Note: In research focusing on eyes, photos with eye sizes changed by ±15% were rated as cuter for adults and babies of all expressions when the eyes were larger.
4. Does the brain react to baby faces in 0.13 seconds, and do children show similar trends?
A study examined reactions before verbal answers. Kringelbach and colleagues used magnetoencephalography to look at the brains of 12 adults viewing baby faces versus adult faces [5]. They found that only when looking at baby faces did a part called the medial orbitofrontal cortex react about 0.13 seconds after seeing the face [5]. This area is linked to "reward" processing [5].
The researchers suggested this might show a neural basis for Lorenz’s idea [5]. However, with only 12 participants (9 of whom were not parents), it cannot be said that "instinct is proven" [5].
Children show similar trends. Borgi and colleagues showed 50 children aged 3 to 6 photos of human adults, babies, dogs, puppies, cats, and kittens with edited features [6]. Across all species, faces with higher baby schema features were rated cuter, and 46% of gaze time was directed at the eyes [6]. This is also not proof of innate instinct. But what about things without faces or animals? Do we still find them cute?
Safety Note: When shown baby and adult faces, 12 adults (7 women, 5 men; 9 non-parents) had their medial orbitofrontal cortex (a reward-related area) react about 130 milliseconds (0.13 seconds) after seeing the baby face. Borgi et al. (2014) showed edited photos of human and animal faces to 50 UK children aged 3-6.
5. Do plush toys look cuter when people touch them?
A team including Kone Ohashi and Hiroshi Nittono from Osaka University conducted a web survey in 2026 with 198 Japanese speakers and 199 US English speakers [7]. They viewed photos of plush toys (high baby schema, like pandas or triceratops) and cushions (low baby schema) [7].
The results were the same in Japan and the US. High-schema items were felt to be cuter than low-schema ones [7]. Items being touched by a person were seen as cuter than those not being touched [7]. Furthermore, the people doing the touching also looked cuter [7]. However, the effect of touch was smaller than the effect of the baby schema itself [7].
Here we return to the question of whether changing just the eye position on a plush toy changes its expression. The materials gathered for this article did not include an experiment testing only eye position on plush toys. While we can guess based on results from human faces (eye size and cuteness) [4], it remains a hypothesis for now. So, is the baby schema truly an innate instinct?
6. Is feeling cuteness an innate instinct, and what does the baby schema have to do with it?
The studies so far make it tempting to say "feeling cuteness is an innate instinct." However, a review published in 2024 was cautious [8]. Kawaguchi and Waller pointed out that evidence for viewing the baby schema as an "innate releasing stimulus" is insufficient [8].
Reasons include inconsistent terminology across studies, notably missing data on comparisons between species, conflicting results on the age when preference for babies appears, and inconsistent brain imaging results [8]. The tendency for round faces and big eyes to link with attention and care has emerged from multiple experiments. Yet, whether this is an innate mechanism or something learned while growing up does not yet have a clear answer [8].
7. How can you test the science of cuteness yourself?
If you want to explore these ideas, here are some ways to start.
You can draw three round faces on paper and slightly change the size and position of the eyes. Arrange them and note which looks cutest and why you think so. This lets you experience the feeling of the experiments described in this article.
When you go out, look at plush toys in shops or museums. Compare how impressions change when eye position differs. To read more, you can start with Japanese materials on Nittono’s research, such as the Osaka University press release listed in the sources [7].