Parents are less eager to safeguard their less attractive offspring.
A researcher at the University of Alberta has shown that parents are more likely to give better care and pay closer attention to good-looking children compared to unattractive ones. Dr. Andrew Harrell presented his findings recently at the Warren E. Kalbach Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta.
Harrell's findings are based on an observational study of children and shopping cart safety. With the approval of management at 14 different supermarkets, Harrell's team of researchers observed parents and their two to five-year-old children for 10 minutes each, noting if the child was buckled into the grocery-cart seat, and how often the child wandered more than 10 feet away. The researchers independently graded each child on a scale of one to 10 on attractiveness.
Findings showed that 1.2 per cent of the least attractive children were buckled in, compared with 13.3 per cent of the most attractive youngsters. The observers also noticed the less attractive children were allowed to wander further away and more often from their parents. In total, there were 426 observations at the 14 supermarkets.
Harrell, who has been researching shopping cart safety since 1990 and has published a total of 13 articles on the topic, figures his latest results are based on a parent's instinctive Darwinian response: we're unconsciously more likely to lavish attention on attractive children simply because they're our best genetic material.
"Attractiveness as a predictor of behaviour, especially parenting behaviour, has been around a long time," said Harrell, a father of five and a grandfather of three. "Most parents will react to these results with shock and dismay. They'll say, 'I love all my kids, and I don't discriminate on the basis of attractiveness.' The whole point of our research is that people do."
Another possible interpretation is that the parents of less attractive children have genetic sequences that make them more lackadaisical toward thier children or less concerned about risks or perhaps more worried about other things (e.g. having enough money to buy the food). Perhaps the parents who have less attractive children are less intelligent on average. One could adjust for this by watching parents who have multiple children of different levels of attractiveness. Also, one could measure parental attractiveness and look for symbols of parental economic status (e.g. the economic value and type of the car the parents get into when they leave the supermarket). Still, I think the researchers are right that parents react more favorably toward more attractive children.
I'd like to see a study of this sort take pictures of parents and children and then measure their symmetry. Symmetry is one quality that enhances perceived attractiveness. More symmetrical parents are probably more likely to have more symmetrical children because the parents have genetic sequences that code for better embryonic development. My guess is that more symmetric parents will, on average, be more inclined to safeguard their children.
This is all an argument for genetic engineering by the way. How? If children are all genetically engineered to be beautiful then parents would be more likely to protect and less likely to abuse their children. Therefore in the future when genetic engineering is routinely used to improve physical appearances we can expect child injuries from accidents and abuse to become less frequent. Anyone like Leon Kass who opposes germ line genetic engineering is effectively opposing measures that will reduce child accidents and child abuse.
By Randall Parker at 2005 April 12 01:45 PM Biological Mind | TrackBackThere was a study that attractive students were likely to get more attention from teacher at school.
Good looking children get away with more transgressions, they are also more likely to be believed in court.
An alternative explanation is that the ugly kids got that way by falling down stairs, running into trees, and generally having less protective parents.
The cruel and Darwinian side of our sociey is such that narcissistic parents mistreat those children who are not good looking, wishing these children were never born. But narcissistic personality disorder is more prominent in the United States than other countries, and hence external appearance is more important than many other places.
I know this is off topic for the thread, but I'm curious to see your (Randall's) thoughts on the new Alzheimers cure (immunoglobulin primed to attack beta amalyoid). And I'm curious to see any thoughts you have about the fact the scientists / talking heads are telling us to wait, wait, wait, wait, wait for the FDA approval process while millions die of this horrific plague.
One comment on the Symmetry of attractive faces: Although research has shown that faces that are obviously asymmetrical are considered less attractive, PERFECTLY symmetrical faces do not correlate to attractiveness. That is, when faces are made perfectly symmetric (i.e. having one side of a persons face mirrored to make a perfect Left-Left or Right-Right face) they tend to be considered less attractive.
This may explain why my mom kept pushing me in front of that truck.
As someone with three kids - my bet its more correlated by birth order than anything else. As an old saying goes:
1st Kid: Drops pacifier on ground, it must be sterilized in boiling water twice prior to re-insertion
2nd Kid: Drops pacifier on ground, cleaned in sink with soap prior to re-insertion
3rd kid: Drops pacifier on ground, brushed off and immediately re-inserted.
You can be VERY protective with the first but you get more realistic after a few. My third 3 actually goes around with my 2nd 9 in grocery store looking for items - out of eyesight. My first never got out of reach at that age in a grocery store.
Food for thought...
Although the research under discussion is anything but thorough, let's assume it is correct--the more attractive the child, the better the parents' care of him/her is, generally. I find fault, then, with the conclusion that children should be genetically engineered to be attractive. There are many other factors in a parent's care of his/her children, not the least of which are the maturity of the parent and the degree to which the child was desired. A parent's lack of care for his/her child is not the child's fault; it's the parent's fault. "Fixing" the child so it's easier for the parent to care for him/her may seem like the easy solution, but it won't solve the long-term problem--the inherent selfishness of humans. Perhaps we should genetically engineer parents to be more mature...or maybe we should just show them how to love unconditionally.
Matthew Cromer,
About the aside on Alzheimers: I hate to go off-topic but you push a hot button with me. It infuriates me that the FDA prevents most people with such a horrible disease from trying the experimental therapies unless they get one of the few slots available for clinical trial participants. Also, the first Alzheimer's vaccine worked but caused side effects of brain inflammation in a small percentage of patients. But if my brain is rotting away I would gladly run the risk of side effects. My brain is rotting away and so what is the downside? Yet those side effects were enough for the FDA to reject such a treatment. Again, I am infuriated.
As for the use of injected antibodies rather than a vaccine: Similar approach and ought to work if they can find the right antibodies to clone and inject. The advantage is that if there is a side effect they can stop the treatment. Whereas the vaccine causes the body to keep producing the antibodies.
aboss,
Genetic engineering of parents is certainly another option. But that'll probably turn out to be harder to do both technically and politically.
First, technically it will be pretty easy to find the genotypes that code for attractiveness once DNA sequencing becomes cheap. Just compare DNA sequences of people with different physical shapes. See which sequences correlate most with each shape.
Second, the politics of genetic engineering of offspring for greater attractiveness are more favorable than the politics for genetic engineering of adults to behavior in some fashion decreed by governments to be good. At least this is true in the West - in China the story may be very different. People will gladly jump on the opportunity to make their children more attractive. No state coercion will be needed. But few will accept the judgement of others that they are morally deficient and need gene therapy so that they will be more conscientious and loving toward their children.
Still there is a motive for genetically engineering yourself to find more people attractive: You would enjoy looking at many more people. You'd have more mate choices. Think of that movie with Jack Black and Gwyneth Paltrow where he saw her as skinny while she was really fat.
While I think the explanation sounds quite plausible, I am drawn to offer an alternative.
People are more protective of girls than boys. Pretty boys get treated more like girls, and ugly girls get treated more like boys.
“Good looking children get away with more transgressions, they are also more likely to be believed in court.”
I believe you will find that you can substitute good looking here for woman in general. See the myth of male power for details.
The second thing I take exception to is the idea that being protective as described is desirable. I have a very pretty 19month old boy; about 95% of the people that walk up to him think he is a girl (the long hair doesn’t help either).
I am very protective of him under conditions that I regard as dangerous, like walking on a sidewalk next to traffic. But when at a park, I am happy to let him wander off and explore. I am less protective of him than most parents are of their four year olds. If he starts to climb something I don’t interfere, and I also wont help him down.
It drives me crazy to watch protective parents treat their kinds like they are 6 months old, and from observation it drives the kids nuts as well. There is a constant whining, “I can do It,” in a desperate hope to get the parents to back off. I expect that these kids will tend to be less co-ordinate because they always get help with everything. Its hard to separate out the different forces, perhaps these protective parents are correctly reacting to their un-coordinated children, but I am inclined to think the causality goes the other way.
I am of the opinion that if its not going to cause permanent damage then its best to let the kid figure it out.
What part does dress and grooming play? A super concerned parent will probably also spend more time doing hair and clothing etc. which will lead to the child looking more attractive.
"This may explain why my mom kept pushing me in front of that truck."
Huh! You were lucky. My mom drove the truck.
I can't believe what I am reading! The analysis that a parent would treat her own child bad just because of the way he/she looked is preposterous! The way others treat them, look at them, propose there ideas & opinions on them would be a more accurate statement. My child has a learning disability and I've noticed that along with most other children with disabilities they have a certain symmetry that comes along with genetics. Whether the disability is physical or cognitive, it is "my" responsibility as the caretaker to groom my child and "accentuate the positives" so-to-speak and LOVE my child. It is also an "adults" responsibility (teachers, clergy, child care providers, etc...) to treat children with "respect" no matter what they "look like"..my God!
I can not let someone else's opinion determine how I am going to treat my child because of their attractiveness.
A child is God's gift to mankind. My 1st child (23y/o female, very pretty, always neat, attractive, never mistreated, adored by all. My 2nd child (12y/o male, rambunctious, outspoken, very smart & everyone thinks he's CHARMING! I fought harder for his education and won what I needed for him! It's not about LOOKS! I amazed the therapists & personnel with my fight!
It's when "man" starts genetically conflicting with God's work that you start getting "germs" and "ugly kids".
Do you think that the way a child is treated by a parent could have something to do with whether the child looks like that parent? I've noticed when a friend has a child they beleive 'is a chip off the old block' that child gets better treatment.
Re: Ugly children may get short shrift
There are a few Yiddish expressions that come
to mind when I read that pretty and ugly
children are treated differently:
"Yeder mame denkt az ir kind iz sheyn"
(Every mother thinks her child is beautiful.)
"Azoy vi men vigt ayn, azoy vigt men oys."
(The way you cradle and rock your children,
that's how they'll grow.)
"Yeder kind trogt zayn eygne brokhe arayn in
der velt."
(Each child carries his own blessing into the
world.)
And for those parents/ who DO treat
them differently, remember this saying,
"Meshugene gens, meshugene gribbenes."
(Crazy parents, crazy children.)
Marjorie Gottlieb Wolfe is the author of a new
book titled, "Are Yentas, Kibitzers, & Tummlers
Weapons of Mass Instruction? Yiddish Trivia."
$12 ($3 S&H)
Malka Publications
19 Market Drive
Syosset, NY 11791
(Crazy parents, crazy children.)
I did not think that genetic engineeing should be used to enhance physical appearance. Plain children were intended to look that way. Naturally attractive people are special and should not be made less so by artificially improving others' looks(I am also against the use of hair dye and most cosmetics.) In addition, it is a blatant prevarication that pretty children are never mistreated. Besides, genetic engineering would probably be very expensive(growth hormone, which I do not approve of either, is.)
its a fact, ppl dont like to face it but its there. Ugly people will always be treated with less respect than good looking people. On the other hand ugly people will naturaly be raised as more independet and hard working children on the account of less respect and attention.
Good looking people are raised to belive that the world is a pretty place where everything will be given to them, but when they grow old they wont be able to hold down jobs or do basic tasks to take care of themselves. While the less good looking children will be raised more independet, they will be able to take care of themselves better.