Three experiments investigated whether the presence of more elements in the upper part of a configuration (i.e., up–down asymmetry) plays a role in determining newborns’ preference for facelike patterns. Newborns preferred a nonfacelike stimulus with more elements in the upper part over a nonfacelike stimulus with more elements in the lower part (Experiment 1), did not show a preference for a facelike stimulus over a nonfacelike configuration equated for the number of elements in the upper part of the configuration (Experiment 2), and preferred a nonfacelike configuration located in the upper portion of the stimulus over a facelike configuration in the lower portion of the pattern (Experiment 3). Results demonstrated that up–down asymmetry is crucial in determining newborns’ face preference.

Newborns' preference for faces: What is crucial?

SIMION, FRANCESCA;
2002

Abstract

Three experiments investigated whether the presence of more elements in the upper part of a configuration (i.e., up–down asymmetry) plays a role in determining newborns’ preference for facelike patterns. Newborns preferred a nonfacelike stimulus with more elements in the upper part over a nonfacelike stimulus with more elements in the lower part (Experiment 1), did not show a preference for a facelike stimulus over a nonfacelike configuration equated for the number of elements in the upper part of the configuration (Experiment 2), and preferred a nonfacelike configuration located in the upper portion of the stimulus over a facelike configuration in the lower portion of the pattern (Experiment 3). Results demonstrated that up–down asymmetry is crucial in determining newborns’ face preference.
2002
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2463366
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 42
  • Scopus 156
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 142
social impact