Table 4. Objective measures of baby schema (cf. Glocker et al. [2]).

	fw	fol/fal	ew/fw	nl/hl	nw/fw	mw/fw
Caucasian infants
cute	337.42	1.49	0.19	0.16	0.24	0.28
mean	322.77	1.39	0.19	0.16	0.24	0.28
less cute	308.12	1.29	0.19	0.15	0.24	0.28
African infants
cute	331.43	1.37	0.21	0.14	0.27	0.33
mean	334.82	1.35	0.21	0.15	0.27	0.32
less cute	338.21	1.33	0.21	0.15	0.28	0.31
dog puppies
cute	282.39	1.06	0.15	0.36	0.24	0.24
mean	291.52	1.06	0.15	0.35	0.24	0.24
less cute	300.64	1.07	0.15	0.34	0.25	0.24

Following Glocker, Langleben, Ruparel, Loughead, Gur, et al. [2] we measured head length (hl) face width (fw), forehead length (fol), face length (fal), eye width (ew), nose length (nl), nose width (nw), and mouth width (mw) to quantify baby schema. According to Glocker, Langleben, Ruparel, Loughead, Gur, et al., the following facial parameters capture baby schema: face width as an absolute measure in pixels and 5 proportion indices representing the relative size of one facial measure to another (fol/fal, ew/fw, nl/hl, nw/fw, mw/fw). The table shows the 6 parameters for each face category and for cute and less cute faces as well as for the mean across cute and less cute faces within a face category. High baby schema faces have larger fw, fol/fal, and ew/fw than low baby schema faces. By means of simple regression analyses we tested whether cute and less cute infant faces significantly differ from each other in the 6 parameters. In our sample there were significant differences in the expected direction between cute and less cute infants for Caucasian faces in face width (p = .018) and the ratio of forehead length to face length (p = .014). No other differences between cute and less cute infant faces were significant.