Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 12;18(4):609–621. doi: 10.3758/s13415-018-0592-6

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the behavioral data

1. Cuteness High 2. Cuteness Normal 3. Cuteness Low 4. Cuteness Detection 5. Caretaking High 6. Caretaking Normal 7. Caretaking Low 8. Parental Care System Activation 9. Sensitivity M(SD)
1. Cuteness high 5.81 (1.27)
2. Cuteness normal .96** 5.82 (1.17)
3. Cuteness low .86** .85** 4.75 (1.21)
4. Cuteness sensitivity .35* .29 – .18 1.06 (0.65)
5. Caretaking high .81** .75** .66** .35* 5.79 (1.46)
6. Caretaking normal .74** .76** .59** .35* .95** 5.88 (1.38)
7. Caretaking low .70** .66** .71** .04 .92** .88** 5.07 (1.45)
8. Parental care system activation .29 .26 .25 .11 .31 .28 .27 3.84 (0.46)
9. Sensitivity – .08 – .08 – .19 .19 – .18 – .15 – .24 – .21 24.58 (3.09)
10. Nonintrusiveness .10 .05 .09 .02 – .10 – .19 – .07 – .03 .51** 21.73 (2.41)

Cuteness and caretaking ratings were assessed in the EEG infant cuteness task. Parental care system activation was assessed with a self-report questionnaire. Sensitivity and nonintrusiveness were observed when mother and child were reading a book together.

*p < .05, **p < .01.