[POLL] Do Parents Treat Ugly Children Worse?

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR, The New York Times

Parents would certainly deny it, but Canadian researchers have made a startling assertion: parents take better care of pretty children than they do ugly ones.

Researchers at the University of Alberta carefully observed how parents treated their children during trips to the supermarket. They found that physical attractiveness made a big difference.

The researchers noted if the parents belted their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, how often the parents' attention lapsed and the number of times the children were allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities like standing up in the shopping cart. They also rated each child's physical attractiveness on a 10-point scale.

The findings, not yet published, were presented at the Warren E. Kalbach Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta.

When it came to buckling up, pretty and ugly children were treated in starkly different ways, with seat belt use increasing in direct proportion to attractiveness. When a woman was in charge, 4 percent of the homeliest children were strapped in compared with 13.3 percent of the most attractive children. The difference was even more acute when fathers led the shopping expedition - in those cases, none of the least attractive children were secured with seat belts, while 12.5 percent of the prettiest children were.

Homely children were also more often out of sight of their parents, and they were more often allowed to wander more than 10 feet away.

Age - of parent and child - also played a role. Younger adults were more likely to buckle their children into the seat, and younger children were more often buckled in. Older adults, in contrast, were inclined to let children wander out of sight and more likely to allow them to engage in physically dangerous activities.

Although the researchers were unsure why, good-looking boys were usually kept in closer proximity to the adults taking care of them than were pretty girls. The researchers speculated that girls might be considered more competent and better able to act independently than boys of the same age. The researchers made more than 400 observations of child-parent interactions in 14 supermarkets.

Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the Population Research Laboratory at the University of Alberta and the leader of the research team, sees an evolutionary reason for the findings: pretty children, he says, represent the best genetic legacy, and therefore they get more care.

Not all experts agree. Dr. Frans de Waal, a professor of psychology at Emory University, said he was skeptical.

"The question," he said, "is whether ugly people have fewer offspring than handsome people. I doubt it very much. If the number of offspring are the same for these two categories, there's absolutely no evolutionary reason for parents to invest less in ugly kids."

Dr. Robert Sternberg, professor of psychology and education at Yale, said he saw problems in Dr. Harrell's method and conclusions, for example, not considering socioeconomic status.

"Wealthier parents can feed, clothe and take care of their children better due to greater resources," Dr. Sternberg said, possibly making them more attractive. "The link to evolutionary theory is speculative."

But Dr. Harrell said the importance of physical attractiveness "cuts across social class, income and education."

"Like lots of animals, we tend to parcel out our resources on the basis of value," he said. "Maybe we can't always articulate that, but in fact we do it. There are a lot of things that make a person more valuable, and physical attractiveness may be one of them."

 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Great to know that geeks are hanging out in supermarkets people watching....

This has to be taken with the biggest grain of salt imaginable.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: Queasy
Great to know that geeks are hanging out in supermarkets people watching....

This has to be taken with the biggest grain of salt imaginable.

My imagination is limited. Got a pic of a big grain of salt?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,776
4,305
126
I watched this last night on the news and from what I heard, there just isn't enough data to support their theory.

How many families do you know where some children are attractive and others are homely? For me, not very many. Usually all of the children are attractive or all of the children are homely. So I assume that ~10% of the families have a significant difference in children attractiveness (if you know this assumed number is wrong, post a link and we can change the numbers).

Thus they had 10%*400= 40 observations. I also assume that is 40 children, or ~20 attractive ones and ~20 unattractive ones. I don't think that is a sufficient sample size to reach any meaningful conclusions.

Instead, what I think they measured was that the unattractive adults generally have a different outlook on life than attractive adults. Since attractiveness runs in families, the unattractive parents generally have unattractive children; attractive parents generally have attractive children. Thus it is not surprizing at all that unattractive parent treat their children differently.
 

McCarthy

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,567
0
76
My first reaction was "how are they judging"? Is it bone structure or are they judging by things like hair and skin too?

Chicken or egg? Was the kid not treated as well because he/she is ugly or is he/she ugly because they're not treated as well?
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
correction, researcher pwnd. What an idiot. Did it not ever cross their minds that the 'ugly' children require less supervision and are more trustworthy, hence their results? What a freakingly stupid conclusion based on poor research and methods. And as Dullard eludes, insufficient samples too. I hate stupid researchers and the dumber reporters who don't know they are clueless.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: gsellis
correction, researcher pwnd. What an idiot. Did it not ever cross their minds that the 'ugly' children require less supervision and are more trustworthy, hence their results? What a freakingly stupid conclusion based on poor research and methods. And as Dullard eludes, insufficient samples too. I hate stupid researchers and the dumber reporters who don't know they are clueless.

Obviously you were an ugly child, right?

;)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gsellis
correction, researcher pwnd. What an idiot. Did it not ever cross their minds that the 'ugly' children require less supervision and are more trustworthy, hence their results? What a freakingly stupid conclusion based on poor research and methods. And as Dullard eludes, insufficient samples too. I hate stupid researchers and the dumber reporters who don't know they are clueless.

Obviously you are an ugly child, right?

;)
Fixed
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gsellis
correction, researcher pwnd. What an idiot. Did it not ever cross their minds that the 'ugly' children require less supervision and are more trustworthy, hence their results? What a freakingly stupid conclusion based on poor research and methods. And as Dullard eludes, insufficient samples too. I hate stupid researchers and the dumber reporters who don't know they are clueless.

Obviously you are an ugly child, right?

;)
Fixed
:D Worse, an Econometrics major in a previous life.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,755
599
126
This study doesn't sound particularly subjective or definative. But attractive people have it easier in all aspects of life so it would make sense that they would also have it here.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: gsellis
correction, researcher pwnd. What an idiot. Did it not ever cross their minds that the 'ugly' children require less supervision and are more trustworthy, hence their results? What a freakingly stupid conclusion based on poor research and methods. And as Dullard eludes, insufficient samples too. I hate stupid researchers and the dumber reporters who don't know they are clueless.

Obviously you are an ugly child, right?

;)
Fixed
:D Worse, an Econometrics major in a previous life.

:Q
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
61,290
16,794
136
Originally posted by: gsellis
correction, researcher pwnd. What an idiot. Did it not ever cross their minds that the 'ugly' children require less supervision and are more trustworthy, hence their results? What a freakingly stupid conclusion based on poor research and methods. And as Dullard eludes, insufficient samples too. I hate stupid researchers and the dumber reporters who don't know they are clueless.

Whereas your conclusion that ugly children require less supervision and are more trustworthy is based on... no research? :p
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
I think only those of us who have children are fit to judge how much you can actually love someone, despite their appearance. If it's your kid, I'm believing there's unconditional love. The question is if that translates into how they are treated... I don't think there's much of a difference.
 

nwfsnake

Senior member
Feb 28, 2003
697
0
0
I don't think I know any parents, who have kids that I think are "visually challenged", that think their kids are ugly! You would have to be a pretty crappy parent to even suggest it! :disgust:
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: gsellis
correction, researcher pwnd. What an idiot. Did it not ever cross their minds that the 'ugly' children require less supervision and are more trustworthy, hence their results? What a freakingly stupid conclusion based on poor research and methods. And as Dullard eludes, insufficient samples too. I hate stupid researchers and the dumber reporters who don't know they are clueless.

Whereas your conclusion that ugly children require less supervision and are more trustworthy is based on... no research? :p
Exactly. But, just because you can draw a conclusion with poor methods means nothing. Until Tony George screwed it up, you got a great predictive model of the GNP vs the winning speed at Indy. One has nothing to do with the other, but it sure did look good.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,059
18,428
146
Originally posted by: nwfsnake
I don't think I know any parents, who have kids that I think are "visually challenged", that think their kids are ugly! You would have to be a pretty crappy parent to even suggest it! :disgust:

Maybe it's this very mindset that means no parent will admit it, but the thought will manifest itself in other ways?
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Not surprising at all. Stupid people are allowed to breed with no restrictions.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,755
599
126
Originally posted by: cerebusPu
the only way to have ugly children is to have ugly parents.

What about retards? They're usually pretty ugly and attractive parents can make them just by drinking enough vodka during pregnancy.
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: cerebusPu
the only way to have ugly children is to have ugly parents.
Not true, there's often a large discrepancy. Further, first-borns tend to be less attractive, sorry to sound graphic but it's my theory that this is because the birth canal compresses the head/face more on the way out than for subsequent children, which it's more ready for & used to.