Cited by 19Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFace Recognition and PerceptionChild and Animal Learning Development

Five-year-old children show cooperative preferences for faces with white sclera

Open access
Wolf, Wouter, Thielhelm, Julia, Tomasello, Michael·2023·Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Abstract

The cooperative eye hypothesis posits that human eye morphology evolved to facilitate cooperation. Although it is known that young children prefer stimuli with eyes that contain white sclera, it is unknown whether white sclera influences children's perception of a partner's cooperativeness specifically. In the current studies, we used an online methodology to present 5-year-old children with moving three-dimensional face models in which facial morphology was manipulated. Children found "alien" faces with human eyes more cooperative than faces with dark sclera (Study 2) but not faces with enlarged irises (Study 1). For more human-like faces (Study 3), children found human eyes more cooperative than either enlarged irises or dark sclera and found faces with enlarged irises cuter (but not more cooperative) than eyes with dark sclera. Together, these results provide strong support for the cooperative eye hypothesis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105532

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Baldwin, D. A. (1995). Understanding the link between joint attention and language. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 131-158).
  2. Eilan, N. (2005). Joint attention, communication and mind. In N. Eilan, C. Hoerl, T. McCormack, & J. Roessler (Eds.), Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology (Consciousness and Self-Consciousness Series (pp. 1-34).
  3. Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolf, W., Thielhelm, J., & Tomasello, M.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Wolf, Wouter
Venue
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-01
Volume
225
Pages
105532
ISSN
0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4292682883
Cited by
19
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Duke University
  • Jacobs Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
eye morphology, cooperation, facial attractiveness, cuteness, evolution of cooperation
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Cooperative Behavior, Eye Movements, Humans, Sclera

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review