Did Teddy Bears Culturally Evolve to Be Cuter? A Preregistered Replication
Abstract This pre-registered replication study explores the impact of perceived cuteness on the evolution of cultural artifacts, testing whether neotenic traits – eye size, forehead height, and head roundness – have increased in teddy bears over time. In previous research, Hinde & Barden (1980) found an increase in teddy bear neoteny while Gould (1985) found that Mickey Mouse’s features became more neotenic with time. However, both studies lacked statistical power (15 teddy bears and 3 Mickey Mouse drawings). We collected data from eight major teddy bear manufacturers over nine decades (N = 250; 1900–1980). We found that the forehead height of teddy bears significantly increased over time. Conversely, our prediction that heads became rounder and eyes became bigger were not supported. We outline four key methodological limitations that future research should address to deepen our understanding of the cultural evolution of cuteness and of cultural artifacts more broadly – i.e., sampling bias, metadata inaccuracy, categorization ambiguity, and function ambiguity.
Authors
- Tim Sandhu (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-0142)
- Hossein Samani
- Edgar Dubourg (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2162-6526)
- Olivier Morin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6216-1307)
- E. Fuchs
- Quentin Borredon (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1629-9508)
- Sammy Penel
- Nina Ryszefld
- Aure Timsit
- Janne Yrjö-Koskinen
- Zeynep Bulamac
- Camélia Crozat
- Emmanuel Dayre
- Marie Hallo
- Lou Kerzreho
- Pauline Lavagne d’Ortigue
- Theodore Lellouche
Institutions
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (FR)
- Institut Jean Nicod (FR)
- École des hautes études en sciences sociales (FR)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Cognition and Culture
- Published
- 2025-02-12
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340203
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 3.63