What Even Is Cuteness?

Have you ever seen something so cute you want to squeeze it? Maybe it was a puppy or kitten, or perhaps a teddy bear or doll. You may wonder why you feel this way – after all, it seems rather strange to mimic violence against something endearing. What makes cute things just so emotionally powerful, and what makes them cute in the first place?

 

Cuteness as Affect

In an article by the University of Oxford, Associate Professor Morten Kringelbach explains that cute things draw in our senses, attract our attention and spark rapid brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex – a region associated with emotion in pleasure. In fact, the presence of something cute (in the case of this research article, a baby’s face) can activate the orbitofrontal cortex in 140 ms, or just under a seventh of a second (Kringelbach, 2016). Cuteness overloads the emotional state of the brain, drawing in mental attention and the five senses.

The feeling of cuteness, what researchers call its “affect,” has very interesting roots. From a biological perspective, an emotional response to cuteness may be derived from an evolutionary need to protect babies from harm. As Dr. Kringelbach explains, the evolved instinct to protect and care for babies may drive our wider perceptions of cuteness. Humans tend to express affection not only for babies and small children, but also for animals with baby-like features, and even dolls, teddy-bears, and miniature objects. These animals and objects trigger similar evolutionary protective desires – as well as a drawing in of attention and a general increase in emotional pleasure.

If cuteness is an evolutionary instinct to care and protect, why do we feel “cuteness aggression” – the “urge to squeeze or bite cute things” without causing harm (Alba and Stavropoulos, 2018)? Researchers at the University of California, Riverside, took on this challenge and made some interesting findings. Summarizing greatly, cuteness aggression was found to be an evolutionary response to the overwhelming emotions of experiencing cuteness (Alba and Stavropoulos, 2018). Evolutionarily, it would be less than ideal if early humans were “incapacitated” with emotion (as the researchers put it) in the presence of cuteness, and thus experienced a counter-emotion (scientifically called a “dimorphous expression” – when human action expresses the opposite feeling as to what they feel, like laughing when you cry). In the case of overwhelming cuteness, this dimorphous expression of playful harm held an evolutionary role to stop early humans from being too affected by cuteness.

 

Cuteness as Aesthetic

While this simple definition of cuteness – an evolutionary instinct to care for and be emotionally attached to babies (and by extension, baby-like animals and objects) – contains an incomplete and shallow understanding of how cuteness exists as a concept in society. As Joshua Paul Dale writes in his academic publication, The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness, “cuteness occupies both the aesthetic and affective realms” – and the modern extent of research places extensive focus on the affective side and avoids discussing the aesthetic. Note that in this usage, Dale does not mean aesthetic to mean cottage-core or punk – instead, the word is used within its sociological background, to understand how cuteness exists in the modern world.

Dale writes that the emotional response of cuteness is “manipulated for a variety of purposes” – including commercial, artistic, and social (Dale, 2016). The feeling of cuteness is emotionally powerful, and for that reason, is manipulated (malevolently and selfishly at times, yes, but also largely in acts of self-expression) to produce action. As Dr. Kringelbach discovered in her article for the University of Oxford, cuteness invites such powerful emotions that it drives the subject to action, causing them to put in work to continue to be able to receive and engage with the source (Kringelbach, 2016). Socially, cuteness has further effect than its core, biological and evolutionary response. In the modern world, cuteness causes the subject “catharsis” (as Dale writes) that fosters a need to protect a vulnerable object from harm (Dale, 2016). This effect of cuteness links it to vulnerability, a link that Dale dives into (in more depth than is relevant for this article) to understand the connections between violence and cuteness. Remember that cute thing you wanted to squeeze? The association between cuteness and vulnerability may be why. As Dale writes, cuteness is disarming and tender, but also “involves a cognitive reaction in which the power differential between subject and object comes into play” (Dale, 2016). Cuteness is, in many ways, an expression of a power dynamic.

So… what is cuteness? There’s the affective component: baby-like things trigger a biological response that draws attention and fosters feelings of care, and there’s the aesthetic component: cuteness is linked with vulnerability, intensity of emotion, and power dynamics, defining its socially constructed half. Together, these components create the feeling of cuteness that we understand today. It’s youthful, tender, disarming, attention-grabbing, and (in large part, but not entirely) biological.

 

References

Dale, J. P. (2016). The Appeal of the Cute Object: Desire, Domestication, and Agency. In The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness (1st ed., pp. 35–55). essay, Taylor & Francis Group.

Kringelbach, M. L. (2016). How cute things hijack our brains and drive behaviour University of Oxford. How cute things hijack our brains and drive behaviour. https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/how-cute-things-hijack-our-brains-and-drive-behaviour

Stavropoulos, K. K., & Alba, L. A. (2018). “It’s so cute I could crush it!”: Understanding neural mechanisms of cute aggression. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00300

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.