SJ—485
34–94–28
34–94–28
Isobel Humphrey et al.
28th November 2024
Humphrey, Isobel. 2024. ‘The Cute/Gross Continuum’. Journal of Art and Ecology, 3:1.
Keywords
neoteny, Kindchenschema, conservation, phenogrammetry, charismatic megafauna, selection pressure, aww, eww, yuck, supernormal, consumer aesthetics, cute, gross, yucky, freaky, Arthropoda, sweet, adorable, baby, bug, weirdo, Insecta, entomology, merchandisification
Related papers
Why Does My Baby Look Like That? A Cross-paper Study on Why Your Baby Looks Like That
World-building Through Rewilded Multitudes of More-Than-Human Porosity: A Somatic Entanglement of the Ways In Which
Though the categories and emotions of ‘cute’ and ‘gross’ appear frivolous and arbitrary to many, they are in fact arbiters of life or death. Children that are deemed cute face lower rates of neglect and abuse. Animals that are deemed cute receive more conservation efforts and donations. Insects are considered by many people in industrialised societies as abhorrent (Fukano and Soga, 2021). As scientists blow the whistle again and again on ‘insect armageddon’, radical new methods must be considered in order to save billions of lives from disgusted disregard; this Author proposes utilising cuteness to hijack human brains for insect ends.
Introduction
Scholar Hiroshi Nittono has written extensively on the subject of the ‘kawaii’, often translated simply as the Japanese word for ‘cute’. He examines how, thanks to a rich etymological lineage, ‘kawaii’ in fact envelops a number of evocations, and merits development as a ‘broader psychological concept’ that diverge from typical scholarly foci on physical infantile traits (Nittono, 2016). For Nittono, ‘kawaii as an emotion involves the wish to exist together with the object, rather than consume or conquer it’ (ibid) - a relating that, given their rapid population decline in the UK (Ball et al, 2022), Insecta would likely rejoice in receiving.
This paper discusses the rivalry and relationality between cuteness and disgust, and examines too how the instantaneous lure of cuteness might be utilised in waylaying the mortal danger insects (and, therefore, all soils, pollinated plants and the fauna who rely on these wider ecosystems, not least ourselves) are threated by in the Capitalocene. The Author here addresses ‘the insect’ in all its variously skittering, slimy, burrowing and flying forms, from the snail to the silverfish and the earthworm to the earwig. ‘Insect’ is used rather than ‘invertebrate’ as the general term throughout the paper due to the wider public’s greater familiarity with this word.
Though the categories and emotions of ‘cute’ and ‘gross’ appear frivolous and arbitrary to many, they are in fact arbiters of life or death. Children that are deemed cute face lower rates of neglect and abuse (Langlois et al, 1995). Animals that are deemed cute receive preferential conservation efforts and donations (Shaw et al, 2024). Insects are considered by many people in industrialised societies as almost universally pestilent (Fukano and Soga, 2021), with minimal redeeming qualities. They are widely thought to be, as Hage (2017, pp.50) might describe it, both useless (neither productive nor beautiful) and harmful - the lowest of the low. As scientists blow the whistle again and again on the ‘insect apocalypse’ (Goulson, 2019; Cardoso and Leather, 2019; Chinmayi et al, 2024) - mass extinction of these lives on a previously unseen scale - their cultural status as utterly abject means that few people care. It is often asserted that, in discussions of particular insect species, they would not be much missed were they wiped from the earth. This lack of understanding of and empathy for these small and complex lives compounds the disregard for ‘unattractive’ life inherent in this view.
Images show an ittybittlewittle sweetie cutiepie, and a small carnivorous mammal (left to right).
It’s relatively widely-known that the loss of bees alone would result in ‘major’ harmful ecosystem impacts (Petruzzello, 2019). The extent of ongoing insect mass extinction is somewhat opaque, as are its specific consequences - aside from their inevitable breadth and depth (Janicki et al, 2022). As leading invertebrate advocates have suggested, insect extinction is unthinkable not only for its effect on other species, but for the permanent loss of lives and lifeways which we’ve barely begun to understand (Goulson, 2019; Vanderstock et al, 2022; Scudder, 2017) . This paper will take for granted the wonder and adorability of insect life, because the Author considers it to be so, and considers also that the Reader may take the opportunity to practise said viewpoint here.
Proposed here is a trio of hypotheses;
H1. Despite their unpopular status, insects can qualify easily as cute even within current biologically limited parameters for what is cute;
H2. That absorbing insects into cute consumer culture through products in their image is not a sufficient solution to improve their safety or prospects.
H3. That, nevertheless, insects being seen as cute in themselves will physically protect them and save their lives. The speed with which cuteness works on the human brain, despite its infantilising potential, feels necessary given the mortal danger that insects are in.
It must be noted that cuteness is far from a perfect solution - it can dehumanise and remove agency, according to Harris (2001). But there is, too, a power it has over us - as wielded by otherwise-infuriating children (Barrett, 2010) and multi-billion-dollar corporation Sanrio (Roach, 1999) - meaning that cuteness is worth negotiating in order to save insect lives. With the disproportionate hold that humans have on planetary ecology, our alienation from them is their - and, eventually, our - armageddon.
H1: Despite their unpopular status, insects can qualify easily as cute even by our current biologically limited parameters for what is cute.
On their small scale, with their relatively big heads and eyes, many insects fulfil the physical criteria for Konrad Lorenz’s 1958 Kindchenschema or ‘baby schema’. Their delicate wings and miniscule moving parts correspond as well with Nittono’s translation of ‘kawaii’ as ‘small and beautiful’. Further, though insects are capable creatures, we must be careful around them so as not to crush them or disturb their lifeways; happily - and likely as a function of it - cuteness promotes careful behaviour (Nittono et al, 2012). Harris (2001) even writes of helplessness magnifying cuteness in a subject, such as a sleeping kitten.
Two species of fly - Paraclius and Sphaerophoria respectively. Their large eyes, large head, and lack of discernible hands or feet are in common with Lorenz’s baby schema.
High levels of disgust appear to negatively impact caring behaviour (Özkan et al, 2021). The baby schema and its cuteness has been described as ‘seemingly incompatible with disgust’ (Bruckdorfer and Büttner, 2022) - where the adorable baby schema can activate ‘approach motivation’ (ibid), objects of disgust ‘evoke a strong aversion’ (Lockwood, 2013, pp54), and insects are all-too-commonly (in this Author’s opinion) a modern object of disgust (Fukano and Soga, 2021). Cuteness and disgust affect a subject psychologically in the manner of push and pull. Despite their apparently antipodean natures, though, there are instances where this repulsion or attraction is less clear-cut.
It was suggested by notable scholar Konrad Lorenz that the 1900s ‘Kewpie doll’ ‘represented “the maximum possible exaggeration of the proportions… which our perception can tolerate”’ while still allowing us to experience ‘cuteness’ rather than aversion (Lorenz, 1981, via Barrett, 2010).
A Kewpie doll and an L.O.L. doll, respectively. The Kewpie design originated in the early 1900s, whereas the L.O.L. line was launched in 2016.
Contemporary doll-makers appear to have since ignored his statement: the popular L.O.L. Doll by MGAE exhibits eyes that dwarf those of the Kewpie, occupying approximately 57.2% - almost two thirds - of its face in comparison to the Kewpie’s roughly 27.2%. Figs. 5 and 6 demonstrate typical examples of the doll types described.
As a result, it might be gathered from this data that any perceived line between ‘cute’ and ‘gross’ is blurring, as the effort to make dolls ever cuter (and ever more purchasable) pushes even their cartoonish features into eerie distortion (Mori’s 1970 ‘uncanny valley’ concept springs to mind here). As Ngai writes, ‘attraction and repulsion lie very close together in cuteness’ (2014, pp92), and as stimuli in our society grow ‘supernormal’ in order to profit from human evolutionary instincts (Barrett, 2010), aesthetics like cuteness are pushed to their extreme. This Author would cite examples like L.O.L Dolls, as well as AI-generated ‘artwork’ following prompts to manufacture something ‘cute’. The cover illustration for the exhibition catalogue of Somerset House’s 2024 exhibition Cute deliberately epitomises saccharinity and is oddly off-putting as a result (see fig. 7). Such exaggeration pushes what ‘our perception can tolerate’ (Lorenz, 1980, via Barrett, 2010) as cute, bringing us back around from cuteness to disgust.
The front cover of the ‘cat-alogue’ accompanying art gallery Somerset House’s 2024 exhibition, Cute.
Figure 8.
A diagram with illustrative examples highlighting the complex interplay between and including extremes of the cute and the gross.
Further, in Jeffrey Lockwood’s evocatively titled The Infested Mind (2013), the author describes the ‘Janus-faced phenomenon of allure and repulsion’ (pp60) that may be felt when encountering something disturbing; the common example is the curiosity and craning necks exhibited by passers-by towards the aftermath of a car crash. Disgust has the ability to exert both a push and pull over a subject, activating both the approach and avoidance responses simultaneously. Cuteness is ‘a feature that we are genetically hard-wired to discern easily and react to automatically’ (Morreal, 1991, edited Ngai, 2022), much like disgust. In this way, the potential for overlap between the cute and the gross is made clear, and therefore too the potential for insects to become admired and adored.
It may be noted that this Author finds the face and features of the Kewpie doll more unnerving than those of the L.O.L., despite the latter’s outsized optical array; it’s possible that familiarity, in conjunction with more objective measures, contributes significantly as to whether a face is perceived as cute by a viewer. Previous studies have found that familiarisation and repeated exposure increases the ‘cuteness rating’ of babies exhibiting neonatal facial malformations (Hunt et al, 2023). Studies have found too that familiarity with an animal species renders ‘beautified’ images of those animals uncanny (Shaw et al, 2024). This data indicates that increased exposure to insects will increase the viewer’s likelihood to perceive them as cute, and so something to admire and care for. It might be construed as an argument for spending more time in the company of members of the class Insecta.
Laid out here are a range of studies and sources that seem ultimately to highlight the malleability of our perception of stimuli as cute or gross. Human neoteny manifests, according to Steven Jay Gould (1977), in our persistent ability to learn, regardless of our age. He writes that, ‘We are preeminently learning animals, and our extended childhood permits the transference of culture by education’ (ibid). As a result of human neoteny - humanity’s cute traits - the ability to learn, and expand our parameters for cute, may be greatly beneficial to the continued diverse existence of insects on our planet. If humans are able to see insects anew, and pass this perception down to younger generations, the lives of Insecta may yet be ensured.
H2: That absorbing insects into cute consumer culture through products in their image is not a sufficient solution to improve their safety or prospects.
Case Study
Notable toys bearing the ambition or imperative to cute-ify insects include Hasbro’s Littlest Pet Shop (LPS) range. Following the apparent ongoing trend for toys marketed towards young girls, they seem especially engineered for maximum eyeball surface area. The small plastic LPS figures appear in a wide range of taxa.
Insects represent roughly three fourths of all described species on the planet (Wigglesworth, 2024), and yet, of the 204 7th generation LPS, less than 1% of those 204 are insect-based. A preference towards domesticated animals has been observed in Western children, alongside the finding that ‘invertebrates were the most disliked group of species’ (Borgi and Cirulli, 2015), and so it’s understandable that a product designed to sell to children would play to this cultural bias. The profit imperative appears here to hinder potential to encourage familiarity with insects in children.
Existing surveys on LPS populations have here been aggregated in order to display data regarding each genus (e.g. Dogs, Cats, etc). The findings of one study on Gens. 1 - 3 inclusive have been adapted here into bar chart form, visible in Fig. 10.
NB: Language used within the population surveys has been adapted here into common research parlance for ease of reading, where:
‘Colourway’ = Phenotype
‘Mould’ = Species*
‘Category’ = Genus
*’Species’ here will refer equally to breed (ex. of Dog), and to members of the same genus differentiated by morphology as opposed to phenotype.
Figure 9.
Phenogram illustrating the different categories used to discuss LPS. It can be seen that the ‘genus’ encompasses the many animal types available, while ’species’ narrows the focus to one specific category of animal (in this instance, Insects), and this specifies one further time into ‘phenotype’, or the colourway variants of one specific species. Here, the different phenotypes of Ladybird 1 are displayed.
Figure 10.
A bar chart comparing the numbers of species made available within each genus of LPS, as reported in ToySisters’ seminal population survey.
Observation of Fig. 10 makes evident not only the already relatively low numbers of Insect species, but of Insects’ notable decrease in number over the generations and a lack of bounceback.
It may be noted that species variation within a genus is an imperfect measure of population, as each species variation encompasses its own range of phenotypes, numbers of which can vary widely (see Gen.2’s Beagle 1 having only 12 phenotypes but being one of 70 available Dog species within the Generation, versus Butterfly 1’s 31 phenotypes within only 21 available Insect species within the same Gen.2).
Littlest Pet Shop Insects aren’t necessarily any more distorted than their various other animal compatriots. All display the same engorged head and eyes, tiny body and limbs, and flattened facial features. Despite what was presumably the valiant attempts of the LPS design team to distort the insect form into something more classically lovable, though, the genus appears not to have been a priority of purchasers. The LPS Insect genus is the only one to have faced decline in production numbers from Gen. 2 to 3 to 4 without recovery. From this, it might be inferred that they were not considered sufficiently profitable to continue producing - the toys were insufficiently desirable to meet the selection pressure of cuteness.
Cute is helpless and wants protecting; in this way, the strategy to render endangered animals as super-cute seems apt. However, this Author has struggled to uncover studies attesting to the veracity of toys and merchandise in aiding species survival beyond that of the US Black bear and the teddy bear (USGS, 2014) - a relationship of over a hundred years - and the recent influx of honeybee merchandise (Humphrey, 2024 (1)) with an increase in US domestic honeybee populations (USDA, 2022), where such a result is not necessarily beneficial to biodiversity.
Here lies a paradox of the cuteness conundrum - that there can easily be abundance of products, but not of the lifeform replicated in those products. Indeed, Courchamp et al (2014) writes of a ‘virtual population’, where people see frequent representations of animals in consumer life and so consider their populations to be higher than reality indicates. But bee t-shirts will not pollinate the trees. Tiger toys will not maintain antelope population. These objects will not know and create the lifeways and mysteries of their species, perpetuating the complexities of our ecosystems; they will sit cold on a playroom shelf.
This Author wishes to make clear that the call here is for appreciation of cuteness inherent but unobserved in preexisting living insects, and would caution against the merchandisification (Humphrey, 2024 (1)) of the insect. While charismatic megafauna are compelling enough to be rendered in polyester with few anatomical tweaks, toy insects will need rather more trial and ‘improvement’ to be considered as cute. The extended periods required for product development involve time that insects do not possess in the unfolding moment of Mass Extinction. The urgency of their population decline requires more radical action.
H3. That insects being seen as cute in themselves will physically protect them and save their lives. The speed with which cuteness works on the human brain, despite its infantilising potential, feels necessary given the mortal danger that insects are in.
Sianne Ngai (2012) writes how ‘cuteness is an aesthetic oriented towards commodities’ (pp4), and as a ‘commodity aesthetic’ (pp1), it ‘seems to insist on getting something from us (care, affection, intimacy) that we in turn feel compelled to give’ (pp98). So, though understanding insects as cute commodifies them and thus restricts their agency, it also enables a compulsion for care as opposed to the current compulsion to revulsion.
Critical to note is that this paper hypothesises the utilisation of cuteness specifically as an emergency measure. Barrett (2010, pp55) describes cuteness’s ability to preserve life, even saving prey from a predator: One instance observed by a National Geographic team saw a leopard kill a baboon and begin to eat it. The leopard then noticed the nearby, now-orphaned baby baboon, which opened its arms and unsteadily approached the leopard. Rather than taking the easy prey, as the team had expected, the leopard ‘nestled’ with the baby in a tree, defending it from hyenas and grooming it to keep it warm. The power of cuteness appears to be able to override the predator instinct. Might it not override our similar instinct to squash, scream, stamp?
Figure 11.
An illustration showing the character design changes made to the Disney character Mickey Mouse across the decades of his existence. Image from Gould, 1977.
Gould’s well-known article on Mickey Mouse ‘testifies to the power of biological cuteness as an evolutionary strategy’ (1977); the character’s appearance has ‘evolved’ over time, with gradual changes in design to appear cuter through increasingly neotenous traits.
Further, Barrett (2010, pp.70) cites The Evolution of the Teddy Bear (Hinde, Barden, 1985), an article which, as mentioned earlier, observes the increasingly neotenous features of the child’s toy over the decades. These case studies both indicate a trend in animal-based consumer products towards increased cuteness. It might be inferred that the designers of these products wield cuteness in order to maintain cultural relevance, and that consumers are the ‘selecting pressure’ for this as they are more likely to purchase cuter-looking goods (Morris et al, 1995, pp.1699). Harris (2001, pp.9) opines that constructed cuteness especially is driven by adult interests rather than those of children. Barrett’s argument here links to Niko Tinbergen’s conceptualisation of ‘supernormal stimuli’ - essentially the idea that ‘the exaggerated imitation can exert a stronger pull than the real thing’ (Barrett, 2010). In this way, there is an evolution towards increased cuteness for continued survival. If cuteness means survival, then inclusion of insects in our schema of cute appears ever more pressing.
Discussion
The ‘cute-gross continuum’ of this paper’s title appears rather more complex and intertwined than is commonly imagined. Both the cute and the gross activate approach and avoidance responses, to varying extents. Insects already exhibit a variety of morphological traits that correspond with Lorenz’s Kindenschema. To include insects in our schema of ‘cute’ is therefore no great ideological leap; indeed, they may partially exist within it already. Changing such a perspective is also individual work that each person can do while waiting for company and government policy to catch up.
However, producing cutified versions of the insect is counterproductive to the goal of conserving and proliferating living insects that participate in ecosystems and in our world. Therefore, it is imperative that it is the schema that is expanded, rather than the planet’s number of small immobile toys. Further, although cutifying is detrimental to a life’s agency, this appears preferable to devastating species loss and extinction. Agency can be restored; lives can not. And it must be emphasised that it is plant lives, human lives, fungal lives, animal lives, which hang on the continued existence of these invertebrates who shape our world.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by the excellent colleagues on the MA Art and Ecology course, and to its brilliant tutors, Dr Ros Gray and Dr Jol Thoms. This Author is extremely grateful for their attention, support, and sparkle throughout the last year and a half.
Funding
This study did not receive any funding to disclose. If you wish to fund a conflict of interest, please reach out to the paper’s Author.
Bakar, F. (2019). Potato the cat is known for his huge eyes on social media. [online] Metro. Available at: https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/11/please-enjoy-delightful-pictures-of-this-cat-with-huge-eyes-11077474/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2024].
Bernardini, M. (2007). Rats! [online] Flickr. Available at: https://shorturl.at/NxUmP [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Cost, B. (2019). Cat with Bulging Googly Eyes Becomes an Internet Sensation. [online] New York Post. Available at: https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/cat-with-bulging-googly-eyes-becomes-an-internet-sensation/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2024].
FAD Magazine (2023). Ram Han Save Our Souls 02. [online] FAD Magazine. Available at: https://shorturl.at/bU3Gc [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Fanpop, I. (2019). Despicable Me Minions Wallpaper: Minions. [online] Fanpop.com. Available at: https://nl.fanpop.com/clubs/despicable-me-minions/images/38654508/title/minions-wallpaper [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Gould, S.J. (2008). A Biological Homage to Mickey Mouse. Ecotone, 4(1-2), pp.333–340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/ect.2008.0045.
Hort, J. and F. (2015). Flies on a Leaf. [online] Flickr. Available at: https://shorturl.at/Tl3dm [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
Mustain, A. and Price, L. (2011). Creepy Crawlies & Flying Wonders: Incredible Cave Creatures. [online] livescience.com. Available at: https://www.livescience.com/30361-caves-fauna-creatures-southeast-asia.html [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Nicolucci, D. (2011). What Big Eyes You Have! [online] Flickr. Available at: https://shorturl.at/rugLc [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
Riordan, B. (2009). Pink. [online] Flickr. Available at: https://shorturl.at/H8wbb [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Somerset House (2024). Cute Cat-alogue. [online] Somerset House Shop. Available at: https://www.somersethouseshop.com/products/cute-exhibition-catalogue [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Suzor, N. (2008). Kittens! [online] Flickr. Available at: https://shorturl.at/dJ0B3 [Accessed 24 Nov. 2024].
Tomlinson, B. (2014). Ladybird. [online] Flickr. Available at: https://shorturl.at/04yUh [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Walmart (2021). LOL Surprise Big B.B. (Big Baby) Bon Bon – 11" Large Doll. [online] Walmart.com. Available at: https://shorturl.at/Jm2UM [Accessed 29 Oct. 2024].
Wright, J. (2022). Tarsier vs Aye-Aye: What’s their Difference? [online] A-Z Animals. Available at: https://a-z-animals.com/blog/tarsier-vs-aye-aye-whats-their-difference/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Yokoyama, M. (2010). Mosquito Larvae. [online] Flickr. Available at: https://shorturl.at/SHw96 [Accessed 25 Nov. 2024].
Ball, L., Still, R., Riggs, A., Skilbeck, A., Shardlow, M., Whitehouse, A. and Tinsley-Marshall, P. (2022). The Bugs Matter Citizen Science Survey. [online] Available at: https://cdn.buglife.org.uk/2022/05/Bugs-Matter-2021-National-Report.pdf.
Barrett, D. (2010). Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. W. W. Norton & Company.
Barrett, L.F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A.M. and Pollak, S.D. (2019). Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, [online] 20(1), pp.1–68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930.
Bonnah, T. (2018). Kimo-kawaii Catharsis: Millennials, Depression and the Empty Healing of Sanrio’s Gudetama. Japan Forum, [online] 31(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080//09555803.2018.1441170.
Borgi, M. and Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward Animals among Kindergarten Children: Species Preferences. Anthrozoös, [online] 28(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.2752//089279315X14129350721939.
Bruckdorfer, R.E. and Büttner, O.B. (2022). When creepy crawlies are cute as bugs: Investigating the effects of (cute) packaging design in the context of edible insects. Food Quality and Preference, [online] 100, pp.104597–104597. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104597.
Cardoso, P. and Leather, S.R. (2019). Predicting a global insect apocalypse. Insect Conservation and Diversity, [online] 12(4), pp.263–267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12367.
Chinmayi, S., Sandeep, V. and Chiranth, M.P. (2024). The Insect Apocalypse: Why Losing Insects Means Losing Biodiversity. Vigyan Varta, [online] 5(11), p.11. Available at: https://vigyanvarta.in/adminpanel/upload_doc/VV_1124_04.pdf [Accessed 21 Nov. 2024].
Courchamp, F., Jaric, I., Albert, C., Meinard, Y., Ripple, W.J. and Chapron, G. (2018). The Paradoxical Extinction of the Most Charismatic Animals. PLOS Biology, [online] 16(4), p.e2003997. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997.
Czech, B., Krausman, P.R. and Borkhataria, R. (1998). Social Construction, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species. Conservation Biology, [online] 12(5), pp.1103–1112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.97253.x.
Fabio, Noack, P., Hauck, T.E. and Weisser, W.W. (2023). The Relationship between Knowing and Liking for 91 Urban Animal Species among Students. Animals, [online] 13(3), pp.488–488. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030488.
Fagan, P. (2016). Hooked. Pearson UK.
Fukano, Y. and Soga, M. (2021). Why do so many modern people hate insects? The urbanization–disgust hypothesis. Science of The Total Environment, [online] 777, p.146229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146229.
Glocker, M.L., Langleben, D.D., Kosha Ruparel, Loughead, J.W., Gur, R.C. and Sachser, N. (2009). Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults. Ethology, [online] 115(3), pp.257–263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x.
Gould, S.J. (2008). A Biological Homage to Mickey Mouse. Ecotone, 4(1-2), pp.333–340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/ect.2008.0045.
Goulson, D. (2019). The insect apocalypse, and why it matters. Current Biology, [online] 29(19), pp.R967–R971. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.06.069.
Hage, G. (2017). Is Racism An Environmental Threat? Polity Press.
Harris, D. (2000). Cute, Quaint, Hungry and Romantic: the Aesthetics of Consumerism. Da Capo Press.
Hiroshi Nittono (2016). The two-layer model of ‘kawaii’: A behavioural science framework for understanding kawaii and cuteness. East Asian Journal of Popular Culture, [online] 2(1), pp.79–95. doi:https://doi.org/10.1386/eapc.2.1.79_1.
Hiroshi Nittono, Fukushima, M., Yano, A. and Moriya, H. (2012). The Power of Kawaii: Viewing Cute Images Promotes a Careful Behavior and Narrows Attentional Focus. PLoS ONE, [online] 7(9), pp.e46362–e46362. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046362.
Humphrey, I. (2024). Man’s Attention to Ecology Creates Monoculture; What Might Ecological Art Do About It?.
Hunt, B.W., Rayson, H., Bannard, C. and De Pascalis, L. (2023). In the mind of the beholder: The effects of familiarisation on the perception of atypical infant facial configurations. PLOS ONE, [online] 18(7), p.e0289057. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289057.
Janicki, J. (2022). The collapse of insects. [online] Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GLOBAL-ENVIRONMENT/INSECT-APOCALYPSE/egpbykdxjvq/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
Jansen, C. (2024). The Power of ‘Cute’ in Contemporary Art | Artsy. [online] Artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-power-cute-contemporary-art [Accessed 25 Oct. 2024].
Lawton, G. (2023). When nature gives people the ‘ick’. [online] archive.ph. Available at: https://archive.ph/YXX41 [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
Magazine, S. (2017). When It Comes to Conservation, Are Ugly Animals a Lost Cause? [online] Smithsonian Magazine. Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-ugly-animals-lost-cause-180963807/ [Accessed 7 Nov. 2024].
Miesler, L., Leder, H. and Herrmann, A. (2011). Isn’t It Cute: An Evolutionary Perspective of Baby-Schema Effects in Visual Product Designs. International Journal of Design, [online] 5(3). Available at: https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1023/363 [Accessed 25 Oct. 2024].
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. and Norri Kageki (2012). The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, [online] 19(2), pp.98–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2012.2192811.
Ngai, S. (2015). Our Aesthetic Categories. Harvard University Press. Harvard University Press.
Petruzzello, M. (2024). What Would Happen If All the Bees Died? [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/story/what-would-happen-if-all-the-bees-died [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
Pitt, D.B. and Shockley, M. (2014). Don’t Fear the Creeper: Do Entomology Outreach Events Influence How the Public Perceives and Values Insects and Arachnids? American Entomologist, [online] 60(2), pp.97–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/60.2.97.
Raymond, M. (2019). All in Bad Taste - The Metropolitan Museum of Art. [online] Metmuseum.org. Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/perspectives/kitsch [Accessed 25 Oct. 2024].
Roach, M. (1999). Cute Inc. [online] WIRED. Available at: https://www.wired.com/1999/12/cute/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
Saylor, H. (2009). Edgycute : from Neo Pop to Low Brow and Back Again. New York: Mark Batty ; London.
Scudder, G. (2017). The Importance of Insects. [online] Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society, John Wiley & Sons, pp.9–43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118945568.ch2.
Semuels, A. (2018). The Atlantic. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/11/lol-surprise-dolls-and-mystery-toys/576970/ [Accessed 25 Oct. 2024].
Shaw, M., Dunn, M., Crowley, S., Owen, N. and Veríssimo , D. (2024). Using Photo Editing to Understand the Impact of Species Aesthetics on Support for Conservation. People and Nature, [online] 6(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10602.
Souther, S.K., Sandor, M.E., Sample, M., Gabrielson, S. and Aslan, C.E. (2024). Bee and Butterfly Records Indicate Diversity Losses in Western and Southern North America, but Extensive Knowledge Gaps Remain. PloS one, 19(5), pp.e0289742–e0289742. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289742.
Toy Sisters (2023). G3 Littlest Pet Shop by Mold. [online] Toy Sisters. Available at: https://www.toysisters.com/toy-guides/littlest-pet-shop/g3-littlest-pet-shop-by-mold/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
TY (n.d.). Cute Science: Stuffed Animals & Big Eyes. [online] Ty.com. Available at: https://shop.ty.com/bigeyes.html?lang=en&parents=tyblogs [Accessed 25 Oct. 2024].
United States Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural Statistics Service (2024). 2022 Census of Agriculture. [online] United States: United States Department of Agriculture. Available at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf [Accessed 23 Nov. 2024].
USGS Communications and Publishing (2014). ‘Teddy Bear’ Unlikely to Go Extinct. [online] usgs.gov. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/teddy-bear-unlikely-go-extinct [Accessed 27 Nov. 2024].
Wigglesworth, V.B. (1999). Insect | Definition, Characteristics, Types, Beneficial, Pest, Classification, & Facts. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/animal/insect [Accessed 18 Nov. 2024].
Wikipedia contributers (2006). Littlest Pet Shop. [online] Wikipedia.org. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlest_Pet_Shop [Accessed 4 Nov. 2024].