Babies Think Large Means Dominant

Recent research shows that even infants have a bias to think that big means alpha. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


We think of large as dominant. If it’s big, it’s alpha. And this attitude
seems learned. Because over and over, we see big crushing small.

But new research suggests we are born with this bias toward big.
Scientists had infants—between 10 and 16 months—watch videos
of a large and small box with eyes and a mouth bouncing across a
stage towards each other. Each time the boxes came face to face,
the small box would either move aside to let the large box pass, or
the larger one would allow the smaller box to pass.

Infants tend to stare longer at events that surprise them compared
with what they expect. And when the smaller box caved in to the
larger box the babies’ gaze lingered for about 12 seconds. But when
the larger box allowed the small one to pass by, their gaze lasted
about two-thirds longer. The study appears in the journal Science.

Past studies have shown that babies are also able to remember
whether certain people have helped or hindered others. In light of
the new work, if a baby sees a big man act like a gentleman, it might
make a longlasting impression.

—Christie Nicholson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe