Darwin’s Duchenne: Eye Constriction during Infant Joy and Distress

Abstract

Darwin proposed that smiles with eye constriction (Duchenne smiles) index strong positive emotion in infants, while cry-faces with eye constriction index strong negative emotion. Research has supported Darwin’s proposal with respect to smiling, but there has been little parallel research on cry-faces (open-mouth expressions with lateral lip stretching). To investigate the possibility that eye constriction indexes the affective intensity of positive and negative emotions, we first conducted the Face-to-Face/Still-Face (FFSF) procedure at 6 months. In the FFSF, three minutes of naturalistic infant-parent play interaction (which elicits more smiles than cry-faces) are followed by two minutes in which the parent holds an unresponsive still-face (which elicits more cry-faces than smiles). Consistent with Darwin’s proposal, eye constriction was associated with stronger smiling and with stronger cry-faces. In addition, the proportion of smiles with eye constriction was higher during the positive-emotion eliciting play episode than during the still-face. In parallel, the proportion of cry-faces with eye constriction was higher during the negative-emotion eliciting still-face than during play. These results are consonant with the hypothesis that eye constriction indexes the affective intensity of both positive and negative facial configurations. A preponderance of eye constriction during cry-faces was observed in a second elicitor of intense negative emotion, vaccination injections, at both 6 and 12 months of age. The results support the existence of a Duchenne distress expression that parallels the more well-known Duchenne smile. This suggests that eye constriction–the Duchenne marker–has a systematic association with early facial expressions of intense negative and positive emotion.

Facial Expressiveness in Infants With and Without Craniofacial Microsomia

“…Because action units are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, nearly all possible facial expressions can be precisely and unambiguously identified in relation to combinations and sequences of its constituent actions. Baby FACS validity has been demonstrated by its cross-cultural invariance and ability to distinguish responses to different emotion elicitors (Rosenstein and Oster;Camras et al, 2003;Oster, 2003, 2005, Bolzani Dinehart et al, 2005Mattson et al, 2013). Importantly, Oster et al have shown that the facial expressions of infants with craniofacial anomalies can be reliably coded with Baby FACS (Oster, 2003).…”

Head Movement Dynamics during Play and Perturbed Mother-Infant Interaction

“…As noted above, the Still-Face paradigm is one of the most well-validated procedures for inducing positive and negative affect in mothers and infants [39], [38]. During the Play episode, mother and infant positive affect and joint attention are frequent; during the Still Face episode infant positive affect and attention to the mother decrease and infant negative affect increases relative to Play.…”

Thrill of victory or agony of defeat? Perceivers fail to utilize information in facial movements.

“…Previous research indicates that eye constriction (AU6; the Duchenne marker) and mouth opening (AU27) each index the intensity of both positive and negative infant facial expressions (Fogel et al, 2000; Fox & Davidson, 1988; Mattson et al, 2013; Messinger, 2002; Messinger et al, 2008; Messinger & Fogel, 2007; Messinger et al, 2001; Messinger et al, 2012). In adults, eye constriction (AU6) and mouth opening (AU27) are characteristic—although not requisite—in facial expressions of joyful positive affect (Ambadar et al, 2009), affectively negative pain expressions (Williams, 2002), and other extreme expressions such as those associated with orgasm (Fernández-Dols et al, 2011).…”