Facial Expressivity at 4 Months: A Context by Expression Analysis

Abstract

The specificity predicted by differential emotions theory (DET) for early facial expressions in response to 5 different eliciting situations was studied in a sample of 4-month-old infants (n = 150). Infants were videotaped during tickle, sour taste, jack-in-the-box, arm restraint, and maskedstranger situations and their expressions were coded second by second. Infants showed a variety of facial expressions in each situation; however, more infants exhibited positive (joy and surprise) than negative expressions (anger, disgust, fear, and sadness) across all situations except sour taste. Consistent with DET-predicted specificity, joy expressions were the most common in response to tickling, and were less common in response to other situations. Surprise expressions were the most common in response to the jack-in-the-box, as predicted, but also were the most common in response to the arm restraint and masked-stranger situations, indicating a lack of specificity. No evidence of predicted specificity was found for anger, disgust, fear, and sadness expressions. Evidence of individual differences in expressivity within situations, as well as stability in the pattern across situations, underscores the need to examine both child and contextual factors in studying emotional development. The results provide little support for the DET postulate of situational specificity and suggest that a synthesis of differential emotions and dynamic systems theories of emotional expression should be considered.Researchers use many tasks to elicit facial expressions in infants, including tickling, arm restraint, aversive-tasting substances, and presentation of a jack-in-the-box or a masked stranger (Bendersky, Alessandri, & Lewis, 1996;Braungart-Rieker & Stifter, 1996;Fox & Davidson, 1986;Ganchrow, Steiner, & Daher, 1983;Kochanska, Coy, Tjebkes, & Husarek, 1998;Rosenstein & Oster, 1988;Scarr & Salapatek, 1970;Skarin, 1977;Sroufe & Wunsch, 1972;Steiner, 1979). Infants' responses to these distinct contexts serve as a critical source of evidence for the presence of emotions during the first few months of life. Little research, however, has systematically documented the variety of facial expressions young infants exhibit in response to such a diverse set of situations.Studying facial expressivity in response to varied stimuli may have important implications for emotion theory. Are there relatively unique sets of facial expressions for a given context or situation, or are the same expressions present across situations but perhaps serving different functions (e.g., smiling can be exhibited in the service of pleasure, embarrassment, or fear and submission; Lewis & Michalson, 1983)? To strengthen inferences about the meaning of particular facial expressions at early ages, it is crucial to observe the full range of contexts in which infants produce the expressions (Camras, Malatesta, & Izard, 1991 addition, the study of emotional expressions without attention to context may result in misinterpreting the meaning or function of such expression...

Do Infants Show Distinct Negative Facial Expressions for Fear and Anger? Emotional Expression in 11‐Month‐Old European American, Chinese, and Japanese Infants

“…Like Stenberg and Campos (1990), we found that MAX-specified anger expressions were the most common brow-mouth configuration produced during arm restraint. Like Bennett et al (2002) in their study of 4-month-old infants, we found that this was also the most common negative brow-mouth configuration produced in response to a fear elicitor. Our results differ only slightly from Bennett et al's (2005) findings for older infants.…”

Children's recognition of disgust in others.

“…According to one set of theories, the full set of emotion concepts is built up slowly through a process of differentiation (e.g., Bennett et al, 2002;Bridges, 1930;Fischer, 1980;Widen & Russell, 2003, 2008a, 2008b. By "differentiation," we mean that the child initially conceptualizes emotions in terms of very broad categories and then subdivides each category until eventually the full adult taxonomy is reached.…”

Infant Expressions in an Approach/Withdrawal Framework

“…There is evidence of decrease of mixed expressions and less intense expressions with age in response to at least some contexts (Bennett, Bendersky, & Lewis, 2002, 2005; Izard & Abe, 2004). Negative expressions and/or components associated with putative anger, sadness and fear have shown the least evidence of specificity although the number of contexts studied is still limited (Bennett et al, 2002, 2004). There is only limited evidence for correspondence between specific negative emotion states and specific contexts; for example, anger to contingency blockage reliably elicits anger expressions in most infants (Sullivan and Lewis, 2003).…”

“…Although morphologically stable from 3 months of age (Izard, 1995, 1997), infant facial expressions are often fleeting. Infants also often show mixed expressions and some expressions unique to infancy in addition to full face configurations to specific eliciting contexts (Bennett, Bendersky, & Lewis, 2002; Matais & Cohen, 1993). There is evidence of decrease of mixed expressions and less intense expressions with age in response to at least some contexts (Bennett, Bendersky, & Lewis, 2002, 2005; Izard & Abe, 2004).…”

“…Infants also often show mixed expressions and some expressions unique to infancy in addition to full face configurations to specific eliciting contexts (Bennett, Bendersky, & Lewis, 2002; Matais & Cohen, 1993). There is evidence of decrease of mixed expressions and less intense expressions with age in response to at least some contexts (Bennett, Bendersky, & Lewis, 2002, 2005; Izard & Abe, 2004). Negative expressions and/or components associated with putative anger, sadness and fear have shown the least evidence of specificity although the number of contexts studied is still limited (Bennett et al, 2002, 2004).…”