Infant responses to direction of parental gaze: A comparison of two still-face conditions

Delgado, Christine E. F.; Messinger, Daniel S.; Yale, Marygrace E.

doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(02)00096-6

Cited by 43 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study also extends the finding of Delgado et al (2002) by testing infants at younger and older ages and providing a salient reason for the break of dyadic contact. Overall, results showed that infants across all ages manifested a still-face effect.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…It is necessary to test older infants to establish whether they respond the same way and to test infants in a condition in which there is a more evident reason contact is broken. In Delgado, Messinger, and Yale's (2002) study, infants were not aware of the reason the social partner was looking away from them. The stillfaced partner looked at a picture that was located behind and above the infants' head, and presumably infants did not gaze behind them to determine what the adult was looking at (see Symons, Hains, & Muir, 1998, for evidence that 5-month-olds do no follow vertical gaze shifts; see also Butterworth, 1991, for evidence that infants do not follow gaze behind them until 18 months of age).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Recent work by Delgado, Messinger, and Yale (2002) suggests that the loss of affective attunement during the still-face procedure may override the reason the adult stopped responding to the infant and posed a still face. In the study, 6-month-old infants were exposed to both a standard still-face procedure in which the mother broke contact to look directly at the infant (look-at condition) and a modified still face in which the mother broke contact to look above the infant (look-up condition).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Direction of Regard and the Still‐Face Effect in the First Year: Does Intention Matter?

Striano

2004

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the first study, 3-, 6-, and 9- month-olds' behavior was assessed as a stranger broke contact to stare at the infant, to look at a wall, or to look at another person. Regardless of age and the reason contact was broken, the still-face reaction did not depend on the experimenter's intention. In the second study, 3-, 6-, and 9-month-olds interacted with their mother who broke contact to look away for no apparent reason or in the direction of a sound. Infants at all ages responded to the still-face episode, but not as a function of the underlying reason contact was broken. The findings suggest a primacy of interpersonal communication in the first year.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Direction of Regard and the Still‐Face Effect in the First Year: Does Intention Matter?

Striano

2004

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In SF interactions, there is a violation of the unconstrained pattern of parent-infant interaction (Braungart-Reiker, Garwood, Powers, & Wong, 2001), since the parent tries not to respond to infant vocalizations or affect in any way. It has been reported that infant volubility during SF increases (Delgado, Messinger, & Yale, 2002; Goldstein et al, 2009; Yale, Messinger, Cobo-Lewis, Oller, & Eilers, 1999) for infants at 6 months. The transition from an interactive episode (FF) to a noninteractive episode (SF) has been interpreted as providing the impetus for infants to attempt to reestablish interaction by increasing volubility.…”

Section: Volubility In the Face-to-face/still-face/reunion Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 96%

Effects of Parental Interaction on Infant Vocalization Rate, Variability and Vocal Type

Franklin

Warlaumont

Messinger

et al. 2013

Language Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examination of infant vocalization patterns across interactive and noninteractive contexts may facilitate better understanding of early communication development. In the current study, with 24 infant-parent dyads, infant volubility increased significantly when parent interaction ceased (presenting a “still face,” or SF) after a period of normal interaction (“face-to-face,” or FF). Infant volubility continued at the higher rate than in FF when the parent re-engaged (“reunion,” or RE). Additionally, during SF, the variability in volubility across infants decreased, suggesting the infants adopted relatively similar rates of vocalization to re-engage the parent. The pattern of increasing volubility in SF was seen across all of the most common speech-like vocal types of the first half-year of life (e.g., full vowels, quasivowels, squeals, growls). Parent and infant volubility levels were not significantly correlated. The findings suggest that by six months of age infants have learned that their vocalizations have social value and that changes in volubility can affect parental engagement.

show abstract

“…Following prior research (i.e., Rochat et al, 2002; see also we expected that infants at 6 months of age would not respond differentially to the emotional still faces. At this age, research suggests that infants are primarily attuned to the presence or absence of interpersonal contact, and not to the underlying reason behind a loss of social contingencies (Delgado, Messinger, & Yale, 2002), or emotional expressions posed during the break of contact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to the context of facial expression in the still face at 3-, 6-, and 9-months of age

Striano¹,

Liszkowski²

2005

Infant Behavior and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty-eight 3-, 6-, and 9-month-old infants interacted in a face to face situation with a female stranger who disrupted the on-going interaction with 30 s Happy and Neutral still face episodes. Three-and 6-month-olds manifested a robust still face response for gazing and smiling. For smiling, 9-month-olds manifested a floor effect such that no still face effect could be shown. For gazing, 9-month-olds' still face response was modulated by the context of interaction such that it was less pronounced if a happy still face was presented first. The findings point to a developmental transition by the end of the first year, whereby infants' still face response becomes increasingly influenced by the context of social interaction.

show abstract

Infant responses to direction of parental gaze: A comparison of two still-face conditions

Cited by 43 publications

References 21 publications

Direction of Regard and the Still‐Face Effect in the First Year: Does Intention Matter?

Direction of Regard and the Still‐Face Effect in the First Year: Does Intention Matter?

Effects of Parental Interaction on Infant Vocalization Rate, Variability and Vocal Type

Sensitivity to the context of facial expression in the still face at 3-, 6-, and 9-months of age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About