The modulation of facial mimicry by attachment tendencies and their underlying affiliation motives in 3-year-olds: An EMG study

Abstract

From early in life, facial mimicry represents an important example of implicit non-verbal communication. Facial mimicry is conceived of as the automatic tendency to mimic another person’s facial expressions and is thought to serve as a social glue among interaction partners. Although in adults mimicry has been shown to be moderated by the social context and one’s needs to affiliate with others, evidence from behavioural mimicry studies suggest that 3-year-olds do not yet show sensitivity to social dynamics. Here, we examined whether attachment tendencies, as a proxy for interindividual differences in affiliation motivation, modulates facial mimicry in 3-year-olds. Resistant and avoidant insecure attachment tendencies are characterized by high and low affiliation motivation, respectively, and these were hypothesized to lead to either enhancement or suppression of mimicry. Additionally, we hypothesized that these effects will be moderated by inhibitory control skills. Facial mimicry of happy and sad expressions was recorded with electromyography (EMG), attachment tendencies were assessed with a parent-report questionnaire and inhibitory control with the gift delay task. The final sample consisted of 42 children, with overall scores suggesting secure attachment. Our findings revealed that 3-year-olds mimicked happy and sad facial expressions. Moreover, resistant tendencies predicted enhanced sad but not happy facial mimicry, whereas avoidant tendencies were not significantly related to mimicry. These effects were not moderated by inhibitory control skills. In conclusion, these findings provide the first evidence for the modulation of mimicry by attachment tendencies and their underlying motivation for affiliation in young children, specifically for negatively-valenced emotional expressions.

Developmental trajectory of interpersonal motor alignment: Positive social effects and link to social cognition

“… Behavior 16 months, n = 48 * Southgate et al, 2009 Action observation Mu suppression starting before onset of observed movement. EEG 9 months, n = 15 * Stapel et al, 2010 Action observation Mu suppression stronger for extraordinary actions EEG 12 months, n = 12 * Tunçgenç et al, 2015 Synchrony 12 months-old but not 9 months old prefer social character (but not object(that have moved synchronously with them Behavior 9 months, n = 41; 12 months, n = 40 Upshaw et al, 2016 Action observation Mu suppression during observation related to grip strength EEG 12 months, n = 12 Vacaru et al, 2019 Mimicry (face) Spontaneous mimicry of face pictures. Effect of attachment style, not inhibitory control Behavior, EMG 3 months, n = 42 * Virji‐Babul et al, 2012 Action observation Mu suppression when watching videos of reaching, walking or object motion EEG 4−11 months, n = 14 * Warreyn et al, 2013 Action observation Mu suppression for object-directed and mimicked actions EEG 18−30, n = 17 * Yoo et al, 2015 Action observation Mu suppression during observation of grasp-with-tool actions.…”

Untitled

“…According to discriminating power analyses, a cut-off score of 46 from the total scale distinguishes between securely (< 46) and insecurely attached (> 46) children [53,54]. Accordingly, 59% of children qualified as securely attached and 41% as insecurely attached, in line with previous findings on the prevalence rate of attachment security distribution in the general population [14,54,55]. Internal consistency analysis yielded a Cronbach's α of .735 for the avoidant subscale, .747 for the ambivalent/resistant subscale and .781 for the total scale, similar to previous results [34,43].…”

“…Accordingly, some evidence indeed shows that early resistant attachment tendencies yield enhanced facial mimicry, suggesting higher intrinsic affiliation motivation, irrespective of the social context [14]. Another study found that adults with an avoidant attachment style tend to suppress facial mimicry responses to negative expressions (i.e.…”

Five-year-olds’ facial mimicry following social ostracism is modulated by attachment security

“…Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that one's intrinsic motivation for affiliation modulates facial mimicry [14]. Facial mimicry of emotional expressions is not merely the result of activation matching, but is also influenced by one's affect.…”

“…Accordingly, inner states and intrinsic characteristics (e.g. attachment orientation [14]; callous-unemotional traits [18], in concert with affiliation motives [19]; power motivation [20] modulate the extent to which individuals manifest facial mimicry in social contexts [21,22]).…”