Fogel Do Different Infant Smiles Reflect Different Posit

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/227629794
Do Different Infant Smiles Reﬂect Different Positive

Emotions?
Article in Social Development · November 2000

DOI: 10.1111/1467-9507.00140
CITATIONS READS
73 213
3 authors:
Alan Fogel G. Christina Nelson-Goens

University of Utah University of Colorado Boulder
145 PUBLICATIONS 5,687 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 212 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Hui-Chin Hsu
University of Georgia
47 PUBLICATIONS 1,469 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Early intervention with low income infants and toddlers View project
Transitional processes in relational systems View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Alan Fogel on 14 April 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Do Different Infant Smiles Reflect Different
Positive Emotions?
Alan Fogel and G. Christina Nelson-Goens, University of Utah,
Hui-Chin Hsu, University of Georgia and Alyson F. Shapiro,
University of Washington
Abstract
Different types of infant smiles in the family of positive emotions were investigated
during two mother-infant games: peekaboo and tickle. There were 27 6-month-old
infants and 28 12-month-olds. Infant smiles were coded as simple (lip corner retrac-
tion only), Duchenne (simple plus cheek raising), play (simple plus jaw drop), and
duplay (simple plus cheek raise and jaw drop). Results show that each type of smile
has a systematic pattern of association with the game (peekaboo or tickle), compo-
nent (setup or climax), trial (six trials for each game), and the direction of the infant’s
gaze. No significant age differences were found. We conclude that when smiling, infants
may experience qualitatively different kinds of enjoyment during these two games:
enjoyment of readiness to engage in play (simple smiles while gazing at mother
during peekaboo), enjoyment of relief (simple smiles while gazing away from mother
after being tickled), enjoyment of participation and agency (Duchenne smiles with
gaze at mother during the climax of early tickle game trials), enjoyment of escape
(Duchenne smiles while gazing away during tickle climax), and enjoyment of build-
up (duplay smiles during the climax of later trials). These findings show that the same
facial action, smiling, can reflect different positive emotions depending upon cooc-
curring facial actions and the dynamics of the social process, and that the positive
emotional experience of infants as young as six months is more complex than previ-
ously reported.
Keywords: Emotional development; mother-infant play; smiling; infant games
Smiling is a facial action that is considered to be the prototypical expression of plea-

sure. There are, however, different types of smiles that occur in a wide variety of social
contexts in adults. Smiles differ according to whether lip corner retraction is accom-
panied by different facial movements such as the presence or absence of eye wrin-
kling or mouth opening. The recent discovery of different types of smiles in
young infants has created renewed interest in positive emotional development which
has been studied less than distress and coping. These different smiles raise important
questions about emotions and their development. Are there different types of positive
Address for correspondence: Alan Fogel, Department of Psychology, 390 S. 1530 E., Room 502, Univer-
sity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112-0251, USA. Office: (801)581-8560; Fax: (801) 581-5841; email:
alan.fogel@m.cc.utah.edu.
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
498 Alan Fogel, G. Christina Nelson-Goens, Hui-Chin Hsu and Alyson F. Shapiro
emotion in early infancy? Do the different expressions reflect intensity variations on
the same emotion? Can each expression reflect different emotions depending upon the
context?
Discrete emotion theory (Izard & Malatesta, 1987) proposes that there is a small
set of basic emotions, supported by neurophysiological structures and indexed by key
facial expressions, that appear early in infancy. In this view, there is a single emotion
of enjoyment indexed by smiling. Different types of smiles would reflect different
intensities of that same emotion. Lip corner retractions accompanied by a wide-open
mouth would reflect more intense enjoyment compared to lip corner retractions with
a closed mouth.
In contrast, functionalist, dynamic systems, and social process theories of emotion
(Barrett, 1995; Campos & Barrett, 1984; Camras, 1992; Dickson, Fogel, & Messinger,
1997; Fogel et al., 1992; Fogel et al., 1997; Frijda, 1986; Lewis, 1995; Messinger,
Fogel, & Dickson, 1997) suggest that there is not a small set of basic emotions but
families of emotion, each of which is created as much by the dynamics of ongoing
discourse with the natural and cultural environment as by the neurophysiology. In these
views, the same expression, a smile, can reflect different emotions in functionally dif-
ferent communicative situations. These differences are distinguished by different
forms of ‘action readiness,’ different affective propensities of the individual to engage
with the social context. According to Frijda (1986, p. 71), emotions ‘can be defined
as modes of relational action readiness . . . in the form of tendencies to establish, main-
tain, or disrupt a relationship with the environment.’
Modes of relational action readiness may be inferred from the individual’s behav-
ior in a communicative situation. Infant smiles that involve wide mouth opening, for
example, may reflect an action readiness to relate with the environment via oral means.
This may include the experience of oral touch and consumption as well as the possi-
bility of vocal expression. Smiles involving wide mouth opening, for example, are
called play smiles because they were first observed by researchers during highly arous-
ing physical play in toddlers (Blurton-Jones, 1972) and juvenile primates (Plooij,
1979; van Hooff, 1972). They are often accompanied by a mock aggressive action
readiness as indicated by biting, calling, yelling, or laughing which may accompany
the mouth opening. Smiles that involve muscle contractions near the eyes may high-
light visual as opposed to tactile forms of relational action readiness. Action readiness
is not the behavior per se but relational feeling to which that behavior contributes.
‘Weeping is not felt as contorted face, sobbing convulsions, and wet eyes only: it is
felt as capitulation, giving up resistance, helpless surrender to one’s helplessness’
(Frijda, 1986, p. 239).
According to social process theory of emotion (Dickson et al., 1997; Fogel et al.,
1992; Fogel, Nwokah, & Karns, 1992), patterns of action readiness are not simply
activated within the individual and directed outward but are partially created and con-
strained by the communicative dynamics. In the case of play smiles, the commu-
nication process—other juveniles in mock fighting postures and in close body
contact—creates opportunities for either play biting or excited vocalizing. At the same
time, the open mouth smiles and vocal expressions enhance and modify the pattern-
ing of the play episode. Bateson (1955) discovered that the presence of play smiles
was sufficient to communicate to partners the message, ‘this is play,’ allowing an
extended non-serious interaction to unfold. No one component of the system—neither
the individual’s experience of action readiness nor the opportunities in the commu-
nicative system—takes precedence and all the components are simultaneously and
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000
Infant Smiles and Emotions 499
dynamically changing in relation to each other. Social process theory, therefore,
assumes that the communicative dynamics are an inseparable part of the unfolding
emotion process, not simply a static stimulus.
One functional approach for the study of the emotional meaning of facial expres-
sions in adults is to vary the situational context and observe variations in expressions
(Ginsburg, 1997). In this study, we observe the sequential co-variations of different
infant smiles and communicative action during two common mother-infant games:
peekaboo and tickle. In this paper, we focus on four types of infant smiling: simple,
Duchenne, play, and duplay. Simple smiles are recognized by the contraction of the
lip corners (Ekman, Friesen, & Ancoli, 1980). In Duchenne smiles, lip corner
contraction is accompanied by contractions of the the muscles surrounding both
eyes, producing a raising of the cheeks and crows feet wrinkles at the corners of the
eyes in adults. For adults, Duchenne smiling is more likely when watching pleasant
compared to unpleasant films and is correlated with self-reported amusement,
happiness, excitement, and interest. Simple smiles are not correlated with these vari-
ables. Observers also rate Duchenne smiles as more positive compared to other
smiles. As a result, Duchenne smiles have been called ‘felt’ while simple smiles have
been called ‘false’ (Ekman, Davidson, & Friesen, 1990; Frank, Ekman, & Friesen,
1993).
Infants in the first year produce both Duchenne and non-Duchenne smiles. Some
studies have reported observations of the Duchenne smile in premature newborns
(Oster & Rosenstein, in press), in full term newborns (Emde, McCartney, & Harmon,
1971; Messinger, Dondi, Nelson-Goens, Beghi, Fogel, & Simion, 1998), and at three
weeks (Wolff, 1987). During the first month, Duchenne smiles are relatively rare, and
like most neonatal smiles, occur during sleep.
Between two and three months of age, infant smiles occur during waking states and
they increase in frequency and duration over this period. Early smiles occur in response
to familiar visual and auditory stimuli, such as the mother’s face and voice. By three
months, however, simple stimuli are no longer effective in eliciting smiles. Greeting
routines, social rituals (such as mother-infant face-to-face play) and social games
(such as peekaboo) are required to maintain smiling (Emde & Harmon, 1972; Kaye
& Fogel, 1980; Sroufe, 1995; Wolff, 1987), providing partial support for social process
theory.
Between 2 and 5 months, Duchenne smiles are more likely than non-Duchenne
smiles when mothers smile at infants and when infants gaze at their mothers during
face-to-face play (Fogel et al., 1997; Messinger, Fogel, & Dickson, 1997). Also, infant
simple smiles tend to sequentially precede Duchenne smiles during mother-infant
face-to-face interaction between 2 and 6 months (Messinger, Fogel, & Dickson, 1999).
Ten-month-olds are more likely to Duchenne smile when greeting their mothers after
a brief separation and non-Duchenne smiles are more likely when greeting a stranger
(Fox & Davidson, 1988). Finally, in a study of 12-month-olds, Duchenne smiles are
more likely than other smiles during mother-infant object play and father-infant book
reading (Dickson, Walker, & Fogel, 1997).
These findings suggest that Duchenne smiles in infancy may reflect a form of
heightened enjoyment or delight. Their particular pattern of action involves the whole
face and particularly highlights the eyes. Their pattern of contextual co-occurrence,
as shown in the preceding review of literature, suggests that the emotional meaning
of Duchenne smiling may be related primarily to visual attention to that creates an
action readiness for participation with or enjoyment of familiar persons and routines.
In addition to Duchenne smiles, research on infants has found smiles accompanied
by a jaw drop and wide mouth opening, called play smiles1. Play smiles occur in both
infants and adults during intense laughter (Nwokah & Fogel, 1993). Play smiles occur
in similar situations as Duchenne smiles during face-to-face play in the first 6
months—when infants gaze at mother and mother smiles—and they are also more
likely when mothers hold their infants in supported supine or cradled positions
(Messinger et al., 1997). By 12 months and perhaps earlier, play smiles rarely occur
without the addition of orbicularis oculi contraction along with the jaw drop. These
duplay smiles are more likely during physical play with fathers and during book
reading with mothers. During physical play in particular, the mouth opening is accom-
panied by deep inhalation that is pronounced and audible (Dickson et al., 1997).
These findings suggest that infant play and duplay smiles occur in similar visual
situations as Duchenne smiles and that they may also reflect a form of enjoyment
related to touching and being touched. The particular pattern of action is related to
mouth opening. The oral-tactile function of the mouth in early infancy may form a
link between play/duplay smiles and being the recipient of tactile communication. The
action readiness of the infant may be to ‘take in’ the touch with a pronounced inhala-
tion (Dickson et al., 1997). In addition, play and duplay smiles are often accompanied
by vocalization, in particular laughs, squeals, and yells such as those occurring during
physical play. The emotional meaning of these smiles in the first year of life is
unknown.
Both Duchenne and play/duplay smiles tend to occur in temporal sequences with
simple smiles. It may be that these smiles can neither be elicited nor understood
outside of a social process in which they occur in tandem. The research task, there-
fore, is to investigate more systematically the sequential occurrence of different
types of smiling in different social games and at different ages during the first year.
We report on the relationship between smiling, gazing, and maternal action during
two commonly occurring mother-infant social games at 6 and 12 months of age:
peekaboo and tickle. We chose these games because one may address the more visual
action readiness of Duchenne smiles (peekaboo) while the other the more oral-tactile
action readiness of play and duplay smiles (tickle), and because they are relatively
common in the majority of cultures worldwide (Fernald & O’Neill, 1993; van Hoorn,
1987).
Both games have an invariant structure involving setup and climax components. For
peekaboo, setup involves the covering or disappearance of the mother’s face (‘Where’s
mommy(?)’), and climax involves its uncovering or reappearance (‘Peekaboo’). For
tickle, setup involves an approach of the mother’s hands toward the infant’s body (‘I’m
gonna get you’), and climax involves the act of tickling (which may be accompanied
by maternal vocalization). Both games require vision in the setup while in tickle the
modality switches from visual to tactile. The similar invariant structure of the two
games makes it relatively easy to compare smiling across components and between
games.2 Furthermore, both games continue to be played over the second half of the
first year.
Prior Research on Smiling During Mother-Infant Peekaboo and Tickle Games

There is little research investigating different types of smiles during peekaboo and
tickle games. Research on tickle games has focused on the occurrence of laughter and
not on smiling (Sroufe, 1995). An early study of peekaboo was done by Greenfield
(1972). She played peekaboo with 4–5 month-olds under three different conditions
at climax-reappearance: with a normally occurring ‘peekaboo,’ with a nonspeech
sound of the same intonation, and silence. Silence and nonspeech sounds elicited con-
siderably less smiling following reappearance than saying ‘peekaboo.’ Fernald and
O’Neill (1993) found that smiling during peekaboo is more likely to occur if mothers
give an ‘alert call’ during setup to get the infant’s attention followed by a high-pitched
‘release call’ during climax to accompany reappearance. Other research also shows
that before 6 months, a high-pitched voice is an effective elicitor of smiling during
games (Wolff, 1987). In our study, therefore, we asked mothers to include vocaliza-
tions during play.
In an unpublished study, Thompson (1991) found that for positive expressions
between six and twelve months, the latency of smiling following the uncovering
decreases with age and the intensity of smiling (defined by the size of the lip corner
retraction) increases with age during a peekaboo game. Smiling rarely occurs at the
beginnings of peekaboo games but rather after several trials, after which smiling
declines (Nwokah & Fogel, 1993). This suggests that across trials in a game there is
a contour of build-up and decline of smiling. There may also be changes in intensity
over trials (i.e., type of smiling) but no studies have been done.
In a study of peekaboo in 6, 7 and 8 month-old infants, Parrott and Gleitman (1989)
found a reliable decrease in the magnitude of smiling after the mother’s disappear-
ance, and a large increase in the magnitude of smiling just after reappearance. Mag-
nitude ranged from ‘small smile’ to ‘very large smile.’ No description of the facial
actions indexing these differences was given, however, so we don’t know if a smile
was large due to a jaw drop or to an orbicularis oculi contraction, or simply to a strong
zygomatic major contraction. The data suggest, however, that there may be differences
in smile type between setup and climax.
Research Approach
The pattern of occurrence of different types of smiles in each type of game (peeka-
boo and tickle), in each component (setup and climax) of the games, and across trials,
would clarify the emotional significance of these smiles during everyday mother-infant
communication. It would also shed light on the way in which different smiles occur
in sequence with respect to the sequential invariants of these social games. In addi-
tion, we also examined how the relationship between smile type, game type, compo-
nent, and trial was affected by variations in infant gaze direction and in the pace of
the game (measured by the duration of the setup and climax components). Our main
goal is to answer the following related questions: Are there different types of positive
emotion in early infancy indexed by different types of smiles? Alternatively, do the
different expressions reflect variations on the same emotion? Is it possible for one type
of smile to reflect different emotions depending upon the sequential communicative
context? We did not have any predictions regarding age differences, gender, or game
order effects.
Methods
Participants
Mother-infant dyads were identified from records of births published in a daily news-
paper in Salt Lake City. Mothers of infants who were approaching 6 or 12 months of
age were invited by letter to participate in a study of mother-infant social game
playing. In the 6 month old age group, a total of 57 mother-infant pairs participated
in this study of which 27 (13 males, 14 females) were accepted for analysis. In the 12
month-old age group, a total of 71 mother-infant pairs participated in this study of
which 28 (13 males, 15 females) were accepted for analysis. All the accepted infants
were Caucasian. Infants were excluded from the study due to infant fussiness or failure
to meet our criteria (see next section).
Procedures
Sessions of approximately 15 minutes took place in a carpeted university laboratory
playroom (14¢8≤ ¥ 10¢11≤). Mother and infant sat opposite each other across a child-
size table (13≤ ¥ 19.5≤). Six month-olds who could not sit independently were seat
belted across the waist in the chair. Two of the three cameras containing the best views
of the dyad were mixed by a special effects generator and a digital clock accurate to
one video frame (.03 secs) was superimposed on the videotaped image. One camera
focused on the infant’s upper body and face to facilitate coding facial expressions. The
other camera focused on the mother’s upper body and face.
Mothers were asked to play one peekaboo and one tickle game with their infant.
The order in which tickle and peekaboo games were played was randomly assigned
and counterbalanced across subjects. Each mother was shown videotaped instructions
with a demonstration of an adult playing peekaboo and tickle and asked to
practice each game with the research assistant prior to playing with her infant. In addi-
tion, mothers wore headphones so they could receive instructions from a research
assistant about when to begin playing the first game and when to switch to the other
game.
The criterion for accepting a game was that the infant smiled during two consecu-
tive trials. These became the first two trials of six that were analyzed for this study. A
trial is a sequence of cover (setup) and uncover (climax) for peekaboo games and
looming hands (setup) and tickle (climax) for tickle games. Following the six trials of
the first game, the mother was asked to begin playing the second game. In order to
ensure that we were studying the emotions of infants who were engaged in the games,
dyads were retained in the study if they were able to meet criterion on both games,
and if they were able to continue both games for 6 trials without significant loss of
infant attention and without infant fussiness. Our goal was to study the emotions
related to smiling under contextual conditions that were more or less similar across
dyads and not to study the natural between-dyad variability in mother-infant games.
Mothers also completed a background questionnaire and the Infant Behavior Ques-
tionnaire (IBQ). The IBQ has demonstrated consistent reliability and is significantly
correlated with observed child behavior, especially smiling and positive reactivity
(Rothbart, 1986; Slabach, Morrow, & Wachs, 1991).
Coding
Each coder was instructed to watch the video tape and pause it when a category
changed so they could record the behavior category and time from the digital clock
on the screen. Coding was done on separate passes, each with mutually exclusive and
exhaustive categories (i.e., the offset of the prior category is the onset of the suc-
ceeding category).
For both games, one pass was used to code the onset and offset times of compo-
nents (setup and climax). This coding demarcated the times during which smiling and
gazing were coded. The difference between offset and onset times also gives a measure
of pace of maternal game actions. Interrater reliability was assessed for game com-
ponents coding on 14% of the sample. The average Cohen’s kappa, which was calcu-
lated based on a second by second comparison of each coders ratings, was .88. Another
coding pass was used for infant gaze (at mother’s face or away). Interrater reliability
was assessed for approximately 18% of the sample. The average Cohen’s kappa
was .77.
There were three coding passes for infant facial expressions using coders certified
in the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) (Ekman & Friesen, 1978) and trained in
its application to infants (Oster & Rosenstein, in press). The action units of interest
were AU 12 (lip corner raise), AU 6 (cheek raise), and AU 26/27 (jaw drop). Inter-
rater reliability was assessed on approximately 17% of the sample for each modality
of infant facial action. Average kappas for AU 12, AU 6, and AU 26/27 were .79, .81,
and .80 respectively.
Dependent Measures
We defined four different smile types based on co-occurrences of infant facial actions:
simple smile (AU 12 only), Duchenne smile (AU 12 + AU 6), play smile (AU 12 +
AU 26/27), and duplay smile (AU 12 + AU 6 + AU 26/27). Using the time-based
coding, the computer program derived the durations (in seconds) of each game com-
ponent (setup and climax). Because of the variations in the durations of different com-
ponents, the dependent variable was the proportion of the game component taken up
by each smile type and gaze direction category. We refer to these variables as pro-
portional durations.
Preliminary Analyses
Excluded vs. included dyads. Because of the relatively large number of excluded dyads
based on our criteria, we conducted analyses to compare included and excluded groups
on demographic variables. The categorical variables of game order, infant gender,
parent’s marital status, and ethnicity were tested using Chi-square. There were no sig-
nificant differences between groups at either 6 or 12 months. Continuous variables
were tested using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with three between
subject factors (Acceptance, Age, and Infant’s Gender) and 7 demographic variables
(Mother’s Age, Father’s Age, Number in Family, Number of Siblings, Annual Family
Income, Mother’s Education, Father’s Education) as the dependent variables. No sig-
nificant effects were found. MANOVA was also used to test for whether there were
differences between accepted and rejected dyads in temperamental positivity. Four
questions from the IBQ ask mothers to rate the frequency of smiling and laughter in
their infants. No significant between group differences were found for the infants’s
ratings on these questions.
It is relatively difficult to achieve a consistent patterning of mother-infant play that
sustains positive emotion, at least in the laboratory. Whether subjects were able to do
this did not seem to depend on any demographic differences between them. There is,
it appears, no other way to generate a sufficient sample of infant smiling for scientific
purposes than in the context of these kinds of games, and the maintenance of such
games requires two people to be relatively good natured in a highly artificial situation
over a sustained period. Since our criterion for acceptance was to play two games, in
sequence, over a total of 12 trials, the fact that we got close to 50% of the sample to
do this is remarkable.
Effects of gender, game order, and age. We did not expect any effect for age, infant
gender or game order. We ran preliminary analyses on the accepted dyads to examine
potential effects of these factors along with the game-related factors. Repeated-
measures analyses of variance were run with three between-subject factors (Age,
Gender, Game Order) and three within-subject factors (Game, Trial, Game Compo-
nent). Separate analyses were run for the dependent variables of the proportional
duration of infant gaze at mother, and the proportional durations of the four different
types of infant smiles (simple, Duchenne, play, and duplay). No significant main
effects were found for the between subjects factors. Age, Gender, and Game order
were eliminated from further analyses.
Results
Smiling
Proportional durations of each smile type were tested using repeated-measures analy-
ses of variance with three within-subject factors: GAME (peekaboo and tickle), TRIAL
(1 to 6), and COMPONENT (setup and climax). For tests of differences between smile
types, an additional within-subject factor of Smile Type (simple, Duchenne, play, and
duplay) was included in the analysis. Trend (polynomial) nalyses were also conducted
for systematic patterns of change across trials. No significant trend effects were found.
In addition, specific follow-up analyses were done using paired t-tests to compare pro-
portional durations of smile types; setup and climax portions of each trial within each
Table 1. Summary of Results from Repeated-Measure Analysis of Variance:

Smiles
Factors (d.f.) F-value
Game (1,53) n.s.

Smile Type (3,159) n.s.
Trial (15,795) n.s
Game Component (1,53) n.s.
Game ¥ Smile Type (3,159) 3.22*
Smile Type ¥ Trial (15,795) 10.64***
Smile Type ¥ Game Component (3,159) 12.74***
Trial ¥ Game Component (5,265) 5.16***
Game ¥ Smile Type ¥ Trial (15,795) 3.73***
Game ¥ Smile Type ¥ Game Component (3,159) 3.02*
Smile Type ¥ Trial ¥ Game Component (15,795) 3.12***
Game ¥ Smile Type ¥ Trial ¥ Game Component (15,780) 3.83***
Notes: Only main effects and significant interaction effects are reported.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
game; and setup and climax portions between the games. Bonferroni corrections were
made for post-hoc tests in order to control for the inflation of Type I errors. The results
are shown in Table 1 and graphed in Figure 1. No main effects were found and all but
two of the interaction effects were significant.
First, we report the post-hoc comparison tests for differences between games, shown
in Table 2. For the most part there are no significant differences in smiling between
the games during the setup component. The one exception is that infants duplay smile
more during the trial 2 setup of peekaboo compared to tickle. This finding is the only
significant difference out of 24 comparisons for setup trials and thus may be a spuri-
ous result. There is significantly more Duchenne smiling during the climax portion of
tickle games than during the climax portion of peekaboo during the 1st and 3rd trials
and more duplay in tickle climax during the 4th and 6th trials. The tactile game of tickle
is associated with more duplay smiling than visually-oriented peekaboo games. There
is, however, a higher proportional duration of Duchenne smile in tickle climax com-
pared to peekaboo. These results show that Duchenne smiles are more likely during
the early trials of tickle compared to peekaboo games while duplay smiles are more
likely during the later trials.

° Tickle setup Tickle climax Peekaboo setup Peekaboo climax
% of Game Component % of Game Component
(A) Simple Smile (C) Play Smile
Trials
Trials
% of Game Component % of Game Component
(B) Duchenne Smile (D) Duplay Smile
Trials Trials
Figure 1. Proportional duration of four types of infant smile, expressed as a proportion of each game compo-
nent (setup and climax), graphed as a function of game, game component, and trial.

Table 2. Between game post-hoc comparisons for smile types. The games listed
in the cells of the table (Tic = Tickle; Peek = Peekaboo) are those with a signifi-
cantly higher proportional duration of smiling
Trials
Smile type Component Game 1 2 3 4 5 6
Duchenne Climax Tic vs. Peek Tic* Tic*

Duplay Setup Tic vs. Peek Peek*
Climax Tic vs. Peek Tic* Tic**
Notes: Using Bonferroni corrections listed are t-values at adjusted significance level of .008,
n = 54.
* p £ .008. ** p £ .001.
Table 3. Within game post hoc comparisons between smile types. The smile
types listed in the cells of the table (Sim = Simple smile, Pla = Play smile, Duc =
Duchenne smile, Dup = Duplay smile) are those with a significantly higher pro-
portional duration
Trials
Game Component Smile Types 1 2 3 4 5 6
Peekaboo Setup Sim vs. Pla Sim** Sim* Sim*

Sim vs. Dup Sim* Sim*
Climax Sim vs. Pla Sim* Sim* Sim*
Sim vs. Dup Sim**
Duc vs. Dup Duc*
Tickle Setup Duc vs. Dup Duc* Duc*
Pla vs. Dup Pla*
Climax Duc vs. Pla Duc** Duc** Duc** Duc**
Pla vs. Dup Dup** Dup* Dup** Dup**
Notes: Using Bonferroni corrections listed are t-values at adjusted significance level of .008, n = 54.
* p £ .008. ** p £ .001.
Next, we report the results of specific follow-up paired t-tests for comparisons of
trial and game component within games. Table 3 shows the significant pair-wise com-
parisons between smile types within games and components for each trial. During
peekaboo, there is a higher proportional duration of simple compared to play and
duplay smiles during both setup and climax in all but the fourth trial. Only in the 6th
trial is there more Duchenne than duplay smiling. For tickle, simple smiling is not sig-
nificantly different in proportional duration from other smile types. Duchenne and play
smiles predominate over duplay in the first two setup trials. For tickle climax,
Duchenne is higher than duplay during four trials and duplay is higher than play during
four trials.
The next question is whether these within component differences in smile type pro-
portional durations reflect differences between components (within games). Table 4
Table 4. Within game post-hoc comparisons for smile types. The components
listed in the cells of the table (Set = Setup; Cli = Climax) are those with a signif-
icantly higher proportional duration of smiling
Trials
Game Smile type Component 1 2 3 4 5 6
Peekaboo Duplay Set vs. Cli Cli** Cli*

Tickle Duchenne Set vs. Cli Cli* Cli*
Duplay Set vs. Cli Cli** Cli** Cli** Cli**
Notes: Using Bonferroni corrections listed are t-values at adjusted significance level of .008,
n = 54.
* p £ .008. ** p £ .001.
shows that when Duchenne and duplay smiles occur, they are more likely during the
climax portions of both games compared to the setup portions. No other smile types
differed significantly between components. There are relatively few differences in
smiling between setup and climax for peekaboo. On the other hand, there are more
dramatic differences in smiling between setup and climax for tickle, especially during
the first four trials where both Duchenne and duplay smiles are more likely in the
climax. Consistent with the data in Table 4, there seems to be a buildup of non-simple
smiling during the climax of tickle that culminates in the fourth trial and declines
thereafter.
Infant Gazing and Smiling

We used log-linear analysis to examine the co-occurrences of smile and gaze in rela-
tion to GAME and COMPONENT. A matrix was created by cross-classifying gaze
direction (at mother and away), smile type (no smile, simple smile, Duchenne smile,
play smile, and duplay smile), GAME (peekaboo and tickle) and COMPONENT (setup
and climax). The magnitude of the cells in the matrix is the total duration for a par-
ticular component of the co-occurrence between the category of gaze direction and the
category of smile type. Once the best fitting model is obtained, the significance of indi-
vidual cells can be examined by using the adjusted residual (z-score) of the magnitude
of the difference between the duration of observed co-occurrence and the duration
expected by chance under the assumption of independence between the factors in the
model (Bakeman & Quera, 1995; Bishop Feinberg & Holland, 1975; von Eye, 1990).
Bonferroni corrections were made to control for the inflation of Type I errors by divid-
ing the critical alpha (.05) by the number of cells in the matrix.
The best fitting log-linear model was saturated, that is, all main and interaction
effects in the model were significant. Table 5 shows which cells of the model had cooc-
currences that were greater than (+) or less than (-) expected by chance using a cri-
terion of z > 2.95 (p < .003).
The results show that during tickle setup, simple smiles significantly cooccur with
gaze away whereas in peekaboo setup up, simple smiles cooccur with gaze at the
mother. Also in peekaboo setup, there is a significant cooccurrence of play smiles and
Table 5. Cooccurrences between smile and gaze as a function of game (peekaboo
and tickle) and component (setup and climax). Z-scores show whether the
observed is greater than the expected (+) or less than the expected (-)
Observed Expected
Cooccurrence Cooccurrence
Factor Code (in seconds) (in seconds) z-score
GAME Tickle
COMPONENT SETUP
GAZE MOTHER’S FACE
Simple 62.00 90.31 -3.356*
Duchenne 56.00 75.16 -2.472
Play 24.00 26.95 -.621
Duplay 14.00 46.47 -5.259*
GAZE AWAY
Simple 112.00 78.27 +4.236*
Duchenne 58.00 65.14 -.976
Play 33.00 23.35 +2.159
Duplay 18.00 40.27 -3.826*
COMPONENT CLIMAX
Simple 41.00 99.36 -6.663*
Duchenne 91.00 82.69 +1.032
Play 17.00 29.65 -2.566
Duplay 81.00 51.12 +4.658*
GAZE AWAY
Simple 90.00 86.11 +.470
Duchenne 110.00 71.67 +5.042*
Play 19.00 25.69 -1.440
Duplay 88.00 44.30 +7.216*
GAME Peekaboo
COMPONENT SETUP
Simple 129.00 67.84 +8.149*
Duchenne 61.00 56.46 +.659
Play 36.00 20.24 +3.749*
Duplay 42.00 34.90 +1.295
GAZE AWAY
Simple 14.00 58.79 -6.342*
Duchenne 5.00 48.93 -6.780*
Play .00 17.54 -4.444*
Duplay .00 30.25 -5.877*
COMPONENT CLIMAX
Simple 148.00 74.64 +9.394*
Duchenne 118.00 62.12 +7.794*
GAZE Play 49.00 22.27 +6.104*
Duplay 70.00 38.40 +5.539*
AWAY
Simple 24.00 64.68 -5.531*
Duchenne 17.00 53.83 -5.457*
Play 7.00 19.30 -2.988*
Duplay 6.00 33.28 -5.084*
* p < .003.

gaze at mother. For tickle climax, Duchenne and duplay smiles significantly cooccur
with gaze away from mother, although about half of the duplay smiling cooccurs with
gaze at mother more than expected by chance. For peekaboo climax, all smile types
significantly cooccur with gaze at mother (and all are significantly unlikely to cooccur
with gaze away). These findings show that infants are considerably more likely to smile
while looking at mother during peekaboo compared to tickle games.
The results on smiling and gazing reported thus far are illustrated in Figures 2 and
3. Figure 2 shows a typical sequence of peekaboo accompanied by simple smiles and
gaze at mother. Figure 3 shows a typical sequence of tickle accompanied by different
smiles and by less gaze at mother.
Pace of Maternal Game Actions

Do faster paced games (shorter durations of setup and climax components regardless
of the type of game) have more or different types of smiles than slower paced games?
We divided the duration of each component (setup and climax) into two groups using
a median split procedure. We compared the proportional duration of each smile type
between fast vs. slow components for each game. There is a higher proportional dura-
tion of duplay smiling for faster paced games in both setup (F(1, 52) = 8.46, p < .05)
and climax (F(1, 52) = 8.31, p < .01) components in tickle games. The mean per-
centage of duplay smiling during slow paced tickle setups is 2.44 (sd = 4.26) com-
pared to 8.76 (10.31) for faster paced setups. The mean percentage of duplay smiling
during slow paced tickle climaxes is 11.98 (13.73) compared to 26.62 (25.05) for fast
paced climaxes. Neither gaze at mother nor any other smile types differ in propor-
tional duration between faster and slower game paces and no significant differences
were found for peekaboo. These findings suggest that duplay smiling is sensitive to
the pace of tickle games. Duplay smiling is more likely to appear during shorter com-
pared to longer components of tickle, regardless of whether it is setup or climax.
Since there is more duplay smiling during tickle games and when that game’s com-
ponents are shorter, we asked whether tickle components are shorter in general com-
pared to peekaboo components. A GAME ¥ COMPONENT ¥ TRIAL repeated
measures ANOVA on pace of maternal actions showed that all the main effects were
significant: GAME, F(1, 53) = 47.38, p < .001; COMPONENT, F(1, 53) = 5.03, p <
.05; and TRIAL, F(5, 265) = 7.17, p < .001. There was one significant 2-way interac-
tion: GAME ¥ COMPONENT, F(5, 265) = 9.80, p < .01. No other interaction effects
were significant. The post-hoc paired t-tests showed that for all 6 trials, tickle setup is
played approximately 1.5 times longer than peekaboo setup up (range 1.5–1.75), t(53)
= 3.07 to 5.88, p’s < .01. Tickle climax is longer than peekaboo climax only in the
first trial (t(53) = 3.64, p < .05). Tickle setups were significantly longer than tickle cli-
maxes during the 2nd (t(53) = 3.19, p < .05) and 5th (t(53) = 3.38, p < .05) trials. These
results show that in general, tickle setup and climax do not significantly differ in pace,
that tickle setup is slower than peekaboo, and that there are no significant differences
in pace between the climax components of both games.
Discussion
This discussion will have the following form. First we review the findings on the
patterns of occurrence of each different smile with respect to game, component, trial,
gaze direction, and pacing. Next, we return to the main question of the study: do
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Setup (a) and climax (b) phases of one trial of peekaboo. The infant’s facial expression and visual
attention change relatively little across the phases. The infant’s simple smile during setup changes to a slight
Duchenne smile during climax as the lip corners retract and the cheeks raise.

(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Setup (a) and climax (b) and (c) phases of one trial of tickle. The infant begins setup with a simple
smile while gazing at mother. In the climax, this changes to a duplay smile, first with looking away from the
mother (b) and then with both looking away, turning the head to the side, and leaning (c). Also in (c), the infant
attempts to push the mother’s hand with her right arm.

(c)
Figure 3. (Cont.)
different infant smiles reflect different positive emotions. Finally, we discuss the limi-
tations of the study and make some concluding remarks. Inferences about emotion are
based on the process of change in facial expression over time—within and across
trials—and between games.
Summary of Findings on Different Infant Smiles

Simple smiles. Simple smiles are lip corner retractions unmodified by cheek raising
or jaw dropping. Simple smiles are more likely than play and duplay smiles during
setup and climax for peekaboo. The proportional duration of simple smiles does not
significantly differ from Duchenne smiles during peekaboo and there are no signifi-
cant differences in proportional duration between simple and other smile types for
tickle. The likelihood of simple smiling does not differ between games nor between
the setup and climax components of either game. Simple smiles are more likely to
cooccur with gaze at mother during peekaboo compared to tickle, but this was true
for all smiles and for both setup and climax. Thus, simple smiles predominate over
other smiles within peekaboo but their overall likelihood does not differ between
games and components.
Prior research, reviewed in the introduction, suggests that simple smiles in infants
are more likely when greeting a stranger compared to the mother at 10 months. The
work on adult simple smiles suggests that they are not correlated with amusement and
pleasure but rather are more social-regulatory in nature.
Our impression is that during mother-infant play, simple smiles are indeed related
to infant enjoyment because they consistently occur as part of a family of other types
of smiling in the context of the ebb and flow of the social games studied here
(Messinger, Fogel, & Dickson, 1999). It is non-trivial that smiling does not vanish
during the setup of games. Simple smiles occur in both setup and climax although
other types of smiling are more likely in the climax.
What might be the emotional meaning of simple smiling? One source of evidence
is that they occur in sequence with other smile types in these two play routines. They
predominate in early and late trials and they are in the background during middle trials
as other types of smiling occupy the foreground. Simple smiles seem to represent a
baseline or background level of enjoyment during both setup and climax that is
required for the emergence of more complex smiling in the climax, similar to smiling
before laughing at the punch lines while listening to a series of jokes told by a skilled
comedian.
A second source of evidence for the emotional meaning of simple smiles is that
they are systematically related to the context and thus appear to serve unique func-
tions in the communication system. This is illustrated by the pattern of co-occurrence
of simple smile with infant gaze direction. Simple smiling accompanied by gazing at
mother during peekaboo may be related to Piaget’s (1952) smiles of assimilation,
having a cognitive aspect of the recognition of the familiarity of the game routine.
These simple smiles seem to represent an enjoyment of recognition or perhaps an
enjoyment of readiness to engage in play. The feeling may be similar to an adult’s
experience of being delighted to be with a familiar person and the action readiness of
anticipation for engaging in enjoyable things together.
Simple smiles occurring without gazing at mother during tickle may, on the other
hand, correspond to a slightly different emotion, involving the anticipation of the
impending touch in relation to the intensity of the previous tickle. Simple smiles
during tickle setup following the climax of the previous trial are often accompanied
by gasping for air and sighing (cf. Dickson et al., 1997). The feeling associated
with these smiles may be an enjoyment of relief or perhaps an enjoyment of relaxation,
similar to pauses between laughter episodes in playful conversations of children
and adults. The action readiness is the temporary withdrawal in relation to a past
experience of being tickled and to the anticipation of another. According to Frijda
(1986, p. 239), ‘the past is present in awareness of action readiness in that relaxation
after excitement is, and feels different from just relaxing . . . muscle sensation, pro-
prioceptive feedback, gain meaning from the intentional context within which it is
received”.
Duchenne smiles. Duchenne smiles are lip corner retractions modified by the raising
of the cheeks due to the contractions of the orbicularis oculi muscles around the eyes.
Inferences about the emotional significance of Duchenne smiles are derived in the
same manner as for simple smiles: from their sequence of occurrence and from their
context with respect to infant gaze direction. With regard to sequence, Duchenne
smiles are more likely in the early trials (1 and 3) of tickle compared to peekaboo and
more likely in the climax of those trials. Within tickle, Duchenne smiles are more
likely than duplay smiles in the first two trials of setup and more likely than play smiles
in the first four trials of climax. This suggests that Duchenne smiles index a possible
different emotion than simple smiles, an emotion occurring primarily during the
climax of initial trials of tickle, after which Duchenne smiles do not predominate,
either in one or the other game or in the climax compared to the setup of the games.
Duchenne smiles, however, continue to be co-present with other types of smiles during
all trials.
Because they tend to occur during the climax components of early trials, they may
express an enjoyment of satisfaction or perhaps an enjoyment of participation at being
a part of the unfolding dynamic of the game. These early Duchenne smiles may suggest
to the mother that the infant wants to continue this participation over more trials. In
this way, they may provide a source of dynamic feedback that allows the game to
unfold and proceed toward the emergence of play and duplay smiles in later trials.
According to Stern (1985), infants from as early as the first month of life have a sense
of themselves as being a participant in the creation of unfolding processes of mutual
engagement.
As with simple smiles, there may be a difference in positive emotion when
Duchenne smiles are accompanied by gaze at mother compared to when they are not.
Duchenne smiles only occur significantly with gaze at mother during peekaboo climax.
In this case, the action pattern of Duchenne smiles, which involve the eyes and perhaps
the narrowing of a focus of attention, carries the enjoyment of participation into an
action readiness for a more directed form of enjoyment of agency, sensing oneself as
an active rather than passive participant in the game (Holt, Fogel, & Wood, 1998; Stern,
1985). This may mean that the pleasure of peekaboo is in the action readiness for
being an active agent in visual searching for when and how the mother will reappear
after hiding. The game creates the opportunity for the infant’s action readiness to
search for the mother, and finding the mother in that dynamic sequence of events is
the source of this particular form of enjoyment.
Duchenne smiles without gazing at mother occur more than expected by chance
during tickle climax. The cheek raising component of Duchenne smiling not only
narrows the field of vision but may also partially occlude it. Looking away during
Duchenne smiling in a tickle climax does not seem to be related to an action readi-
ness for participation but rather to get away in a playful manner. When infants look
away from their mothers during tickle climax, they often turn their whole bodies away
as if trying to hide or to protect themselves (See Figure 3). These Duchenne smiles
may reflect an enjoyment of hiding or perhaps an enjoyment of escape, as during hiding
and chasing games in older infants and children.
Play and duplay smiles. Play smiles involve the contraction of the lip corners modi-
fied by a jaw drop, while duplay smiles are modified by both a jaw drop and the raising
of the cheeks. Our data show that play smiles are significantly less likely than duplay
smiles in tickle climax, which also supports the observations of Dickson et al. (1997)
for parent-infant play at 12 months. There may be anatomical constraints within the
facial musculature such that the lip corner retraction required to sustain smiling when
the jaw is dropped predisposes the contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscles that
raise the cheeks (Messinger et al., 1997). In any case, there are many more significant
findings for duplay smiles compared to play smiles in our study.
The emotional significance of play smiling can be inferred, as in the other smiles,
from sequence and gaze context data. With respect to sequence, infants duplay smile
more during the climax compared to the setup of tickle in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th trials.
Duplay smiles are more likely in the climax compared to setup of peekaboo during
the 1st and 3rd trials. Duplay smiles predominate in tickle compared to peekaboo during
the 4th and 6th trials. Within tickle, Duchenne smiles are more likely than duplay in the
first two trails of setup while duplay smiles are more likely than Duchenne in trials 1,
3, 4, and 6 of the climax. These results suggest that as the tickle game progresses,
duplay smiles begin to predominate over Duchenne smiles. The emotion of duplay
smiles most likely depends upon the earlier and ongoing occurrence of simple and
Duchenne smiles during the initial trials in the context of the repeating structure of
the games. Duplay smiles may reflect the enjoyment of build-up after a series of
alternations between the other positive emotions mentioned earlier. One of the action
tendencies of a jaw drop is for the expression of laughter or other vocalization.
Many of the duplay smiles during tickle were accompanied by laughter, although this
was not coded, a further indication of emotional build-up. The feeling seems similar
to laughing at a joke’s punch line after an appropriately constructed build-up of
the story.
With respect to the effects of context, we consider two important findings. First,
duplay smiling is significantly likely to cooccur with gazing at mother during both
tickle and peekaboo climax. There is not, in other words, a strong difference between
duplay smiles depending upon gaze context. Duplay smiles may be the prototype of
the emotional experience of primary intersubjectivity, a form of interpersonal
communicative sharing that appears during the first year of life (Trevarthen, 1992).
During face-to-face communication in the first six months, play/duplay smiles are
more likely when mother is smiling and the infant is looking at the mother (Messinger
et al., 1997). The gaze data shows that duplay smiles may be experienced as an enjoy-
ment of build-up with respect to an action readiness to share the enjoyment with the
partner who has co-created the emotional process, the enjoyment of intersubjective
build-up.
Duplay smiling is also more likely to appear during shorter compared to longer
game components. On the average, peekaboo is played with shorter components than
tickle even though duplay smiles are more likely during tickle games. This suggests
that the emotional conditions that precede duplay smiling are created differently in
peekaboo compared to tickle. The build-up of duplay smiling is created during a visual
game like peekaboo by speeding up the game, perhaps in the early trials. During tickle,
build-up is probably generated by persistence over trials of the more physiologically
arousing stimulation of tickling.
Do Different Infant Smiles Reflect Different Positive Emotions?

Can we infer a different positive emotion for each type of smile using our research
paradigm? One aspect of this question is whether it is possible to distinguish between
an explanation based on intensity differences compared to an explanation based on
uniquely different emotions within a family. If we just take the comparison between
simple smiling and other types of smile, it may be possible to rely on an explanation
based on intensity. There were more non-simple smiles in the more arousing climax
compared to setup. There were more non-simple smiles in the more vigorous tickle
compared to peekaboo games. There were more non-simple smiles in later compared
to earlier trials, assuming that intensity builds over time.
Once we examine the complexity of the data, introducing all the different types of
smiles and their sequential patterns of occurrence, the intensity explanation seems less
compelling. There are indeed more non-simple smiles in climaxes but why should cli-
maxes differ in the likelihood of play or Duchenne smiles based on TRIAL or GAME?
Are play smiles more intense than Duchenne smiles? Based on functional and social
process theories of emotion reviewed earlier, we suggest that the emotional meaning
of smiling depends upon its patterning of occurrence in the social context and the
obvious differences in the accompanying action patterns that predispose the individ-
ual toward different types of meaningful engagement with the partner.
The results show that each different type of smile is built up over time in different
ways depending upon how those patterns of co-occurring actions (gaze direction and
other facial action units like cheek raising and jaw dropping) enter into the transac-
tions that distinguish one game from the other, the setup from the climax, and early
compared to later trials. It is likely that the mother’s structuring action within the con-
straints of the culturally recognized game amplifies the infant’s background enjoyment
of readiness to engage in play (simple smiling), highlighting a different kind of enjoy-
ment, the enjoyment of participation in the game (Duchenne smiling). During the
course of the game, the infant’s attention becomes directed to mother or away depend-
ing upon the action readiness patterns of the game that recruit particular action
patterns in the face (visual or oral). These action dynamics are coupled with the com-
munication dynamics of the repeating setup and climax rhythms of the game to create
the conditions for experiencing multiple forms of enjoyment such as hiding, relief,
agency, and build-up.
Another aspect of the research question is whether there is a one-to-one corre-
spondence between a particular smile type and a particular emotional meaning. Some
functionalist and dynamic systems research suggests that there should not be a strong
correspondance between expression and meaning. Camras (1992), for example, found
that different negative facial expressions (the ones classically associated with anger,
sadness, and fear) occurred in sequence and apparently interchangeably during con-
textual conditions that indicated distress. According to others (Ginsburg, 1997), facial
expressions often serve communicative functions in the absence of any clear emotion,
as in smiling during greetings. Then there are the cases in which expressions seem to
reflect an apparently opposite emotion, as when tears reflect happiness and smiles
reflect shame or submissiveness. Caution must be used, therefore, in making any
generalizable inferences about the meaning of different types of smiles from this
study alone.
What we can conclude, however, is that in the context of these types of mother-
infant games, the following links between expression and emotion were found. First
of all, we found that the different smiles seemed to be related to uniquely different
emotions. We did not find evidence that simple smiles, for example, occurred in similar
sequential and contextual patterns compared to other smiles. Second, we found that
each type of smile may have more than one emotional meaning depending upon the
infant’s gaze direction and the sequence of other actions. Our results, therefore, suggest
that there are multiple forms of enjoyment indexed by smiling in general, and multi-
ple forms of enjoyment indexed by the same type of smiling, even within the limited
context of these two mother-infant games.
There is insufficient data on the relationship between context and smile type in chil-
dren and adults to know whether our findings reflect uniquely infantile emotions or
whether by 6 months, infants have a complex range of adult-like positive emotions.
Our findings do show, however, that the emotion of these smiles is similar at 6 and 12
months so long as the structure of the games remains the same.
Limitations of the Study

Can we infer the emotion of each type of smile from this non-experimental, semi-
naturalistic study of two mother-infant games? One must ask whether there is any
other way to infer positive emotion from facial expression. Certainly, we do not have
examples of smiling in relation to single tactile or visual events as one might imagine
in a more controlled experiment. On the other hand, research shows that after 3 months
of age, infants do not smile at single events but only in the context of repeatable and
familiar routines such as greeting a familiar person or during structured adult-infant
games (Sroufe, 1995). Strictly speaking, even single eliciting events are types of social
context, contexts that are less ecologically valid than the ones studied here.
Thus, smiling in infants cannot be studied using experimentally controlled stimuli
but only in naturally occurring routines such as mother-infant games. Indeed, recent
work on the connection of emotion and facial expression in children and adults arrives
at a very similar conclusion: facial actions must be studied with respect to the social
situation in which they occur and in the temporal context of their occurrence (Buss &
Goldsmith, 1998; Fogel et al., 1992; Frijda & Tcherkassof, 1997; Ginsburg, 1997). It
may be that this conclusion is relevant only to the positive emotions. Negative emo-
tions may be more easily elicited by a single stimulus and thus more easily studied
and induced experimentally.
Within these limitations on experimental control, we attempted to constrain the
range of between dyad variability by imposing an acceptance criterion of smiling
during two consecutive trials of the first game and the subsequent completion of six
trials for both games without loss of infant attention and without fussiness. This cri-
terion had the effect of a high rejection rate. The tradeoff is that by relaxing the cri-
terion, we accept into the sample infants who were not actually ‘playing’ the game in
an engaged manner, according to our judgement. In that case, we would no longer be
studying positive emotion in those infants. Our preliminary analyses revealed that
there were no differences between accepted and rejected dyads on the basis of mea-
sured demographic factors nor on factors related to temperamental positivity. Given
that these limitations to generalizability are inherent in the phenomenon of positive
emotion, we can make some tentative conclusions about the emotions related to dif-
ferent infant smiles. These conclusions await replication and a similar examination of
other types of adult-infant games and other routines in which smiling occurs during
the first year of life.
There were no significant age differences in smiling or gazing between 6 and 12
months during these games. Under naturalistic conditions, research suggests that the
peekaboo game changes during this period as infants take more of an active role in
covering and uncovering themselves and their mothers (Bruner, 1983; Holt, Fogel, &
Wood, 1998). In our study, we constrained the play so that mothers did the covering
and uncovering at both ages. It could be that in naturally occurring games, we might
see age differences in the patterning of smile types and their cooccurrences with gaze
direction.
Conclusion
Consistent with dynamic systems and social process theories, our data show that
emotion is part of a communicative process that unfolds over time. Emotion family
members may be connected to each other because they share unique but related roles
in the series of events that constitute the social process for positive emotion. Family
members may differ from each other because they are connected with different
types of action readiness within the particular dynamics of the game. This work may
help us to understand why familiar routines such as social games are necessary to
generate the varieties of enjoyment indicated by these different smiles. It may be that
there is no other way to achieve these forms of enjoyment outside of the sequential
patterning of the social-relational context.
Our results suggest that emotion is inherently connected with communication,
action readiness for communication, and forms of experience that regulate the indi-
vidual’s changing engagement in the social process. Emotional meanings, at least those
emotions that occur during social games in infants, are therefore dynamic and rela-
tional (Fogel et al., 1992; Frijda, 1986). The infant’s emotions are patterns of relational
action readiness that establish a psychological connection with another person and
reflect the sequential history of that connection: the joys of entering into a shared activ-
ity, of being an active participant, and of creating those pleasures together. Rather than
trying to parse emotion into cause and effect models, or individual and context models,
future research may profit by understanding the co-regulated relational dynamics out
of which particular types of emotions emerge.
Our work taken alone cannot conclusively distinguish the discrete emotion theory
from the social process theory of emotion. Different types of social games would have
to be studied and physiological measures used to evaluate the potential contributions
of emotional intensity. This work does, however, take a concrete step toward creating
a paradigm for the study of social processes and emotion by using highly structured
social patterns and conceptualizing operationalizable comparisons between them
(GAME, COMPONENT, and TRIAL). Regardless of which theory proves to be the
best explanation of emotion, knowledge about emotion and its development is
advanced by the study of its diversity and complexity in ecologically valid situations.
References
Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (1995). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when con-
secutive codes may and cannot repeat. Psychological Bulletin, 18, 272–283.
Barrett, K. C. (1995). A functionalist approach to shame and guilt. In J. P. Tangney & K. W.
Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and
pride (pp. 25–63). New York: Guilford Press.
Bateson, G. (1955). The message ‘this is play.’ In B. Schaffner (Ed.), Group processes, Vol 2.
Madison, NJ: Madison Printing Company.
Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis.
Cambridge MA: MIT.
Blurton-Jones, N. G. (1972). Non-verbal communication in children. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Non-
verbal communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Buss, K. A. & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Fear and anger regulation in infancy: Effects on the
temporal dynamics of affective expression. Child Development, 69, 359–374.
Campos, J. J. & Barrett, K. C. (1984). Toward a new understanding of emotions and their devel-
opment. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior
(pp. 229–263). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Camras, L. A. (1992). Expressive development and basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6,
269–283.
Dickson, L., Fogel, A., & Messinger, D. (1997). The development of emotion from a social
process view. In M. Mascolo & S. Griffen (Eds.), What develops in emotional development,
(pp. 253–273). NY: Plenum Press.
Dickson, K. L., Walker, H., & Fogel A. (1997). The relationship between smile-type and play-
type during parent-infant play. Developmental Psychology, 925–933.
Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expres-
sion and brain physiology II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 342–353.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ancoli, S. (1980). Facial signs of emotional experience. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1125–1134.
Emde, R. N. & Harmon, R. J. (1972). Endogenous and exogenous smiling systems in early
infancy. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 8, 57–67.
Emde, R. N., McCartney, R. D., & Harmon, R. J. (1971). Neonatal smiling in REM states: IV.
Premature study. Child Development, 42, 1657–1661.
Fernald, A. & O’Neill, D. K. (1993). Peekaboo across cultures: How mothers and infants play
with voices, faces, and expectations. In K. Macdonald (Ed.), Parent-child play: Descriptions
and implications. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fogel, A., Dickson, K. L., Hsu, H., Messinger, D., Nelson-Goens, G. C., & Nwokah, E. (1997).
Communicative dynamics of emotion. In K. C. Barrett (Ed.), New Directions in Child Devel-
opment: The Communication of Emotion: Current Research from Diverse Perspectives, 77,
5–24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fogel, A., Nwokah, E., Dedo, J., Messinger, D., Dickson, K. L., Matusov, E., & Holt, S. A.
(1992). Social process theory of emotion: A dynamic systems approach. Social Develop-
ment, 1, 122–142.
Fogel, A., Nwokah, E., & Karns, J. (1993). Parent-infant games as dynamic social systems. In
K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Fox, N. A. & Davidson, R. J. (1988). Patterns of brain electrical activity during the expression
of discrete emotions in ten month old infants. Developmental Psychology, 24, 230–236.
Frank, M. G., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1993). Behavioral markers and recognizability of
the smile of enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 83–93.
Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. & Tcherkassof, A. (1997). Facial expressions as modes of action readiness. In J. A.
Russell & J. M. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 78–102).
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ginsburg, G. P. (1997). Faces: An epilogue and reconceptualization. In J. A. Russell & J. M.
Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 349–382). NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Greenfield, P. M. (1972). Playing peekaboo with a four-month-old: A study of the role of speech
and nonspeech sounds in the formation of a visual schema. The Journal of Psychology, 82,
287–298.
Holt, S. A., Fogel, A., & Wood, R. M. (1998). Innovation in social games. In M. Lyra & J.
Valsiner (Eds.), Construction of psychological processes in interpersonal communication,
pp. 35–52. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Izard, C. E. & Malatesta, C. Z. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development I: Differential
emotions theory of early emotional development. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant
development, Second Edition. (pp. 494–554). NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Holt, S. A., Fogel, A., & Wood, R. W. (in press). Innovation in social games. In M. D. P. de
Lyra & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Construction of psychological processes in interpersonal commu-
nication: Vol. 4 Child development in culturally structured environments. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Kaye, K. & Fogel, A. (1980). The temporal structure of face-to-face communication between
mothers and infants. Developmental Psychology, 16, 454–464.
Lewis, M. (1995). Cognition-emotion feedback and the self-organization of developmental
paths. Human Development, 38, 71–102.
Messinger, D., Dondi, M., Nelson-Goens, C., Beghi, A., Fogel, A., & Simion F. (1998). Neona-
tal smiles. Infant Behavior and Development, 21 (special ICIS issue), 573.
Messinger, D., Fogel, A., & Dickson, K. L. (1997). A dynamic systems approach to infant facial
action. In J. A. Russell & J. M. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression.
(pp. 205–228). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Messinger, D., Fogel, A., & Dickson, K. L. (1999). What’s in a smile? Developmental Psy-
chology, 35, 701–708.
Nwokah, E. & Fogel, A. (1993). Laughter in mother-infant emotional communication. Inter-
national Journal of Humor Research, 6, 137–161.
Oster, H. & Rosenstein, D. (in press). Baby FACS: Analyzing facial movement in infants. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Parrott, W. G. & Gleitman, H. (1989). Infants’ expectations in play: The joy of peek-a-boo.
Cognition and Emotion, 3, 291–311.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities
Press.
Plooij, F. (1979). How wild chimpanzee babies trigger the onset of mother-infant play—and
what the mother makes of it. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of inter-
personal communication (pp. 223–243). London: Cambridge University Press.
Rothbart, M. K. (1986). Longitudinal observation of infant temperament. Developmental Psy-
chology, 22, 356–365.
Slabach, E. H., Morrow, J., & Wachs, T. D. (1991). Questionnaire measurement of infant and
child temperament. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament, pp.
205–234. NY: Plenum.
Sroufe, L. A. (1995). Emotional development. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant. NY: Basic Books.
Thompson, R. A. (1991). Developmental changes in the dynamic features of emotional expres-
sions in the first year. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development. Seattle, Washington.
Trevarthen, C. (1992). The function of emotions in early infant communication and develop-
ment. In J. Nadel & L. Camaioni (Eds.), New perspectives in early communicative develop-
ment, (pp.). London: Routledge.
van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1972). A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and
smiling. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Non-verbal communication (pp. 209–241). Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
van Hoorn, J. (1987). Games that babies and mothers play. In P. Monighan-Nourot, B. Scales,
J. van Hoorn, & M. Adny (Eds.), Looking at children’s play: A bridge between theory and
practice. NY Teacher’s College.
von Eye, A. (1990). Introduction to configural frequency analysis: The search for types and
antitypes in cross-classifications. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Watson, J. S. (1972). Smiling, cooing, and ‘the game’. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 18, 323–339.
Wolff, P. H. (1987). The development of behavioral states and the expression of emotions in
early infancy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Notes
1. In young infants, these smiles have also been called open mouth smiles (Messinger et al., 1997) and
gaping smiles (Oster & Rosenstein, in press).
2. Smiling occurs in other games such as patacake, give and take, and bouncing. These games, however,
have a more narrative-like structure without the simple invariants of setup and climax.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants to the senior author from the National Institute of Mental
Health (R01 MH48680 and MH57669). The authors wish to thank the research assistants who
contributed to the coding and data collection, especially Jenny Callao and Jason Knight.
View publication stats

Fogel Do Different Infant Smiles Reflect Different Posit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fogel Do Different Infant Smiles Reflect Different Posit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Do Different Infant Smiles Reﬂect Different Positive

Article in Social Development · November 2000

Alan Fogel G. Christina Nelson-Goens

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Transitional processes in relational systems View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Keywords: Emotional development; mother-infant play; smiling; infant games

Smiling is a facial action that is considered to be the prototypical expression of plea-

Prior Research on Smiling During Mother-Infant Peekaboo and Tickle Games

Table 1. Summary of Results from Repeated-Measure Analysis of Variance:

Factors (d.f.) F-value

Game (1,53) n.s.

% of Game Component % of Game Component

(A) Simple Smile (C) Play Smile

(B) Duchenne Smile (D) Duplay Smile

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000

Smile type Component Game 1 2 3 4 5 6

Duchenne Climax Tic vs. Peek Tic* Tic*

Game Component Smile Types 1 2 3 4 5 6

Peekaboo Setup Sim vs. Pla Sim** Sim* Sim*

Game Smile type Component 1 2 3 4 5 6

Peekaboo Duplay Set vs. Cli Cli** Cli*

Infant Gazing and Smiling

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000

Pace of Maternal Game Actions

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000

Summary of Findings on Different Infant Smiles

Do Different Infant Smiles Reflect Different Positive Emotions?

Limitations of the Study

© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4, 2000

View publication stats

You might also like