1. Adults’ Responsiveness as a Function of Infant Facial Affect Chinmay Aradhye Department of Psychology Oakland University Advisor: Dr. Jennifer Vonk

2. Overview of the Presentation Scope and Rationale: Infant-Parent Communication Methods: Infant Images & Videos Results: Correlations, ANOVAs, Regressions Discussion: Limitations & Possible Implications

3. Scope and Rationale Infant-Parent Communication

4. Scope and Rationale Infant-Parent Communication ‘Expressability’ Predicts Development. (E.g. Secure Attachment: Braungart‐Rieker et al 2001) (Colonessi et al 2012)

5. Scope and Rationale Adults use specific cues to determine the intensity of specific expressions. (Bolzani Dinehart et al 2005) Infant-Parent Communication

6. Scope and Rationale Cuteness = “Kindenschema” (Lorenz, 1971) (Gould, 1980) Kindenschema activates Nucleus Accumbens, regardless of kinship. (Glocker et al 2009b )

7. Scope and Rationale How do infants’ expressions affect adult nurturing responsiveness?

8. Methods

9. Participants: 131 (35 males) Materials: 45 infant pictures (4“ X 4") 9 YouTube videos 3 in each expression (Crying, Smiling, & Neutral). Crying Smiling Neutral 5 rating scales (1 lowest to 10 highest) – Cuteness, Sweetness Likelihood to Adopt, Participant’s Level of Distress, Level of Uneasiness.

10. Methods Procedure Part 1: Images & Videos – Randomized & Order Counterbalanced. (3 sets of 15 images each) Images rated on – Cuteness, Sweetness Likely to Adopt. Videos Rated on – Level of Distress, Uneasiness. Looking time and Viewing time. Part 2: Participants complete 4 post-measures online.

11. Results

12. Analyses 1. Bivariate Correlations 2. Repeated Measure ANOVAs 3. Linear Regressions

13. Results Bivariate Correlations

14. Results Bivariate Correlations Variables (part 2)Variables (part 1) SexLooking Time Sex roleCuteness ratings of images EmpathyLikely to Adopt ratings Theory of mindDistress ratings of videos

15. Results Empathic concern and femininity correlated with likeliness to adopt Neutral and Smiling babies. Alpha correlations: Cuteness and Sweetness - r’s =.78,.80, and.71 respectively Distress and Uneasiness: r’s =.72,.70, and.59 respectively r =NeutralSmiling Empathy0.450.49 Femininity0.440.46

16. Results ANOVAS

17. Results Repeated Measures ANOVAs examined the effects of infants’ facial expressions (expression hereafter) on participants‘: Looking Times Cuteness ratings Likely to Adopt ratings Reported Distress.

18. Results Video Looking Times ( F (1, 128) = 5.51, p =.02, η 2 =.041)

19. Results Image Cuteness Ratings * Almost identical for Likely to Adopt ( F (1.61, 159.8) = 102.04, p <.001, η 2 =.508)

20. Results Experienced Distress Ratings at Videos

21. Results Regressions

22. Results Regressions predicted performance from individual differences. PredictorsOutcome RMET scoresLooking Time EQ scoresCuteness BSRI’s masculinity, femininity scores Likely to Adopt IRI’s subscales scoresDistress ratings

23. Results More Likely to Adopt BSRI FemininityNeutral Imagesβ =.44, t = 4.38, p <.001 BSRI FemininitySmiling Imagesβ=.48, t = 4.89, p<.001 IRI Empathic Concern Smiling Imagesβ=.46, t = 2.95, p =.004

24. Results Likeliness to Adopt Crying Images (β =.38, t = 3.49, p =.001)

25. Results Male Looking Time at Smiling Videos (β =.38, t = 3.49, p =.001)

26. Results Female Looking Time at Smiling Videos (β =.38, t = 3.49, p =.001)

27. Discussion How do infants’ expressions affect adult nurturing responsiveness?

28. Discussion Smiling infant videosViewed longer than crying Smiling infant imagesRated to be cuter, more adoptable Crying infant videosEvoked more distress in participants

29. Discussion High femininityPredicted higher likelihood to adopt infants across expressions High masculinity & Low femininity Predicted lower likelihood to adopt crying infants High empathic concernPredicted higher likelihood to adopt smiling infants

30. Discussion 1. Crying evoked distress, negative emotions, but not nurturance. 2. What might be the function of infant expression?  It is possible that infant crying evolved as behavioral manipulation, evoking distress in adults and forcing them to act on it (Krebs & Dawkins, 1984)

31. Limitations 1.More control with expressions 2.More control with age groups 3.Better looking time measures 4.Actual measures of nurturance 5.More control with videos

32. Thank you