Facial Feedback Mechanisms in Autistic Spectrum Disorders

Abstract

Facial feedback mechanisms of adolescents with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) were investigated utilizing three studies. Facial expressions, which became activated via automatic (Studies 1 and 2) or intentional (Study 2) mimicry, or via holding a pen between the teeth (Study 3), influenced corresponding emotions for controls, while individuals with ASD remained emotionally unaffected. Thus, individuals with ASD do not experience feedback from activated facial expressions as controls do. This facial feedback-impairment enhances our understanding of the social and emotional lives of individuals with ASD.

Mimicking non-verbal emotional expressions and empathy development in simulated consultations: An experimental feasibility study

“…This finding is somewhat different from the literature on facial expression mimicry which instead suggests similar effects of spontaneous and instructed mimicry [14,15]. One explanation for our finding is that the mechanisms of gesture-driven and facial emotional mimicry might differ.…”

“…We found a high level of spontaneous mimicry, as well as similar frequencies of mimicry behaviour in response to the SP's nonverbal emotional expressions, in both experimental and control groups. This novel finding affirms our lead question and suggests that non-verbal emotional expressions are mimicked by clinicians in simulated consultations either intentionally or unintentionally, consistent with the literature on the chameleon effect [7,9] and previous comparisons of instructed versus spontaneous mimicry in autistic spectrum participants [14,15]. However, our study reported much longer durations for instructed than spontaneous mimicry, probably reflecting the effort required to remember to mimic.…”

“…Second, in spite of the indication that general mimicry can improve relational empathy, further work is needed to ascertain which type of mimicry (instructed or spontaneous) contributes more significantly to relational empathy development. Although the available literature on facial expression mimicry indicated similar effects of spontaneous and instructed mimicry [14,15], further studies should identify the contexts within which mimicry is more or less appropriate in order to avoid the present result of discomfort from instructed mimicry. For example, some of the patients' behaviours might reflect their medical condition and should thus not be mimicked.…”

“…Although there is currently a renewed debate about whether and how facial feedback influences emotions [13], the available literature on facial expression mimicry indicates similar effects of spontaneous and instructed mimicry [14,15]. Given the perceived lack of studies on how non-verbal expressions of emotion contribute to empathy establishment in applied settings, our study aims to explore the feasibility of this instructional approach.…”

Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others

“…A compromise is to instruct participants or confederates to mimic in one experimental condition and refrain from mimicking in a control condition. Although this kind of instructed mimicry can reach similar levels to spontaneous mimicry (Stel, Dijk, & Olivier, 2009;Stel, van den Heuvel, & Smeets, 2008), this is not guaranteed. If untrained participants are instructed to mimic it is necessary to perform manipulation checks, such as asking the participant to report how well they followed the instruction (Maddux et al, 2008) or video recording their behaviour .…”