Since 2012, I have been studying laughing babies. The question I am most often asked—frequently accompanied by incredulous laughter—is “Why?” And sometimes, “Wouldn’t it be better to study what makes them cry?”
When people look at my job as a baby scientist, they imagine that my goal is to help new parents get everything right. Even if that were possible, that’s not what we’re trying to do. Baby scientists study humanity through the eyes of infancy—and I study baby laughter because it’s at the heart of what makes us human.
My “proper” job title is “developmental psychologist.” I started studying babies because it seemed like the best place to start in psychology. The foundation of everything we become is laid in the womb and those frenetic first two years. I was interested in the origins of language, thought, intelligence, and consciousness. Those were all very big and difficult topics, so it seemed wise to start with baby steps.
Starting my Ph.D. in 2005, I investigated the origins of abstract ideas like “sameness” and “difference.” I then worked on two projects that looked at the very beginning of speech comprehension and how our brains develop a sense of time. All of these studies involved parents coming to our lab and their babies playing little games we invented to test their understanding of the world.
These encounters led me to baby laughter. Babies treated our studies as delightful games and they played with intense concentration. I wondered if their enjoyment might give clues about what they were thinking.
Infant psychology was already built on this assumption. Two of our main methods involve surprising babies. In habituation studies, we show them similar things repeatedly until they are bored and then change a crucial detail to see if they perk up. If after 10 pictures of a female face, they perk up when they see a male face, they know something is different. Remarkably, three-month-olds already notice this subtle difference and it was a question we couldn’t easily ask them any other way (see Quinn et al. 2002).
In violation of expectation studies, we show babies both possible and impossible events. If babies look longer at an impossible event, it implies they understand that the world doesn’t work that way. They might look longer at a block floating in mid-air compared to a block resting on a solid surface if they understand something about gravity.
Laughter seemed like another approach to understanding. Babies won’t laugh if they don’t get the joke.
But once I started studying laughter, I realised this wasn’t the most important thing about it. The main things that make babies laugh are not things. They’re other people. Baby laughter is intensely social. It is an invitation for you to engage with the baby. It encourages you to keep playing a game. And often the best bit of that game is the fact that you are playing.
One of the central things babies have to learn about is other people. Laughing with you helps them do so. We see this most clearly in peekaboo, which, my research found, was the best way to make babies laugh all over the world. It is also Social Interaction 101—a conversation that even preverbal babies can understand, participate in, and enjoy.
Realising this made me change the focus of my own research. I became less interested in the cognitive side of development and started to look more at the social and emotional side of infancy. You might say that I moved from thoughts to feelings. Those are a lot harder to study, but baby laughter helped me see I was on the right path. Laughter shows that babies really enjoy being babies.
As adults, we can be distant from that magic and joy. We can see it in children’s faces. But rarely do we go inside their experience. How wonderful and terrifying the world seems to them. Laughter is the sign that—despite everything—they are thriving. It invites frazzled parents to share the triumphs and rewards them for their love and attention. These are all key elements of successful development and it has been interesting to try and uncover. I sometimes call this “positive psychology for babies.”
What have I learned? Well, it would take a whole book to answer that. And, as luck would have it, I have just written one. The Laughing Baby was published by Unbound in the U.K. in April 2020 and the U.S. edition comes out in May. It covers all the important things that babies must learn in the first two years and shows how shared joy and laughter are an essential thread running through that whole time. Over the coming months, I will be posting extracts here and sharing more of the cutest science in the universe.
In Vienna General Hospital in the 1840s there were two maternity wards, Clinic 1 and Clinic 2, which admitted women on alternating days. The first clinic was attended by medical students, the second clinic by midwives. Pregnant women admitted on Clinic 1 days begged to be admitted to Clinic 2, as it seemed to be common knowledge that Clinic 1 was cursed. Data collected from 1842 to 1846 were incontrovertible: maternal death rates were 60% lower in the midwives’ clinic. A junior doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis, was tasked with investigating this. He found no differences in the clinics themselves, nor the delivery procedures. He made the suggestion, unusual for the time, that the medical students wash their hands with strongly chlorinated water. When they did, death rates dropped to levels found in Clinic 2. The medical students had come often from dissecting cadavers in anatomy classes. They didn’t wash their hands because, well, why would they? There was no reason. This was decades before the germ theory of disease was proved by Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister.
Semmelweis presented his findings to his superiors. He could not explain why the washing of hands helped, so they did not adopt his suggestions. Shortly afterwards he was fired and he returned to his native Hungary. Hospitals where he worked showed similar improvements, but his new colleagues would not adopt his methods either. He spent 20 years in increasingly angry correspondence with the European medical establishment. He was largely ignored. He died in an insane asylum in 1865, a broken and defeated man. In psychology, the Semmelweis Reflex is a cognitive bias where we reject new evidence when it contradicts existing beliefs or established paradigms.
The Laughing Baby p.25-6
The Laughing Baby is published on 16 April 2020. You can purchase it from Unbound or via Amazon.
Results from our survey showed that some babies start laughing very early. Parents have reported laughter in the first few months. However, many babies laugh a lot later. This makes many people skeptical that these very young babies really are laughing. I think that parents know their own babies far better than anyone else. If parents are reporting that their babies are laughing then I believe them.
Mind you, it is worth noting that there is no ‘right age’ for a baby to start laughing. Finding a wide range of ages for babies first doing things is quite common. Young babies have an awful lot on their plate and they all take their own individual route through development. Some walk ‘early’, some walk ‘late’ while the opposite could hold for talking.
Here’s a video submission from Resica and her family showing her daughter laughing at 9 weeks old.
It’s great to see a laughing baby page as I have been curious about my baby’s smiles and laughs. Failing the old wives tale my little daughter (now 12 weeks) started smiling at 11 days, she would smile at times on request specially for taking pics and when she was 9weeks she was laughing hard with my husband. She is twelve now and we get lots of laughter sessions from her. Here is the video when she first laughed
Thanks to Resica, Niana & Niana’s daddy for sharing the video.
If you have a laughing baby you’d like to share, please submit a video.
Are you expecting a baby between now and March 2020?
Do you live in the Woodford/Loughton/ Chingford area?
Would you be interested in this opportunity
Hi, my name is Jeanette – I am a qualified psychotherapist. I am doing an Infant Observation training course with the British Psychotherapy Foundation. I need to directly observe an infant during his/her early life and I wonder whether you might be able to help me?
I am looking to pair up with an expectant Mum who would be interested in having me observe their new-born baby from as soon as possible after birth up until their 2nd birthday.
It would involve my visiting for one hour each week, at the same time each week. I would be there to observe the baby and to learn about how a baby grows and develops within a family.
I would like to meet with the expectant Mum and her partner, before the baby is born, to talk about what is involved and to give them the chance to ask any questions.
I am a Psychotherapist working in the NHS; I completed my MSc in Psychotherapy in 2001 through De Montfort University, Leicester and I am a fully accredited and registered member of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). I have an up-to-date DBS check.
If you are interested and feel you might like to do this, I would be grateful if you could contact me for further information or to arrange to meet. Equally, if you know someone who you think might be interested, please do pass my details on to them.
A few years ago, I did a science show for babies and their parents called the Joys of Toys. In the show, 24 babies each got their own small toy box and parents were encouraged to take toys as we directed them. In one experiment comparing cars and animals. I bought 80 assorted toy cars from eBay and several dozen small soft toy animals; teddies, rabbits, badgers, hippos and something the manufacturer insisted was a warthog (a friendly blue warthog). We asked the parents to put a toy car next to soft toy rabbit and see which one each baby lunged for. We wondered if girls would go for the soft toy and the boys for the cars.
also wondered if it was a good idea to even run our ‘experiment’. We genuinely
had no idea what to expect. Gender preferences are scientifically mysterious.
For a long time, it was taken for granted that boys and girls are different
beasts but the more scientists investigate it, the less clear the differences
become. This does not stop people having strong opinions on what is ‘obvious’
or ‘natural’. Lots of people seem threatened by even the suggestion of
The campaign Let Toys Be Toys started in 2012 with the very reasonable aim of getting shops to label toys by function rather than gender. Since the late 1980s toy manufacturers have increasingly segregated toys by gender, sometimes even making pink and blue versions of the same toys. More disturbing when the types of toys get divided by gender it restricts the toys that children have access to. Let Toys Be Toys is not asking manufacturers to stop making dolls or soldiers. They just want the marketing and sales to move away from the rigid reinforcement of stereotypes. On their website, LetToysBeToys.org.uk, they make the point very simply:
“Boys and girls need the chance to develop in all […] areas, but many stores divide toys into separate boys’ and girls’ sections. Action construction and technology toys are predominantly marketed to boys, while social role play and arts and crafts toys are predominantly marketed to girls. Both boys and girls miss out this way.”
Whenever the campaign features in
the press there is no shortage of angry comments that “boys should be boys” and “what is wrong with
little girls liking pink?” and of course, “It is political correctness gone
our tiny, chaotic experiments at the Joys of Toys there was no pattern at all.
But there is no question that on average schoolboys prefer cars and fighting and
schoolgirls prefer dolls and caring. Brenda Todd and colleagues recently
completed a very detailed survey of all literature on children’s toy preferences.
In a meta-analysis of 16 well-controlled studies conducted since 1980 they
found strong gender based preferences in children between 12 months and 8 years
old (Todd et al., 2017). Interestingly, that analysis found that boys become more
stereotyped in their choices as they get older but girls did not. Stereotypes
were weaker in more recent studies than older ones suggesting a trend towards
these preferences come from? This is a very difficult question to answer. By eight
years old children have been exposed to many years cultural pressures, not
least from other children. This is true even by 12 months. The first question
parents used to ask at birth was “Is it a boy or a girl?” Nowadays, they may
already know that several months before birth. Once babies get labelled as boys or girls, we
tend to treat them differently and the differences are a lot more pervasive
than pink or blue clothes.
Once upon a time, a baby named X was born. This baby was named X so that nobody could tell whether it was a boy or a girl. Its parents could tell, of course, but they couldn’t tell anybody else. They couldn’t even tell Baby X at first.
X: A Fabulous Child’s Story, Lois Gould, 1972
A whole class of experiments have studied our weird need to gender stereotype babies. These get labelled “Baby X” studies. The name comes from Lois Gould’s science fiction short story, published in Ms. magazine in 1972. In the story, a lavishly funded Xperiment follows Baby X all the way through infancy and school. X’s parents regularly consult a giant instruction manual that covered everything from how to dress X, what toys to buy and how cope with questions from curious strangers to which bathroom X should use at school. (The solution was to use the principle’s bathroom which was just labelled bathroom.) The story was optimistic and X’s school friends quickly accept them as they are and start to follow suit adopting X’s genderless ways. This upsets other parents and then… well… I will not spoil it for you.
inspired by Lois Gould’s story the first real experiment was a bit more modest
in scope. It was run by Carol Seavey and colleagues in New York in 1975. Forty-two
participants, half of them female, each spent just 3 minutes interacting with a
three-month-old baby in a neutral yellow babygrow. They were given a doll, a
small football and rubber ring and were told to play naturally with the baby so
that researchers could study the infant’s response to strangers. The baby
happened to be female but participants were told to a baby boy, a baby girl or
a baby. The pattern of results was complex but encouraging. Overall, adults did
stereotype the baby based on the label but not strongly and they did not differ
in the warmth or affection shown towards it (Seavey, Katz, & Zalk, 1975).
similar studies found that prevailing cultural norms were projected onto babies
labelled male or female. But the effects were weak and inconsistent (Stern & Karraker, 1989). It not clear how well these 3 minute long interactions represent
what children experience in their home environment. Nor does this tell us
anything about how children respond to gender role socialization. As in the
story of baby X, parents do know the sex of their own child and they interact with
that child every day. It is entirely possible that gender stereotypes are self-fulfilling
prophecy, children and babies adopting the behaviours in line with their
Of course, no
parent believes this. Every child will surprise you. Each child turns out
differently in the same family. The personalities of older brothers and sisters
provide little clue to the what to expect from a new arrival of either gender.
Chances are the younger ones have all the baby toys of their older siblings,
pink and blue. They will make their own choices, with genes and environment
adding to the mix.
There is curious
evidence from monkeys that some toy preferences are genetic. Female vervet
monkeys make more contact with a doll and a cooking pot than males do, whereas
males spend longer than females manipulating a car and a ball (Alexander & Hines, 2002) and male rhesus monkeys prefer wheeled over non-wheeled plush
toys while females had no preference (Hassett, Siebert, & Wallen,
2008). Scientists speculate that cars and balls attract the male
animals because of the actions they enable and their interesting geometry. Alexander
and Hines speculate that the female vervet monkeys were play cooking games because
the pot was red. Some female monkeys had previously been shown to prefer pinks
and reds to blues and greens. The theory being that it is a biological
programmed preference that makes them respond nurturingly to the adorable pink
faces of baby monkeys. To my knowledge no-one has suggested the same applies to
humans but it would not necessarily effect babies toys preferences as girls’
preferences for pink only emerges from 2 years old onwards (LoBue & DeLoache, 2011) .
My friend Claire is raising her young children SJ and Phoenix in a gender-neutral way. Claire has avoided telling friends the biological sex of her children and uses the neutral pronoun “they” when talking about them. When SJ, the older of the two, was born Claire lived in highly conservative state of Alabama which made it doubly difficult. But she says “even in Alabama, a lot of people were very supportive.” They recognise that it is an important issue for her. “I have a lot of transgender friends,” Claire explains, “so I am very aware that gender is not the same thing as biological sex. SJ does not know their own gender yet, they are just baby.”
When Claire came home to the UK to give birth to Phoenix the reception was even more positive. “The second time we went to the health centre Phoenix was already a little celebrity, all the staff wanted to meet them and practice using ‘they’ and ‘them’ when talking to us.”
When SJ was coming up for their first birthday. I was wondering what present to send. In Lois Gould’s story, when X goes to school other children ask them what their favourite toy was in the hope of working out if X was a girl or a boy. X tells them that it was a doll but also that the doll was a robot. On hearing this the other children forget their original agenda, they are more interested in the toy than in gender politics. For SJ, I opt for a bright yellow duck but I notice that even for little babies many things come in pink or blue. Clothing can be even more tyrannical than toys, blue and pink are just two of the colours in rainbow of Claire’s children’s wardrobes. But has take extra effort and Claire gets frustrated with this,
“by consciously trying to do the right thing, you really not just how many unconscious biases we project on to tiny babies.“
In my view, the real biological differences between boys and girls are not yet known but the right way to treat babies is clear. If we treat children equally then in due course any biological differences will emerge anyway. But if we assume we know the difference between boys and girls we end up placing unnecessary restrictions on the choices and opportunities.
We should let toys be toys and let babies be babies.
Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (2002). Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(6), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00107-1
Gould, L. (1972, December). X: A fabulous child’s story. Ms., 74–76.
Todd, B. K., Fischer, R. A., Di Costa, S., Roestorf, A., Harbour, K., Hardiman, P., & Barry, J. A. (2017). Sex differences in children’s toy preferences: A systematic review, meta-regression, and meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, (July), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2064
Forty years ago, on 8th March 1978, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was broadcast on BBC Radio for the very first time. I personally first heard it 12 years later, but since that time it has remained my favourite comedy ever. To celebrate the birthday of this remarkable show, book, film, computer game here is a section from my book. This is from a chapter on boredom, surprise and why babies are little scientists. It’s also about why scientists are big kids.
Share and enjoy! Caspar
Life is an inevitable & emergent property of any (ergodic) random dynamical system that possesses a Markov blanket. Don’t leave without it!
@FarlKriston, 12 Jan 2015, Anonymous Twitter parody of Prof Karl Friston, FRS
Professor Karl Friston is probably the most influential scientist you’ve never heard of. He works at the University College London’s world famous Functional Imaging Laboratory, affectionally known as the FIL. He has been there most of his career. Back in 1991 he invented Statistical Parametric Mapping. SPM is a statistical technique for analysing the data from brain imaging experiments. SPM is also a set of software that will do the analysis for you. The elegance of the method and the fact that Friston gave away his software for free has led to SPM being used in about 90% of all brain imaging studies. As a result, Karl Friston is the most widely cited neuroscientist alive.
Most of us would have been very happy with that but Friston’s contributions did not stop there. He worked with Chris Frith to develop a highly influential account of schizophrenia and invented something called Dynamic Causal Modelling. He is author or co-author of over a thousand scientific papers. This is a mind-boggling number. For comparison I have under 20. This is partly a consequence of his eminence but also evidence that he is a very practical researcher who stays involved in the nitty-gritty. Friends who work with him tell me he is an affable and generous colleague. Friston’s many, many awards include Fellowship of the Royal Society and something called Golden Brain Award. He is undoubtedly a worthy recipient. He is famous among brain scientists as perhaps the brainiest of them all.
Karl Friston’s most recent idea is his biggest yet. The ‘Free-Energy Principle’ tries to explain not only what brains do but possibly even life itself. But it is also making Friston infamous, as the nerdy but well-meaning mockery of @FarlKriston account shows. The trouble is that the free-energy principle is very hard to comprehend and Friston’s explanations and equations usually only make matter worse. I will do my best to translate. But if you found the last section bamboozling now might be a good time to reach for your security blanket.
Here’s a relatively tame example of Karl explaining it in his own words:
The free-energy principle says that any self-organizing system that is at equilibrium with its environment must minimize its free energy. The principle is essentially a mathematical formulation of how adaptive systems (that is, biological agents, like animals or brains) resist a natural tendency to disorder. (p.127, Friston, 2010)
This makes it sound important doesn’t it? Apparently it can explain everything from the existence of ‘Life as we know it’ (Friston, 2013) right up to Freudian theory and psychedelic drug experiences (Carhart-Harris & Friston, 2010).
The secret is nestled in our Markov blankets. As Karl helpfully explains “The term Markov blanket was introduced in the context of Bayesian networks or graphs and refers to the children of a set (the set of states that are influenced), its parents (the set of states that influence it) and the parents of its children” (Friston, 2013). Got that? In essence, Markov blankets are a supercharged version of Judea Pearl’s Bayesian networks. They provide a statistical way to represent the boundary between an organism and the world. The mathematics gets very complicated, combining Bayesian statistics, information theory and entropy to explain how life can survive in the face of the chaos of the universe. But, in some sense, the free energy principle states that life is about trying to avoid being too surprised by the future.
Knowing what might happen next sounds like a good survival strategy. For Karl Friston, life is anything that can predict its own future. From single cells to Sigmund Freud, he wraps us each in a Markov blanket and sends us out to do battle with the unknown. Describing organisms in this way has some useful features. Action, perception and learning all become mathematically well-defined properties of the system. Perception provides information to optimise future predictions, actions move us out of uncertain (dangerous) situations, and learning is about updating internal states and beliefs about the external world. This might seem a very abstract way of looking at things but it supporters see it as general framework that can be applied as easily to bees as to babies.
Critics of Friston’s theory say there is nothing easy about it. They view it as an interesting intellectual exercise but say that the Free Energy Principle and the closely related Bayesian brain hypothesis are too general to be useful in the real world. FEP is a lot more abstract that SPM. It is not easy to see how it can be used to predict how adult or baby brains will react to the world. But this style of reasoning is already being used to understand what happens in real brains.
My favourite experiment of this kind involved a group of ferrets who went to the cinema. In what was clearly a naked attempt to win an Ignobel Prize, Josef Fiser and Michael Weliky at the University of Rochester got ferrets to watch The Matrix on DVD. The choice was deliberate because like Neo and friends the ferrets had wires coming out the back of their heads. This allowed the scientists to watch what they were thinking. They would watch the film all day and then dream about it at night. In doing so they helped Fiser and colleagues worked out a lot more about how brains are Bayesian predictors (Fiser, Chiu, & Weliky, 2004).
Josef Fisher is the sort of scientist Hollywood might dream up. He is tall, charming, handsome and impeccably dressed. He is Hungarian but speaks English with an American accent. His work is in psychology and neuroscience but with a strong mathematical element. If they made a film about him there would be a whiteboard of equations in the background.
Using the Matrix for this research seems like a doubly prophetic choice. In grown-up ferrets, the scientists discovered patterns of neural activity which correlated significantly with the images on the screen, whilst baby ferrets were more confused. Moreover, the adults kept on thinking about the movie after it had finished. This was pretty cool but the most surprising thing was that ferrets brains were not just passively reproducing what they saw. They could dream about it and their dreams appeared to actively improve their models of the world. Like Neo in the film, they were bending their existing expectations to fit their new reality. Or in the language of Karl Friston, they were minimising their prediction errors via a Gibbs sampling over the probability space.
Still with me? Perhaps now might be a good time to mention Douglas Adams. In that wholly remarkable book the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, he relates that one the highest compliments intergalactic hitchhikers can pay to one another is to say that they are “someone who knows where their towel is.” There are, of course, many practical uses for a towel when travelling the universe but a towel’s greatest value is psychological. As the book recounts:
“any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with” (Adams, 1979).
Babies and young children are more likely to carry a security blanket or soft toy on their adventures. Some estimates suggest that up to 70% of children have a strong attachment to a particular object. This seems to be largely a Western phenomenon, possibly a result of many more children sleeping separately from their parents than in Eastern cultures. The standard explanation was that these ‘attachment objects’ are a substitute for the original ‘object’, the mother and her breast. This does not hold up. The objects can provide security in novel situations but it seems to be an independent a child’s attachment to their mother (Donate-Bartfield & Passman, 2004).
Donald Winnicott thought attachment objects were reminder of security and love. I think this is correct. However, Karl Friston and the ferrets lets us see security blankets and velveteen rabbits in a wider context. Babies and children use these objects because we need security as we build our worlds. The ultimate aim of life is to explore enough of the world so that you can survive surprises. We will never be able to expect the unexpected but we can and we must reduce its scope and its impact. To survive we have to change our minds many times. Like the ferrets, we do this by improving in a Bayesian way, updating our beliefs to better fit our experience.
Babies are surprised every day and must continually confront uncertainty and explore the unknown. This is exhilarating and exhausting. It is not enough to add knowledge about the world, they must change their expectations, a new existential crisis every day. Mummy, teddy or a security blanket is a reassuring element of continuity and predictability. If babies know where that is, they know where they are. Perhaps this prevents the Markov blanket from unravelling?
It is hard to appreciate what a wild ride this must be for them. Adults do not change our beliefs very often. We have worked our whole lives to feel like we are right about most things. After all, in Friston’s theory that is the whole point of life; being less surprised over time. The best analogy I can suggest is to imagine your home planet gets destroyed and your best friend turns out be an alien who takes you hitchhiking across the remainder of the galaxy.
I might be biased here. Not only I am keen to meet aliens, I also still have a security blanket. I had one when I was little. I was so attached to it that my mother knitted a large elephant and sewed the tatty cotton rag onto his back. This was meant to deter me but inevitably I ended up dragging the elephant around everywhere. The original blanket disintegrated decades ago. It was replaced in my affections by a cellular blanket my mother bought home one day from hospital. The blanket wrapped a parcel containing my baby sister. No doubt I seemed alien and friendly to her. I still find cotton cellular blankets very soothing. May you do too? Around 30 percent of adults keep an old teddy or similar childhood memento. By my estimates, Charlie Brown’s friend Linus van Pelt must be into his seventies by now. I imagine he still carries his blanket some of the time.
As luck would have it just as I was finishing writing this section, Karl Friston came to my university to give a lecture. This was my chance to hear him in his own words. Would I be bamboozled? His opening was not promising, “I can give very good lectures. This is not one of them.” But he was wrong. He had us imagining ourselves as hungry owls and playing a logical guessing games. There were some of his infamous equations but he guided us through gently them. His reassuring, unhurried delivery no doubt acquired during his early training as a psychiatrist.
His summary of the purpose of life fits very well with the ambitions of our babies. When confronted with the big mysteries of the universe we are compelled to explain them (even if only to explain them away.) “The brain is in the game of explaining the sensory impression at hand.” This is a game of chance and we are all born with an intrinsic motivation to play it. We all keep score with the information gain measured in “Bayesian surprise” (or minimized free energy). Afterwards, I told him about this book and asked if he any insights into how this must feel for babies who play the game so much more intensely than adults? He could not much improve upon the hitchhiking analogy. And, wise man that he is, he also turned the question around. “This is why we are scientists isn’t it? To keep exploring and to try and recapture that feeling of joy?”
At the end of his famous 4 page paper Judea Pearl stated that he hoped his Bayesian networks would become “a standard point of departure for more sophisticated models of belief maintenance and inexact reasoning”. Be careful what you wish for. I do not think he could have predicted that ferrets would be watching The Matrix or that Karl Friston would drape Markov blankets over all life on Earth
“In truth it’s blankets all the way down. So cuddle close and keep that free energy minimal.”
(@FarlKriston, 8 Dec 2017)
For more like this, please look out for my book The Laughing Baby. It is being crowdfunded by Unbound Books. So it needs your support to make it a reality. Please pre-order your copy or tell your friends with babies
This weekend I was delighted to receive a beautiful copy of Schadenfreude by Tiffany Watt Smith. It has a close connection to my own book The Laughing Baby because Tiffany and I have compared notes as our various projects have progressed. Tiffany is an historian of emotions and the parent of young childen. She has even brought her son to our lab to take part in one of our studies…
You will have to read her book to find out if babies do expeience Schadenfreude. What’s more, Tiffany was one of the first people I interviewed when writing my book. Unfortunately, I didn’t check that sound levels so the recording is essentially inaudible. Nonetheless, her previous book was very helpful when i was trying to answer the following tricky question:
What are emotions?
(From Chapter Nine of The Laughing Baby)
“Emotions do not exist to be locked away inside individuals.”
Vasudevi Reddy and Colwyn Trevarthen, 2004
If laughter evolved as a social glue, central to this role is that it expresses emotion. The most infectious thing about a laughing baby is their absolute delight. It may seem a truism to say that ‘babies laugh because they are happy’. But this challenges us to answer the question what is happiness? While we are about it we might as well try and explain anger, sadness, worry and the rest. It should not surprise anyone that emotions are still mysterious to science. Many theories have been proposed and few have been discarded.
The race for a comprehensive theory of emotion is still wide open. Perhaps, it will always remain so, no scientific theory could catalogue all the nuances of our adult experience. In The Book of Human Emotions, Tiffany Watt Smith describes 156 different emotions. She readily admits this list is not comprehensive and the categories overlap and blur at their edges, changing over time and by culture. Tiffany’s goal as a historian of emotion to offer an argument against the tendency to reduce “the beautiful complexity of our inner lives into just a handful of cardinal emotions” (Watt Smith, 2015).
It is a tendency that has always been there. Tiffany describes the Li Chi, a book from the Confucian era that lists seven essential feelings; joy, anger, sadness, fear, love, dislike and fondness. Two and a half millennia later and little has changed. In the 2015 animated Pixar film Inside Out, the main character, a young girl called Riley, is shown with five emotions; Joy, Anger, Sadness, Fear and Disgust. Modern science usually settles on a list of about nine ‘basic emotions’; happiness, sadness, anger, fear, parental love, child attachment, sexual love, hatred, and disgust (Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 2014). These lists seem reasonable in as far as they go. But the best theories are not about listing emotions but explaining why we have emotions at all.
One of the first people to realise this was Charles Darwin. In a work of visionary genius that often gets overlooked in comparison to his other incredible achievements Darwin advanced one the first ever scientific theories of emotions. His book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (Darwin, 1872a) proposed that our emotions are evolved for our survival. Of course, he would say that wouldn’t he? Like all of Darwin’s work it was supported by decades of patient accumulation of evidence. He compared the anger displays of many animals. He also included many observations of babies. Darwin kept detailed biographical diaries of several of his children and wondered what was meant by their frowns, blushes, and laughs. On a theoretical level Darwin’s account was a bit thin, all it really says is that emotions are universal, valuable and shared with animals. But it was a very radical proposal for its time
About a decade later, William James and Carl Lange each independently decided that emotions were reactions to bodily states. For example, fear might be how we interpreted our racing hearts. For James emotions are literally feelings, “we feel sorry because we cry, … not … we cry … because we are sorry” (p. 180, James 1884). By this view emotions happen after the fact and are what philosophers call ‘epiphenomena’. The theory has been remarkable popular because it suggests that if you carefully measure exactly how a person is reacting physiologically you can tell what emotion they are experiencing. The James-Lang theory feels unsatisfying to me because it relegates emotion to a passive role. But it does have two important strengths. It points out that our physiology strongly influences our mental state and that emotions depend upon interpretation of experience. Contrary to early views of the theory popularised by John Dewey, neither James nor Lang ever insisted on a single emotion for each physiological reaction. They would be quite content that a racing heart and sweaty palms could be interpreted as fear in some situations and as love in others (L. B. Feldman, 2018).
Our old friend Sigmund Freud took a very different view. For Freud, emotions were supremely mental. Our minds are seething cauldrons of desires. Emotions are the main engine that drive us forward or hold us back. Reversing James-Lange theory, Freud even thought that mental turmoil could manifest itself physically as psychosomatic illness. But Freud’s biggest contribution was the invention of the unconscious. He believed our ‘true’ emotions hide from us in our subconscious and they are shaped by momentous events in early life that echo down through our lives. Being unobservable the unconscious is unscientific. Hence my use of the word invention rather than discovery. If you read modern neuroscience papers on emotion, they usually take the trouble to explain why James & Lange were wrong, but do not even bother to mention Freud.
Jaak Panksepp, who we met tickling rats in chapter seven, believes our emotions exist to tell us what supports or detracts from our survival. He thinks we have 7 emotional systems. There are ancient systems of FEAR, RAGE, LUST and SEEKING and more modern mechanisms for CARE, PANIC and PLAY that are unique to social mammals. He capitalises the words to emphasise that he gives them very specific scientific meaning (Panksepp, 2005). Each system serving specific goal and can be mapped to equivalent brain areas in many species. Take the PANIC system which rules babies’ separation anxiety. Panksepp shows that it operates in the brain with the same neurochemistry as physical pain. The pain of separation is real pain and prompts the infant to act, usually calling out to mother in distress. The return of the mother releases opioids and oxytocin which relieve the pain. The brain circuitry goes back to the imprinting in chicks and the survival value is clear in both cases (Herman & Panksepp, 1981).
As well as his laughing rats, Panksepp has looked at sadness in chickens, what makes guinea pigs cry and mother-infant bonding in sheep. He has spent decades researching emotion in animals and is very particular that they feel things in the same way we do. He believes in an emotional consciousness common to humans and animals and cognitive consciousness that comes later with the use of language. Emotions colour our world and the conscious experience of joy or rage is essential to its function for humans and animals alike. It is an unpopular viewpoint. Plenty of scientists are dismissive of the experience of animals. They cite Morgan’s cannon and say science can only ever study animal behaviour. They criticise him because they do not believe animals have consciousness necessary to experience or interpret emotions. In Panksepp’s view, these scientists are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It is the experience that makes the emotion and experiencing emotions was how and why consciousness evolved. We may have to describe animal emotions with human labels but FEAR came before ‘fear’ and SEEKING before ‘pleasure’. In my view the most case compelling against Panksepp’s critics is that anyone who is dismissive of animal emotions also has dismiss all the emotions of preverbal babies.
Some researchers do argue precisely this position. One forceful critic of Panksepp is Canadian researcher Lisa Barrett Feldman. A professor of psychology at Northeastern University in Boston, she argues that emotions are entirely conceptual and so animals and new born babies cannot have them. Here is what she says about babies
“Babies don’t know what telescopes are, or sea cucumbers or picnics, let alone purely mental concepts like ‘Whimsy’ or ‘Schadenfreude’. A newborn is experientially blind to a great extent.” (p. 113, L. B. Feldman, 2018)
The quote comes from her recent book How Emotions Are Made in which she describes her own theory of constructed emotion. She contrasts this with what she calls classical view of emotions shared by Darwin, Panksepp and others. As I said at the outset of this section, no one theory of emotions covers all the ground yet so it worth looking at things from the opposite perspective. To do this let us go back to Inside Out.
In the film Inside Out, each of the basic emotions is personified as a character inside Riley’s mind. Joy appears first when Riley is a new born baby seeing her blurry parents for the first time. Her job it seems is to press buttons the cause Riley to respond and collect the memories associated with her actions. She is shortly joined by Sadness and the others and each interpret situations and responds according to their nature. Joy delights, Anger gets mad, Fear worries, Disgust dislikes things and Sadness is sad. If we forgive the artistic licence of little people inside your head pressing buttons it is a wonderful depiction of the classical view of emotions. This is to be expected, the main scientific advisor on the film was Paul Ekman who is one of main theorists behind the idea that emotions are universal biological drives (Keltner & Ekman, 2015).
The outer plot revolves around an eleven year old Riley having to adapt as her family move from Minnesota to a new home and new school San Francisco. The inner plot revolves around Joy trying to understand the purpose of Sadness. It is a good film so I won’t spoil it for you but it is not giving too much away to say that the Emotions learn to work as a team and Riley learns that other people struggle with their emotions too. At various points we see into her parents’ heads, their own teams of five emotional essences at their controls. It is a story Barrett claims that would be recognisable to Aristotle, Plato and even the Buddha, but she argues it is built on a myth. Barrett does not believe there are universal emotions. Your emotions are not fixed by evolution but constructed as part of your culture. They do not bubble up from a set of brain areas but are constructed by your highly sophisticated human brain building abstract categories to help classify and your inner and outer lives.
Lisa Feldman Barrett’s theory has no problem with there being hundreds of subtle emotions like those listed in Tiffany Watt-Smith’s Handbook. In fact, Barrett is the editor of her own Handbook of Emotions, an academic volume running to over 900 pages. There can be countless, complex emotions because our highly social lives and big brains create that complexity. But then Ekman and Panksepp do not have any problem with the existence of complex emotions like embarrassment, ennui or exasperation. Where her theory differs is that she does not think happiness, anger or sadness are any more natural or biological than technostress or Torschlusspanik.
But that does not mean that in Barrett’s version of the film there would be 156+ characters all clamouring for attention in Riley’s head. That would be a terrible movie and it would be committing the error of Essentialism. Just because we can classify a set of behaviours as ‘anger’, does not make anger is a real thing. According to Barrett, Plato, Darwin and Panksepp all commit this error. Plato we can forgive. Essences and Platonic Ideals were kind of his ‘thing’. Barrett gives Darwin a particularly hard time and she has a point. His theory evolution removed the need for essentialism from biological classification. But his book on emotions went the other way. Barrett notes that at Darwin says “Even insects express, anger, jealously and love” (p.350, Darwin, 1872).
Why is this an error? Let us take a closer look at Anger. In several chapters of How Emotions Are Made Barrett deconstructs anger to show it is not a single, simple thing. First, she takes aim at Ekman’s famous work supposedly showing that expressions of emotion are universal. But her research shows that neither facial expressions or physiological signals are highly ambiguous. You can be angry without giving any outward sign of it and seems like anger might not be. Second, there is ambiguity in language. ‘Anger’ might mean annoyance, irritation, rage or fury. But some languages Utka Eskimos have no concept of “Anger” while Mandarin has five or more different “Angers”. Some languages would not even recognise our Western notion of emotion. Finally, in Chapter 12 Barrett asks, “Is a Growling Dog Angry”? As you might guess her answer is that “there is no clear evidence that any non-human animals have the sort of emotion concepts that humans do.” (p. 270). Even dogs, who we have been breeding for their loyalty and understanding of us for millennia. The best we can say is that dogs have raw feelings but this is a long way from emotion. Insects, not even that.
It is in how they approach the emotions of babies where gulf between these theories comes into focus. Barrett, for whom emotions are conceptual, spends a lot of time discussing infant pattern recognition abilities and how they learn words and concepts, the mental prerequisites for her cognitive concept of emotions. Panksepp, for whom emotions are feelings, does more to evoke our empathy but usually cannot help reducing things down to biology and brain areas (Panksepp, 2001). It is notable that neither camp engages directly with the experience of the babies themselves. Yet, I think this is precisely where we will find a better sense of what human emotions are and how they build on our animal affect.
Emotion is about more than just classifying feelings, it is about the feelings themselves. A baby may not know that their sadness is “Sadness” or their happiness is “Joy”. But any parent can see that there is something very real contained in their experiences. I am sure that Barrett and Panksepp would both acknowledge this but there does not seem to be much space in their theories for the subjective sense of emotion, its ‘phenomenology’ if you wanted to be fancy. I do not believe a comprehensive theory of emotions exists yet, but such a theory would not be complete if it did not encompass the primal emotional experience of infants.
For more like this, please look out for my book The Laughing Baby. It is being crowdfunded by Unbound Books. Please pre-order your copy or tell your friends with babies.
In our survey of baby laughter we asked parents for ‘field’ reports of things that had recently made their babies laugh. Babies it seems are easily amused:
he started yawning, and I imitated his yawning. he laughed.
She was just about to wake up and when she opened her eyes she saw her brother. She immediantly started to giggle – he too.
I was drying him and putting on his nappy after bathtime and for some reason just started spouting made up nonsense words in a silly “do-be-do” voice. He just cracked up.
Dad sneezed – cue massive giggling…then 5 mninutes of dad saying atchooo which gave him absolute hysterics…he hasn’t laughed for such a long time before. If I said atchooo it got a little giggle but not quite as big a laugh as when dad did it.
My 1yo daughter is obsessed with climbing up the stairs at the moment. My son ran ahead of her and hid in our bedroom, then jumped out periodically and shouted ‘There you are!’ Daughter found this hysterical and after the first time, waited expectantly for him to jump out, whereupon she would cackle like a witch.
Making silly faces makes my 6-month old baby laugh, especially if they come as a surprise. A classic is when I smell my baby’s feet and make a silly face pretending it smelled bad and then I smile and say in a baby voice something like ‘ooooh, it doesn’t smell goooooood’. It works every time. Also grabbing his arms and pretending he’s clapping, or playing piano etc he loves that. But recently it’s more unexpected silly face or gestures, yesterday he laughed a lot when his sister fell in front of him, she was jumping and talking to him (she’s 4) and then tripped, he laughed so much (she was laughing as well).
Our baby peaked over the top of the railing on his crib by pulling himself up onto his knees, which is a new skill he has figured out. As I walked past the door opening he would laugh each time he’d catch a glimpse of me.
I was born in Serbia and I have a roling R. Our baby would start laughing without stopping when I mentioned any word with R.
He was playing with his speaking alphabet electronic toy and pressed letter B, toy says “letter B says baaaa” and he started to laugh baaahahahaha, and he kept doing it again and again about 6 times
On the swing. I grab her feet as she swings to me saying, “I caught your feet”, or “knobbly knees” as I catch her by the knees and swing her again. Any phrase works if my tone is happy! This will produce proper laughter for about 10mins and then the novelty wears off and she wants to get out. I think she likes that she knows what is coming as she begins to laugh with expectation before I catch her. If I stop she will request the game again by wiggling and pointing to her feet.
We had some big sheets of packing paper, and every time we ripped the paper the baby burst into laughter. My husband held the baby in his lap while I ripped the paper, and he just kept laughing over and over for several minutes. In between rips he would be calm and quiet, but his laughter at the rips kept getting bigger and more excited.
I looked at baby, shook my hair into my face and then said “boo”. Baby thought I was the funniest thing since red skeleton.
She made some baby babbling noises that sounded like “tickletickletickle” as she was playing, but were more nonsense sounding. I repeated the sounds and tones that she made and she thought that was hilarious. She thinks it’s funny when I repeat her babbling to her especially if it is a new sound or tone that she has discovered.
Baby was sitting with mommy on the floor. The dog came over to visit and was sniffing the baby and kissing her. When her whiskers would rub the baby, the baby would giggle.
We were playing one of our predictable games. It’s called “and then we have a mush”. I use a certain tone to list some of the things we can see, and then we have a mush (a cuddling, tickling cozy up). She initiates this game, by using a sidelong glance, a verbal approximation of the list making tone, and then diving toward me with her head. She’ll laugh like anything when we mush.
we kept playing this game, I pretend that I’m not looking at her, so she yells at me, and when I look at her she laughs out loud, and then I go back to pretending that I’m not paying attention, she yells… and so on! we kept playing this game for like 2 minutes 😀
I n the baby were coloring and i picked a handful of crayons in my hands and he asked me to put all the color’s back..and i told him i wont..bt he was firm on askin me to put them down..suddenly i opened my hands and let the crayons smash n the ground and he started laughing..laughing hard..!! The second incident of him laughing which surprised me was that he inserted a paint brush in his nostrils and started laughing..!!
father was jus laughing and making his volume high low and when he wud suddenly laugh loudly and go near the baby by jerking himself the baby wud start laughing too
She laughts many times in the day, when we frighten her, when we try to reach her when she is crawling, when she is watching the TV. The better is when I am asleep, and then I open my eyes, and I see her, and she laughts to guffaw.
There were many instances my baby laughed. Here are few: 1) Daddy was making hand gestures depicting “BIG” (ex. big balloon, big building, big house) She laughed everytime her daddy will put his hands in the air and then saying “BiG BALLOON”, “BIG dog” etc. We were surprised that made her laugh so we would do it often and she will always have an amazing laughter. 2) We were watching a children’s program and she laughed and laughed ( I think it was becuase of the sound effects the characters made) 3)”Peek-a-boo” always do the trick! 4) Making animal sounds especially the dog sound (arf arf/ aw aw). I t ried doing other animal sounds but she would just smile. But if it is the dog sound, she will surely laugh. I think if you make something sound funny or happy, the baby will laugh. I was singing the alphabet to her in a funny and happy manner and she will laugh!
Was watching TV, suddenly started laughing at a character in a movie,when he started saying numbers 1 to 10 in Hindi (it was a comedy sequence). He laughs suddenly at many things, such as my husband wearing a cap, throwing ball in the ceiling, sneezing, etc. Many of these things does not work second time, except very few.
She was on her back. I nuzzled and kissed her on her cheek which made her laugh. It’s almost like a tickle on her cheek.
I saw my baby, then turn my face another way and suddenly turn my face again to him and said buuu!!! So he started to laugth.
She saw her brother and started laughing.
The babysitter & our baby just returned from the usual 7am to 8am walk, and were just approaching the dining table, where my husband and I were. Our baby started laughing her head off when her father smiled at her. My husband approached her and made funny faces, and she continued to laugh.
I feel like he’s growing up too soon for my liking so, i carried him like a new born baby. I then sang Rock-a-bye-Baby while swaying side to side playfully. Whenever I’d reached the words “top”, “rock”, “fall” and “all” I’d suddenly let him drop a few inches from where I’m holding him (falling w/ my arms still around him). Every time he’d drop, he would laugh. Laughter that was relaxed and gentle, like a giggle. Then a smile while anticipating the next drop.
The baby was taking the bath, I was washing her and suddenly her father showed up at the open doors. Baby first got scared because somebody suddenly appeared in her sight but next moment she was laughing in voice from ear to ear.
when i talkde to him and smile to him he respond to me with smiling
he laugh when i look at him straight to the eye
One of my twin daughters started making a ‘s’ noise. I copied her. She repeated the noise and I copied again. This made her giggle.
i was watching TV and she was beside trying to sleep , when i turn my face from the TV to look at her she laugh loudly . so i started to play with her , to look at the tv and suddenly look at her surprised as if she is doing something, she laugh after 🙂
my wife was in the bathroom…I decided I needed to spend more time with my daughter…I went upstairs and since I like the dark I started playing “cama casa” in Spanish means “bed house” and I held up a blanket that made us seem in our own small playhouse in the dark and she laughed and smiled and now she is more confident with me and we do this every day now and it is developing our relationship this ‘cama casa’ with daddy
We were sitting at the piano, he on my knee. He was banging the keys, which I allow him to do. I no longer allow him to wiggle the little brass things that hold the music open on the music stand on the front of the piano, because the little brass things are getting loose. He knows he’s not allowed to, so he put his hands towards them, stopped, and looked up at me and laughed. He made no attempt to actually wiggle them – he was just pretending to do so for fun.
When the first baby laughed for the first time, its laugh broke into a thousand pieces and they all went skipping about and that was beginning of fairies — Peter Pan, JM Barrie
A baby’s first laugh is a magic moment. Parents have no trouble remembering it even years later. Happening anywhere from a few weeks old to four or five months, those early laughs will very likely be small and subtle, a light and breathy chuckle. A tiny baby cannot coordinate the rapid contractions of the intercostal chest muscles required to laugh properly but the sound is unmistakable nonetheless.
For Aristotle, the first time we laugh marks the instant when our soul enters our body and the moment we become truly human. He thought that laughter was what separates us from the animals. He was wrong, of course. Other animals can and do laugh and the boundary between us and other species is a matter of degree, a question of genes and culture. As for the soul, nowadays we would probably call that ‘consciousness’ and we understand that it dawns slowly.
But a baby’s first laugh is a very special event and one that feels transformative. Sometimes it is a spontaneous sound of wellbeing and satisfaction: “I am warm and happy and full of mother’s milk.” Occasionally it is a response to something the baby sees, like a shadow waving on the wall. Best of all is when it is the result of something a parent does — returning to the room or planting a ticklish kiss. However small that first laugh may be, parents will recognise in it the idea that “a laugh is a smile that burst”. It is the first time that a baby expresses their absolute delight with the world.
It is a memory that can stay with a parent forever. When I ran my baby laughter survey one parent, Mary, took the trouble to write and tell me about “the sound of the Angels” that burst forth when she kissed her tiny daughter’s tummy. It had happened forty-two years previously but it still echoed in her memory and made her “smile with JOY”. It was one of many similar stories. This is rather remarkable given that adult memory is usually very vague and non-specific. What did you have for lunch yesterday or do on your last birthday? Not many events in our grown up lives stick all that well. Even wedding days become hazy. But our children’s first laughs, first steps, first words remain with us and raise a smile decades later.
Memories of first smiles can be more elusive and uncertain. In my survey first smiles are reported anywhere from the first day to the sixth month, which is a relatively large range. On top of this, parents have a harder time pinpointing the very first smile and more difficulty recalling it. There are several things happening here. Not only are first smiles more subtle and fleeting but very often parents have been taught to doubt their own judgements.
There is a much-repeated myth that all smiles before about six weeks are actually responses to trapped wind or the sign of a baby filling their nappy rather than a true sign of pleasure or contentment. This myth is widespread and persistent. I’ve even seen it on popular midwifing websites. But it is one that I completely reject. It is true that babies do pull funny faces when burping or pooping. They also smile with genuine satisfaction. Many parents I’ve surveyed are convinced they have seen genuine smiles from very early on and I believe them. They are, no doubt, slightly biased but they are also studying their own baby far more intently than anyone else. We will see later in the chapter why there are excellent grounds for believing they are correct. For the moment, I think it is simple enough to let parents trust their own judgement on this.
Let’s take another look at those first smiles. Yes, babies can pull funny faces when burping up milk or filling nappies but they are equally capable of showing genuine emotion. No one doubts that first cries and first tears are real. A baby in distress is obvious to all. It seems strange, then, that experts would want to deny that early positive emotions are also valid; that first smiles aren’t “proper smiles”.
Worse yet, here we have new parents being told by experts that they are wrong about something so basic. Already uncertain of their own abilities, it is not a great way to reassure them. The main message of this book is that parents and their babies figure most things out for themselves. Nobody is ever properly prepared for a baby. But equally, parents know more than they realise and they will learn fast. It’s even more stressful and bewildering for the baby but their little laughs and smiles are a sign they are succeeding. No one should take that away from them.
There is another milestone for new mothers that it is often overlooked. When was the first time her baby made her laugh? This was earlier than you think. Of course there can be big smiles at the very beginning. Perhaps the time when she first suspected a baby was to be expected? Perhaps when it was confirmed by that second blue line on a pregnancy test? Or maybe a little later when seeing another mum with her new baby made the reality of her own future more concrete?
But I am not talking about those moments. I like to think that the first time baby directly makes mother laugh is when something about their wriggling inside her makes her smile or starts her giggling. A good friend tells me of laughing when feeling that her unborn daughter had got the hiccups. But it doesn’t take something as comical as this to bring smiles to a mothers lips. Often it is just the knowledge that a new conversation has started.
In my favourite part of Expecting, Chitra Ramaswamy’s book-length memoir of her pregnancy. Chitra describes going out for dinner with friends to celebrate her birthday. Five months pregnant she can’t enjoy the adventurous food of the restaurant and is distracted from her friends as her baby wriggled inside:
I sat sipping champagne that tasted more like cider, pretending to follow the conversation while the baby fizzed in my belly. I said nothing about this furtive firework display. I had no desire to talk about it. There was nothing for anyone else to feel, nothing for anyone else to understand. This was my secret Morse code tapping out its message on my insides. I felt flushed with joy. It was one of the happiest moments of my life, one I can summon up whenever I want to, and often do. (p84–5, Expecting, Chitra Ramaswary 2016)
Just as that private joy became one of the happiest moments of her life. Chitra also relates how Tolstoy makes this secret moment a pivotal scene in his realist masterpiece, Anna Karenina. Anna is pregnant with the child of her lover, Vronsky, but huge obstacles face them because she is already married. Anna has dreamt that she will die in childbirth, and informs Vronsky of this prompting another a fraught discussion of their doomed affair, but in the middle of this Anna experiences the great fears for her situation giving way to a sense of bliss when she feels her baby stirring inside of her.
The first feeling of movement is known as the quickening. For thousands of years this was the major event of pregnancy. Before pregnancy tests and modern medicine this was the first time a woman could say with certainty that she was pregnant. Aristotle and the ancient Greeks and Romans thought this was the moment when the soul entered the body. That these movements indicated the moment when the foetus became “animated” with life, Animus and anima being the Latin words for mind and soul respectively; both having their roots in an even more ancient Proto Indo-European word for breath or breathing.
The legal system also recognised the quickening as the point that divided life from potential life as in the biblical phrase “the quick and the dead”. In English common law abortion was permissible before this point and assaults that caused a woman to miscarry after the quickening were treated as more serious. Until 1869 even the Catholic Church held this view, it accepted abortion before the quickening as the destruction of potential life not of life itself. Legal definitions are now based on viability of life outside the womb. English law recognises a foetus as being “capable of being born alive” from 24 weeks and a baby’s legal status as an individual commences from the point they draw their first breath.
In the private history of any individual pregnancy quickening is a big milestone. The very first flutters of movement are a tangible joy, literally a “touching” moment. From here onwards a mother has a new connection with her little passenger and can start to infer their personality. Comparing the patterns of activity with the experience of other mums to be. Is her little one more prone to wriggling late and night or early in the morning? How do they respond to music or their mother’s mood, to coffee or to cake?
For a first-time mum the first feelings of a baby moving typically occur between the 16th to 20th weeks of pregnancy. Second-time mums tend to notice these movements several weeks earlier because their uterus walls are thinner. This gives a big clue that a foetus is moving before the mother notices it. In fact, it is long before. The first movements are already possible between 4 & 8 weeks after conception. Although there is no way a mother will notice these as the foetus is still the size of a lentil. Though, of course, she will have known she is pregnant from near the beginning.
Even before the introduction of hormonal pregnancy tests in 1970s, few women failed to notice the massive changes that sweep through their bodies after a fertilized egg implants in the womb. The process is started by a flood of human chorinonic gonadortrophin (hCP to its friends) that gets released when the placenta first forms. This tells the ovaries that a pregnancy is taking place and prompts the ovaries to keep producing progesterone while the placenta takes over producing estrogen. The levels of both these two main female hormones will keep increasing throughout pregnancy. A third important hormone, oxytocin, makes its appearance later at the time of the birth.
Progesterone increases the mother’s body temperature and metabolism, this requires extra energy, which is one reason she feels tired all the time. Progesterone also relaxes muscle tone which is useful in later stages of pregnancy but early on affects the stomach and intestine causing heartburn via acid reflux. Estrogen changes her senses of smell and taste and is thought to cause the nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps of morning sickness. On top of all that she has also just found out that you are pregnant. It is not unreasonable for her to be feeling a bit fragile. Fragile and largely in the dark. That first touch of the baby is reassuring.
But in the dark we can listen. Thanks to key medical inventions by maternity doctors René Laennec and Ian Donald eavesdropping on life in the womb has been an important part of obstetrics for nearly two hundred years. René Laennec was a doctor who worked at the Necker hospital for Sick Children in Paris, the world’s first paediatric hospital. In 1816 he invented the stethoscope. He used to get embarrassed having to put his ear to women’s chests to listen to their hearts so he made a listening tube. It was just a short straight wooden tube that he placed on their chest to let him keep a respectable distance. It turned out that this worked better than an ear directly on the chest.
It wasn’t long before Leannec and his colleagues realised that this new invention would let them listen to an unborn baby’s heart beat too. The first reports of foetal heart rates is from 1821 by Leannec’s pupil, Jean-Alexandre Le Jumeau (Wulf, 1985). The Y-shaped stethoscope appeared in 1851 and hasn’t really changed much since then. It is good enough to hear a baby’s heart beating from the 22nd week of pregnancy, though it can depend on the orientation of the baby in the womb (and how much mum’s stomach is gurgling). It could even confirm if there were going to be twins; although if the foetus is moving the heartbeat can be masked by the sound of it splashing around in the amniotic sack.
Measuring foetal heart rate and how much it varies can tell doctors about the health of the foetus. The heart rate is controlled by two complementary systems the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system causes increase in heart rate and parasympathetic causes decreases. Normally they are in balance with each other and the heart rate gradually cycles up and down. A very fast or very slow heart rate or even a lack of variability can be a warning sign for doctors.
Interestingly, this very early research also led to an old wives’ tales that persists to this day. In 1860, a certain Dr Frankenhauser published a study in a German medical journal claiming that heart rate could predict the sex of baby. He believed that female foetuses had a heart rate of around 144 beats per minute (bpm) while male foetuses would average 124 bpm. This is not true but the myth has been very hard to shift. It still gets regularly repeated on many pregnancy websites.
Ian Donald was an obstetrician working at the Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital. Always an original thinker and tinkerer, Donald had previously invented a respirator for newborn infants, unfairly gaining the nickname “Mad Donald”. In the late 1950’s he and his colleagues helped invent modern ultrasound equipment and pioneered its use in foetal medical imaging.
Ultrasound is technically described as an imaging technique but it is based on ordinary sound waves albeit beyond our range of hearing. Like the echolocation of bats, or the sonar of dolphins and submarines, it involves listening to the echoes of very high pitched squeaks and clicks. Sonar technologies had been around in rudimentary form since the first world war and ultrasound itself started life as means of inspecting the interior of metalwork.
Donald had heard of this and of previous attempts to use the same idea to peer into the body. In 1955 he visited the engineering firm Babcock & Wilcox who made large boilers for Glasgow’s shipbuilding industry and who had a metalwork ultrasound device. Donald turned up with two car-loads of medical specimens. Just as it detected flaws and weakness in welds and joints, the device was able to detect the anomalous signals coming from tumours and cysts in the samples. Donald and colleagues built their own version and started using it in their diagnostic work. They wrote up their findings for the medical journal The Lancet in 1958 (Donald, Macvicar, & Brown, 1958). That paper is widely credited for kick-starting medical ultrasound (Woo, 2002).
Ultrasound and heart rate monitoring are the backbone of medical monitoring of foetal development. They have also been used by developmental scientists like myself to uncover what babies experience in the womb. Measurement of changes in foetal heart rate allow us to determine when a foetus is surprised by something. Ultrasound lets us see how a foetus moves in response to sounds, movements and other stimuli. Coupled with what it is known about the biology of the growing foetus, this lets us build a picture of what a foetus can learn in the womb.
Ultrasound shows that the clump of cells which become the heart is already beating by the sixth week after conception. As previously mentioned, at this point the embryo is the size of lentil but already the ears, mouth and nose are visible. The eyes and nostrils are two little black dots and arms and legs are still little stubs, the fingers and toes still webbed. A six-week-old embryo will already move in response to touches around the mouth and nose area. These are simple reflexive actions but show that the nervous system is already beginning to arrange itself. This gives a hint as to why mouthing is such an important exploratory skill for babies.
Fruit of the womb
Over the next two weeks, the embryo doubles to blueberry-sized and then doubles again to the size of a raspberry (according to the fruit and veg based measurement system that seems to be standard in all baby books ever written.) At around 10 or 11 weeks, your little strawberry has sleep and wake cycles. Changes in foetal heart rate indicate if the mummy’s passenger is sleeping or awake. Mostly, the womb is a bedroom. Throughout the pregnancy a foetus spends over 90% of his or her time asleep. Sleep cycles are about 40 minutes at a time punctuated by short bursts of activity. The amount of activity increasing as time goes by. At strawberry-sized the movements are minimal but are clearly exhausting as in-utero yawns have been seen as early as week 11 (Joseph, 2000).
Week 13 is peachy. This is the end of the first trimester, one third of the way through the pregnancy and the embryo has developed sufficiently that we start calling it a foetus. The first voluntary movements start to happen around 16 weeks when the foetus is around 4.5 inches long (11.5 cm) and the size of an avocado. Periods of activity are accompanied by foetal callisthenics. The foetus is recognisably human by now with a big round head and teeny tiny fingers and toes.
Foetal development is not simply a process of growth from blueberry-sized blob to bouncing baby. Throughout this time the constant metamorphosis is no less dramatic than from caterpillar to butterfly. Cells are not only dividing and their numbers multiplying but their functions change and they migrate within the body to different goals and different roles. That blueberry still has gill-like structures and tail which become jaw-bones and coccyx. Most internal organs are only fully formed by week 20 and neurons keep moving and connecting beyond birth.
As we already mentioned, the expectant mother will feel the first tickles of movement somewhere between here and week 20 (a small banana). This is typically when the midterm ultrasound takes place. The foetus is carefully examined to check that everything is developing as expected. On modern ultrasounds the sex of the baby can clearly be seen if you know what you are looking for.
Chances are the foetus will be asleep during this exam but if they are moving you might be in for a nice surprise. In March 2015, Jen Hazel and her husband went for their 14-week ultrasound scan with their doctor in Olympia, Washington. During the scan the foetus clapped her hands together. As Jen describes it:
We went in for an ultrasound and the baby clapped three times on screen. Not to the music, just clapped three times. So my doctor, he said, ‘Well, let’s sing a song.’ My husband grabbed his video and the doctor reran the ultrasound and played the claps and I sang and he sang with me ‘If you’re happy and you know it [clap your hands].’
Their singing isn’t great — Jen is laughing too much and her husband doesn’t seem to know all the words — but it’s a delightful video. And when it was uploaded to YouTube it understandably went viral. At the time of writing it has nearly 12 million views.
So could a 14-week-old foetus be happy? Here we get to the heart of this chapter. Is there really a time before smiles? Where does happiness and contentment begin? Are they present from the very start or do emotions only turn on sometime after birth? Jen’s daughter, Pip, was born safe and healthy. She is a happy, playful baby and she still likes music.
But what about when Pip was still a lemon-size foetus of fourteen weeks? Was she happy and did she know it? Could she know it? A single fertilized egg, a zygote, cannot know or show happiness. Nor can the little ball of cells in the blastocyte or even the yawning strawberry sized embryo. Yet from my parental survey of infant laughter, I am confident that a baby of just a few weeks old can show genuine contentment. Many parents report this. So when do the lights come on? When can a smile really be a smile?
It’s hard to say. There is no way a 14-week-old foetus can feel pleasure or pain. Its nervous system isn’t developed enough. No real research exists on foetal pleasure. Indeed, it would be hard to know even know where to start. But foetal pain is a good guide to pleasure. Pleasure and pain are supported by similar circuits and evidence is accumulating that by end of the second trimester, at around 24–25 weeks post-conception, a foetus can feel rudimentary pain. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a detailed report in 2010 reviewed the available evidence. They concluded that foetal awareness of pain is not possible for before 24 weeks (RCOG, 2010).
For anyone to experience pain, nerve signals from the unpleasant stimulus must reach a cortex capable of processing them. If the signal from some part of the body doesn’t reach the brain, all that we experience is numbness. This is how a local anaesthetic works. Additionally, if the signals reach the brainstem and thalamus but aren’t passed upwards to the cortex we won’t feel anything. This is how general anaesthetic works.
Before 24 weeks a foetus cannot experience pain because the brain is not fully connected. In particular, the thalamus which is a kind of junction box between brain and body, is not properly wired to the cortex (the wrinkly thinking bit). This is not too surprising when you appreciate how complicated the brain is, and how tangled the wiring. Every part needs to talk to every other part and those wires are long trailing tails of the brain cells, called axons. To connect one place to another, the cells must be born in one area and migrate to the other trailing the tail behind them.
As you can imagine this is complicated and the wiring cannot happen until there is somewhere to connect to. The thalamus and the cortex, initially known as the cortical plate, grow separately. A further group of cells develops in a “subplate zone” beneath the cortex. From 12 -18 weeks connections from thalamus arrive in the subplate zone and then wait as the cortical plate matures. At around 24 weeks they recommence their journey to connect to all areas of cortex. A process that continues to week 32. Also at 24 weeks, the neurons of the subplate themselves migrate into different areas of the cortex, effectively wiring these areas together.
Both these processes are important to an awareness of pain. An 18-week-old foetus moves away from a needle prick and even releases stress hormones but it doesn’t feel the pain. The signals can reach the thalamus and potentially the subplate zone but they can’t ascend any higher. The withdrawal reflex and hormone release come from the brainstem.
By 24 weeks nerve signals start to get through the cortex. Brain wave recordings performed with very premature infants show coordinated neural activity in response to a heel lance from 24 weeks of pregnancy. This sets the lower limit recommended by the Royal College. But, as they observe in their report, this is a necessary minimum but it might not be sufficient. EEG activity is not continuous at this point as it would be in an adult or a newborn. So it is not clear that the pain is being perceived as awareness or experience requires an experiencer.
From the 24th week the brain begins connecting itself up in earnest. The sensory inputs from hearing, vision, and touch pass through to the relevant areas of the cortex. Reciprocal connections downward from cortex to brainstem begin by week 26. Feedback loops start to form and the can begin to exert voluntary control over the world. The fetus is starting to hear, feel and even see things and it is starting to learn.
It is unlikely the fetus has any kind of experience before this. But in the third trimester he or she can absorb a surprising amount. Studies looking for changes in fetal heart rate have found that from 26 weeks onwards the fetus can respond and learn to ignore repetitive vibrations. They can respond to changes in levels of external illumination. And can respond to hearing their mother’s voice and feeling her touch through the walls of the womb (Marx & Nagy, 2015).
My favourite study of this kind was done by Peter Hepper of Queen’s University Belfast (Hepper, 1991). He tested newborn infants at just 2–4 days old to see how they responded to music they had heard in the womb. To do this he took advantage of the fact that many mothers watched soap operas. Half of his sample were fans of the show Neighbours and half weren’t. This meant that half babies had heard its catchy theme tune many times while in the womb. When he played it to the two groups in the maternity ward, the movements and heart rates of the Neighbours babies dropped relative to the control group as they seemed to drop into an alert listening state. To double check they were not just more likely to respond to music he tried the Coronation Street theme and got no response. A second experiment got similar results but this time playing the theme tunes to babies still in the womb through headphones on the mummies’ tummies. Hepper argues that the babies were learning not just the music but were associating it with the calm and relaxed state the mother went into as she sat down to enjoy the soap.
One curious feature of most of these studies is that doesn’t seem to matter if the foetus active or ‘asleep’. Recall that foetuses are only active about 10% of the time and the periods of activity in the womb are a dreamlike state not easily comparable to the wakeful attention of a newborn baby is capable of. In fact, some researchers go further and say the whole pregnancy is spent in a deep sleep. Consciousness expert Chirstof Koch writing in Scientific American:
I wager that the foetus experiences nothing in utero; that it feels the way we do when we are in a deep, dreamless sleep. The dramatic events attending delivery by natural (vaginal) means cause the brain to abruptly wake up, however. The foetus is forced from its paradisic existence in the protected, aqueous and warm womb into a hostile, aerial and cold world that assaults its senses with utterly foreign sounds, smells and sights, a highly stressful event. (Koch, 2009)
It is a vivid image but I disagree that life in the womb is spent in such a sedated state. The changes in infant heart rate in various studies suggest they are responsive to events around them and I think these experiences can even be pleasant for the foetus. Anecdotal reports of babies pictured smiling in ultrasounds have been around since 2000, when the resolution of scans became good enough to show facial expressions. Looking at this evidence systematically, the psychologist Nadja Reissland at the University of Durham and colleagues have identified seven foetal facial expressions and confirmed that both crying and laughing are ‘practiced’ in the womb (Reissland, Francis, Mason, & Lincoln, 2011).
Using modern ‘4D’ ultrasound, which has good spatial and depth resolution in real-time, Nadja’s team scanned two foetuses on multiple occasions between 24 and 35 weeks. They recorded 10 minutes of facial expressions on each occasion and used a standard coding scheme to objectively classify what they saw. Facial expressions can be broken down into their component micro-expressions (pursed lips or raised cheeks). The coding scheme designed for very young babies was adapted to define sets of expressions that went together to form a ‘cry face gestalt’ and a ‘laughter face gestalt.’ Some, like a wrinkling of the nose, were common to both. Others defined just laughter (tongue sticking out & lips pulling back) or crying (pulled down lower lip and furrowed brow). Combining data both foetuses (both girls), they found that the crying expression increased from 0 to 42% occurrence while laughing faces increased from 0 to 35% between the 24th and 35th week respectively.
Pleasant expressions were as common as expressions of distress, and both gradually appear as the foetus itself gradually gains awareness. From the baby’s personal point of view, there really is no time before smiles.
When asked I say the grimaces and smiles of infants in utero reflect something genuine from around week 25. I believe this is the start of foetal awareness of pleasure and pain. This not too different from the 24 week mark recommended in the Royal College report. But, for idiosyncratic reasons, I prefer week 25, when the universal fruit and veg scale says the foetus has reached the size of an aubergine.
A former girlfriend of mine, Belinda, always used to say that springy aesthetic pleasures of aubergines reminded her of the chubby arms, legs and tummies of young babies. In the supermarket she couldn’t resist giving the aubergines a playful squeeze. When I started work with babies she would ask often me “How are the aubergines?” It became our secret synonym.
And then a few years ago, while Belinda was pregnant with her daughter Rose, I got a delighted text message letting me know the pregnancy app on her phone had informed that, after 25 weeks, her blueberry had graduated and she was now the proud possessor of a little aubergine of her own.
For more like this, please look out for my book The Laughing Baby. It is being crowdfunded by Unbound Books. So it needs your support to make it a reality. Please pre-order your copy or tell your friends with babies
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
Analytics cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
Cookies are small text files that can be used by websites to make a user's experience more efficient. The law states that we can store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies we need your permission. This site uses different types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.