| Abstract: | Adamson and Frick (2003/this issue) have written a fine and challenging review of the research on the still‐face. Of special value is their placement of the face‐to‐face still‐face (FFSF) paradigm in a historical framework, which permits us to see how much about the still‐face effect and infant functioning we have learned in the past 30 years. Their review led me to think about several issues. First was the issue of whether or not to standardize the FFSF paradigm. Second, Adamson and Frick argue the still‐face put the “infant's reaction in a new interpretive frame,” but it is a reaction that still challenges our “understanding of young infants' social, emotional, and cognitive capacities.” Thus, I would like to discuss explanations of the still‐face effect. Last, I discuss some suggestions for further research. For an elaborated version of this article, additional archival material is located at http:www.infancyarchives.com . |
