Close
Articles

Are You Smiling Under Your Face Mask?

April 2, 2021

Adaptation of Tokyo Japan during daytime photo – Free Person Image on Unsplash

Well, I can’t tell and neither can the children growing up in the covid-19 pandemic struggling to develop their social and emotional intelligence.

At the beginning of 2020, The Year of the Pandemic, the novel coronavirus was announced. A series of lockdowns and safety protocols were put in place. Schools were closed down, businesses went under, and the eerie shadow of death dawned over the entire globe. 

Just as a brief overview, the covid-19 disease is caused by a new coronavirus that had yet to be seen in humans until the beginning of 2020. Typically, those afflicted with the disease experience dry coughs, fevers, etc. and in older individuals or those with underlying conditions may have more severe reactions. There are also many individuals considered to be asymptomatic, meaning they do not exhibit any symptoms and most of the time do not even realize they were ever infected. With that being said, roughly 1 in 6 people who do get infected become seriously ill and may have difficulty breathing which could potentially result in death (WHO Team, 2020).

In addition to the explicit and devastating outcomes that have affected everyone, covid-19 is also causing implicit effects that may be going unnoticed. Some of these effects may not even be seen until later on, once this pandemic has passed. One example of this is the negative psychological impacts that it may be having on children. Kids growing up in this age of isolation and death could be experiencing serious psychological tolls. They are at the prime age of development as they are learning languages, gaining a sense of self, and being introduced to independence (Pelz, n.d.)

It is possible that children’s emotional-facial recognition could not be developing properly, they are experiencing great amounts of stress, and they are missing out on key milestones in their lives. This could all lead to great psychological disparities in the future that many may not be anticipating.

Break in Routine

With the break in routine that many children experienced at the beginning of covid comes many unknown consequences. Activities like waking up, getting ready, going to school, lunchtime, playtime, cleanup, group circles, etc. are all part of a child’s routine and losing this structure could have psychological side effects (The Importance of Schedules and Routines, 2020).

For one, suddenly being ripped away from this routine (or having never even been introduced to a routine) leads children feeling they have no control of their environment. This also comes with inevitable confusion as many were not able to grasp the entirety of the situation the world was facing (CDC, 2020).

These children have lost a sense of security and safety. For many families, household incomes were lost along with many jobs. This leads to an inconsistency for children in their access to healthy food, safe transportation, or even shelter (CDC, 2020). In addition, this had a great toll on the parents themselves as they experienced great economic and social stresses. This can be confusing and have adverse impacts on the children as those are the individuals that they look up to and rely on for guidance.

For many children, there was also a great break in their continuity of care and learning. Whether they were taken out of preschool or daycare, or were taken out of an elementary level education system, they were suddenly taken away from their daily routines and friends and became socially isolated. This led to increased stress for both parents and children once again (Araújo et al., 2020). This social isolation also leads to lack of communication with other children which can be a key factor in the psychological development of children. Building positive interactions with peers play a role in facilitating feelings of belonging and confidence as well as the ability to exercise control over the outside environment as previously mentioned (Kington et al., 2013).

FACE-ing Many Problems

Although most children have not lost complete interaction with the outside world due to this pandemic, those that do get the chance to go out are met with emotionless faces covered in cloth. Due to the mandates requiring face masks, it is possible that children are not properly developing their facial-emotional recognition.

This psychology term refers to how people generally “infer the emotional states of other people, such as joy, sadness, and anger, using facial expressions,” (Ko, 2018). The reason the development of such a key psychological component could be obstructed within children specifically is because this is a process that develops early in life. It emerges around 7 months of life but its improvement and maturation continues developing until around the age of 14 in line with the frontal cortical maturation (Malsert et al., 2020).

More specifically, the recognition of these emotions can vary and do not all develop at once. Happiness seems to be the first to develop with children at ages of 5 and 6 are able to accurately evaluate it at the same level as adults. Then comes fear with adult levels emerging at age 7, anger 2 years after, and disgust 4 year after. Additionally, children below the age of 9 were not able to accurately identify neutral facial expressions as they would typically label them as happy or sad (Durand et al., 2007).

Furthermore, the ability for an infant to develop facial processing or focusing on another’s face is being obstructed by face masks. Newborns have been proven to prefer looking at faces and have a natural ability to recognize faces. They are able to recognize familiar faces and depend on their parents for survival and must be able to recognize them. In order for this process to develop properly, they must be able to visualize facial expressions accurately. This allows them to feel safe since they have a great dependence on visual cues and facial expressions to regulate their responses (Green et al., 2020).

Missing Life Events

With all of this also comes the inevitability of missing major milestones in their young childhood. Important events such as birthday parties, family gatherings, holidays, vacations, etc. are all crucial parts of one’s life that this pandemic has halted for many. Spending quality time with family and having celebrations as some of the few positive breaks in routine that children can benefit from.

In addition, for many children it may also have been the moment of intimate exposure to death. With the virus, individuals around the world lost those close to them and children were shocked into the reality of life and death. For some, this could have even been to the extreme of losing both of their parents or losing siblings which can take a great toll.

Even as the end of this pandemic draws near, we will still be feeling its effects down the line and potentially be reminded of it for several years afterwards.

 

References

Araújo, L. A., Veloso, C. F., Souza, M. D., Azevedo, J. M., & Tarro, G. (2020). The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child growth and development: A systematic review. Jornal De Pediatria. doi:10.1016/j.jped.2020.08.008

CRC. (2020, August 20). Young children’s WELLBEING during COVID-19: Parental Resources |CDC. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/parental-resource-kit/early-childhood.html

Durand, K., Gallay, M., Seigneuric, A., Robichon, F., & Baudouin, J. (2007). The development of facial emotion recognition: The role of configural information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97(1), 14-27. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.12.001

Green, J., Staff, L., Bromley, P., Jones, L., & Petty, J. (2021). The implications of face masks for babies and families during the Covid-19 pandemic: A discussion paper. Journal of Neonatal Nursing, 27(1), 21-25. doi:10.1016/j.jnn.2020.10.005

The importance of schedules and routines. (2020, July 13). Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/about-us/article/importance-schedules-routines

Kington, A., Gates, P., & Sammons, P. (2013). Development of social relationships, interactions and behaviours in early education settings. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 11(3), 292-311. doi:10.1177/1476718×13492936

Ko, B. (2018). A brief review of facial emotion recognition based on visual information. Sensors, 18(2), 401. doi:10.3390/s18020401

Malsert, J., Palama, A., & Gentaz, E. (2020). Emotional facial PERCEPTION development in 7, 9 and 11 YEAR-OLD children: The emergence of a silent eye-tracked emotional other-race effect. PLOS ONE, 15(5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233008

Pelz, B. (n.d.). Periods of Development. Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-ss-152-1/chapter/periods-of-development/

WHO Team. (2020, May 8). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Risks and safety for older people. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-risks-and-safety-for-older-people

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Articles, Funny Bone
Rating Neurotransmitters by (Personal Preference?)
Articles
Health and Houseplants
Articles, today i learned (til)
Why Is Sleep So Important?
Articles
The Clock Within: Neurospora crassa

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.