Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Display
Peter Goldenthal, Robert E. Johnston, and Robert E. Kraut
Cornell
University
Words:
Smiling:
Appeasement.
INTRODUCTION
0162-3095/81/030127-07$02.50
1. Smiling
and Apologizing
Behavior
Apologies
Smiles(3 types combined)
op < 0.10
* p < 0.05
129
Among
Experimentals
and Controls
Experimenrals Controls
n = 62
n = 37
7
22
I
3
lifted up and drawn back, lips are parted to reveal either upper and lower teeth, or upper teeth
only, while teeth more or less meet. This display
encompasses both the upper smile and the broad
smile (Brannigan and Humphries, 1972), and
parallels the horizontal bared-teeth display (van
Hooff. 1972). Closed-mouth smiles were defined
as those in which the corners of the mouth are
retracted and lifted, without baring the teeth.
This display is called the simple smile by Brannigan and Humphries (1972).
Observers also recorded the occurrences of
verbal apologies (defined as statements of Im
sorry, or Sorry) to serve as a validity check
on the manipulation. Reliabilities for two coders
of the videotapes, both of whom were naive to
the experimental manipulations and to its hypotheses, were moderate; kappa values (Cohen,
1960) ranged from 0.57 to 0.80.
The data collected in this study, as well as
in the second study presented here, were dichotomously measured. While the traditionally used
x2 test of association allows one to test for main
effects using data of this sort, it does not permit
testing for interactions among the variables.
Log-linear analysis (Bishop, Feinberg, and Holland, 1975; Kenny, 1976), however, permits testing both main effects and interactions among
dichotomously measured variables. This procedure yields least likelihood x values, which
can be evaluated just as are the more familiar
goodness of fit xs.
Results
The occurrences of apologies and smiles among
experimental and control subjects are presented
in Table I. First, it can be seen that the method
of coding (live vs. videotape) did not systematically affect the observed frequencies of smiling or of apologies, either as a main effect or as
a Coding Method x Treatment interaction. The
three degrees of freedom for smiling are a result
of the coding scheme employed (no smile, teeth-
2.73
IO.476
show smile,
smile).
2.63
0.42
open-mouth
smile,
0.48
I .80
closed-mouth
2. Occurrences
Smile Type
Open mouth smile
Closed mouth smile
Teeth show smile
of Three
Types
of Smiles
Experiment&
18.2%
36.3%
45.4%
Controls
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
adjacent to the mail delivery area. In each location, observers had an unobstructed view of
the subjects walking through the doorway, and
in both at least several individuals not involved
in the study were present in the mailroom. At
no time did anyone express any awareness of
the manipulation or of the recording of behaviors
by the observers.
Results
3. Behaviors
of Interrupters
131
and Non-Interrupters
Interrupters Noninterrupters
n = 54
n = 42
BEHAVIOR
Smile
tall subjects)
by confederate pair
I
2
3
4
5
Excusetall subjects)
by confederate pair
I
2
3
4
5
Look DOWI (all subjects)
by confederate pair
I
2
3
4
5
41%
24%
35
40
38
75
40
54
0
38
25
65
20
62
IO
Confederate (C)
TxC
x2(I)
x2(4)
x2(4)
3.25"
3.53
9.34b
ll.&th
4.95
5.34
1O.64b
II
57
5
35.20'
0
12
I00
60
32
0
I4
29
33
25
0
60
33
0
I2
Treatment (T)
3.706
IO
0
* p = 0.08
* p r 0.05
'p io.001
DISCUSSION
The data from these studies clearly support the
hypothesis that smiling does occur in some interpersonally unpleasant or awkward situations,
and that such smiling seems to carry a message
of appeasement or apology. People made to feel
that they had violated social norms seemed to
feel apologetic. Given the stringent definition of
132
to smile when initiating interactions with dominant peers than vice versa (Blurton Jones,
1972). The common element underlying these
situations, and thus the message of the smile,
appears to be nonhostility, friendliness, or social
acceptability.
Although we have made a strong case that
smiles can be appeasing, there are other possible
explanations for the observed pattern of results.
Ekman (1972) suggests that smiles, in addition
to serving as emotional expressions of happiness
or as signals of compliance or agreement, may
also occasionally be used, in culturally learned
ways, as masks of socially less acceptable emotions. Perhaps experimental subjects in these
field experiments felt inconvenienced, annoyed,
irritated, or impatient, and smiled, not to appease, but instead to mask their angry feelings.
These two views of smiling are in a sense complementary; masking smiles may well facilitate friendly interactions by suppressing hostility. The question, then, is not which of these
approaches is the correct one to take in understanding smiling in one specific situation. It
is, rather, which approach to the question will
most easily explain the communicative role of
smiling in the wide variety of situations in which
it occurs.
Van Hooff s (1967) observations that people
generally interpret smiling as indicating a desire
to be friendly provides a framework for integrating the various findings about the social
functions of smiling in both human and nonhuman primates. The functions suggested abovegreetings, initiating social interactions with individuals of higher status, seeking approval-all
are particular ways of indicating friendliness or
nonhostility. When two individuals have already
clearly established friendly interaction patterns,
smiling can serve to reaftirm that friendship.
When a relationships position on a friendliness-hostility continuum is less clear, smiling
can help shift the interaction away from hostility
and toward friendliness. The results of these
studies provide support for van Hooff s (1972)
hypothesis concerning the behavioral homology
between human and nonhuman primate facial
displays, and demonstrate the utility of an ethological approach to understanding the interpersonal functions of facial expressions.
The authors thank Louis Zambello for the undergraduate paper which drew their attention to clerk-customer
interactions, Robert Grossefor assistanceduring the
studies, and David Kenny and Larry Lavoie for help
with data analyses.
This research
was supported
in
part by NIH grant 30041 to Robert
Kraut.
A brief version of this paper was presented
at the meeting
of The
Eastern
Psychological
Association,
Hartford, April,
1980.
REFERENCES
Bishop,
Y.M.M.,
Feinberg,
P. W. Discrete
Multi\~uriare
MA: MIT Press,
1975.
Holland,
Cambridge,
Blurton
Jones.
N.G.
Non-verbal
communication
in
children.
In Non-Verbal
Communication.
R.A.
Hinde
(Ed.).
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
1972, pp. 271-296.
Brannigan,
C.R..
bal behavior,
Humphries.
D.A.
Human
a means of communication.
Studies
of Child Behavior.
N.B.
ological
Jones
Press,
(Ed.).
1972.
Cambridge:
pp. 36-64.
Charlesworth,
W.R..
Kreutzer,
sions in infants
and children.
Espression,
P. Ekman
(Ed.).
Press,
1973. pp. 91-162.
Cambridge
non-verIn EfhBlurton
University
M.A.
Facial
expresIn Danvin
and Facial
New York:
Academic
Cohen,
J. A coefftcient
of agreement
scales.
Educurionul
und Psychological
ment 20: 37-46 ( 1960).
for
nominal
Measure-
Darlington,
R.B. Radicals
and Sqrtures.
Ithaca:
Logan
Hill Press,
1975.
Darwin,
C. The Expression
of Emotion
in Man and
Animuls.
Chicago:
University
of Chicago
Press,
1965. (Originally
published.
London:
John Murray,
1872).
Ekman.
P. Universals
and Cultural
differences
in facial expressions
or emotion.
In Nebrusku
Sympos-
-.
ium in Morivution,
1971, J. Cole (Ed.).
Lincoln:
University
of Nebraska
Press.
1972. pp. 207-283.
Cross-Cultural
Studies
of Facial Expression.
In
DarGn
and Facial
Expression.
P. Ekman
(Ed.).
New
-.,
York:
Friesen,
Academic
Press,
W.V.,
Ellsworth,
Hutnun
tegration
Face:
Gaidelines
for Research
and an InofFindings.
New York:
Pergamon,
1972.
E.C.
Human
facial expression.
Man 4: 525-536
Grant,
t 1969).
Hooff,
J.A.R.A.M.
van Facial
expressions
primates.
Symposium
of the Zoological
London
8: 97-125
(1962).
-.
-.
S.E..
Analysis.
in higher
Society
of
rion. R.A.
University
Hinde
Press,
(Ed.).
Cambridge:
1972, pp. 209-241.
Cambridge
Smiling
and Appeasement
133
of Personality
and
Social
Psychology
37:
1539-1553 (1979).
Mackey, W.C. Parameters of the smile as a social signal. The Journal of Generic Psychology
129: 125-130
(1976).
Mehrabian, A. Non-verbal betrayal of feeling. Journal
of Experimental
Research
in Personality
5: 64-73
(1971).
Rosenfeld, H.M. Instrumental affiliative functions of
facial and gestural expressions. Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology
4: 65-72
(1%5).
-.
American
Naruralisr
99: 405407
(I%S).