You are on page 1of 7

Smiling, Appeasement, and the Silent Bared-Teeth

Display
Peter Goldenthal, Robert E. Johnston, and Robert E. Kraut
Cornell

University

Two field studies investigated


the role of smiling in awkward or unpleasant
social situations.
ln the first study,
a confederate
stood by the counter
of a campus sundries
shop,
and waited
on all control
subjects
who approached.
He told approaching
experimental
subjects,
however,
that he did not work there, attempting
to lead
those subjects
to think they had made a social mistake.
In the second study, experimental
subjects
were led to
believe that they had interrupted
a conversation
between
two other individuals.
Control
subjects
simply walked
through
a doorway
on each side of which people were
standing.
In both studies more experimental
than control
subjects apologlzed
and smiled, demonstrating
that smiling does occur in at least some socially
uncomfortable
situations.
The data also suggest that in some situations
smiling may signal a desire to appease another,
and that
ln this sense it can be behaviorally
homologous
to the
silent bared teeth display of nonhuman
primates.
Key

Words:

Smiling:

Appeasement.

INTRODUCTION

Those interested in the origins and functions of


smiling have generally followed the path marked
by Darwin (1872/1965). They have treated smiling primarily as a diminished form of laughter,
and as an emotional expression of happiness or
pleasure. There is a great deal of evidence that
smiling consistently carries these emotional
messages in preliterate, as well as in literate culReceived January 27, 1981; revised June 17, 1981.
Address reprint requests to: Peter Goldenthal,
Department
of Psychiatry,
Childrens
Hospital Medical Center, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. USA.

tures (Ekman, 1973). At the same time, studies


conducted by van Hooff (1962, 1967, 1972) suggest that facial expressions of nonhuman primates consisting of teeth-baring and mouth corner retraction, physical characteristics of human
smiling, function in appeasement, reassurance,
and in promoting affiliation. Although we accept
the role that smiling often plays in communicating emotional messages, we have been stimulated by HoofFs work to investigate the additional role of this facial expression in
communicating other messages.
Van Hooffs ideas about the affrliative and
appeasement functions of smiling arise from his
observations of nonhuman primates. Two facial
displays of these species show remarkable morphological smiliarity to human smiling and
laughter. The silent bared-teeth display, or grinface, involves lifting and retracting of corners
of the mouth and the lips, revealing both teeth
and gums, and occurs in a number of primate
species, including Macaca, Cynopirhecus,
Theropithecus,
Mandrillus,
Papio, and Pan (van
Hooff, 1962, 1967, 1972). The relaxed openmouth display, or play-face,
characteristically
involves a widely opened mouth, with lips left
covering most or all of the teeth.
Van Hooffs (1972) observations of a semicaptive chimpanzee colony provide further information about the functions of these facial displays. In general, he found the silent bared-teeth
display occurred largely in afftnitive situations,
while the relaxed open-mouth
display occurred
predominantly during play. More specifically,
van Hooff found three subtypes of the silent
bared-teeth
display associated with affinitive
behaviors to varying degrees. The vertical bared127

Ethology and Sociobiology


2: 127-133 (1981)
0 Elsevier North Holland, Inc.. 1981
52 Vanderbilt
Ave., New York. New York 10017

0162-3095/81/030127-07$02.50

P. Goldenthal, R. E. Johnston, and R. E. Kraut


teeth display, the least conspicuous of the three,
involves vertical, but not horizontal lip retraction. The horizontal
bared-teeth display involves strong horizontal, as well as vertical, lip
retraction; teeth and gums are exposed, but the
mouth itself is closed. The open-mourh baredteeth display combines the features of the horizontal bared-teeth
display with a widely opened
mouth. Van Hooff (1972) found the open-mouth
bared-teeth display to be strongly associated
with aftinitive behaviors, whereas the horizontal
type seemed more strongly associated with submission. Young, subordinate, chimpanzees frequently used this display when frightened or
threatened by older, more dominant animals
(van Hooff, 1962, 1972). In this context that display seems to defuse hostility or agression, and
so to appease the dominant animal, Van Hooff
(1962) also suggests that in other situations more
dominant animals may use these displays to reassure frightened subordinates.
Van Hooff (1972) argues that human smiling
and laughter vary along at least two morphological dimensions, and that their extreme forms,
the broad smile and the wide-mouth
laugh are
behaviorally, as well as morphologically, homologous to the silent bared-teeth
display and
the relaxed open-mouth
display, respectively.
Some writers have described frequently occurring variations of laughter and smiling. Grant
(1969), for example, describes eight distinct
smile types ranging from the simple smile, in
which the lips are drawn up and back while still
totally covering the teeth, to the broad smile, in
which both upper and lower teeth are visible.
Brannigan and Humphries (1972) describe ten
smile types, including the simple smile and
broad smile. In van Hooff s (1972) model, these
facial displays are described as involving greater
or lesser amounts of teeth baring and mouth
opening. He proposes that more teeth baring
communicates a friendly or nonhostile attitude,
while more mouth opening communicates greater
degrees of playfulness. Thus the broad smile is
proposed as a behavioral homologue of the silent
bared-teeth
display, the wide-mouth laugh as the
behavioral homologue of the relaxed open-mouth
display.
Smiling, then, may sometimes represent, not
diminished laughter, but rather a desire for friendliness, social attachment, or appeasement. We
hypothesized that smiling is often behaviorally
homologous to the appeasement displays of non-

human primates. In each of the two field studies


described here, situations in which people occasionally apologize were manipulated to increase the number of apologizers in order to
study their nonverbal behaviors. In each study,
recording the number of people uttering verbal
apologies served as a validity check on the manipulation.
STUDY 1: SHOPPERS IN A CAMPUS STORE
Methods
Store customers who mistakenly ask another
customer for assistance, as if that person were
a clerk, are often embarrassed and apologetic.
In order to increase the frequency of these social
mistakes, a confederate replaced the regular
clerk in a small sundries shop located on a university campus. While the real clerk sat approximately 2.5 m behind the counter, the confederate stood directly at the counter reading, and
so appeared to be the clerk.
In the experimental condition, when the customer approached the confederate, the confederate looked up as if surprised, said that he was
not the clerk, and that the clerk was over
there. In the control condition, the confederate
acted as if he were really a clerk, getting desired
items and taking the customers money. In neither condition did the confederate smile or initiate social interaction with the customer. These
two conditions were randomized using a coin
flip before each interaction. There were 99 interactions of which 71 were videotaped. Due to
physical constraints on the research, the remainder were recorded live using a paper and
pencil checklist. The interaction between the
two data collection methods and each of the dependent measures was statistically tested, using
log-linear analysis, and found to be nonsignificant.
The observer, whether coding live or from
videotapes, recorded three types of smiles.
Open-mouth
smiles were defined as smiles in
which the comers of the mouth are lifted up and
drawn back, the mouth is open; teeth are usually
only minimally visible. This display, then, is
equivalent to the play face described by Brannigan and Humphries (1972) and parallels the
relaxed open-mouth
display discussed by van
Hooff (1972). Teeth-show smiles were defined
as those in which the comers of the mouth are

Smiling and Appeasement


Table

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

Treatment (T) Coding Method (M) T x M


X2
X2
X2

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

People believing that they had made social


mistakes smiled more (3X/o) than did controls
(8%), x2(3) = 10.47, p < 0.05. The proportions
of smiles of the three types occurring in both
conditions are presented in Table 2.
Although teeth show and closed mouth smiles
predominated in the experimental condition, the
Smile Type x Experimental Condition interaction was tested using log-linear analysis and
found to be nonsignificant.
Individuals who were led to believe that they
had asked the wrong person for sales assistance
apologized more (9%) than did controls (0.3%)
x(l) = 2.73, p < 0.10, suggesting that the manipulation was successful in producing appeasement behavior. It is interesting to note that the
one control subject who did apologize did so
while he fumbled in his pockets for change and
that he also smiled.
STUDY 2: INTERRUPTED CONVERSATIONS
People commit social mistakes in a variety of
social situations. While the first study encouraged such mistakes, the design of the second
study made such errors unavoidable. Many academic departments have rooms set aside for
mail delivery to faculty, staff, and graduate students. Colleagues frequently meet while entering
or leaving these mailrooms and linger in the vicinity of the doorway while talking. The presence of people conversing in this manner makes
interrupting them necessary for anyone wanting
to enter the mailroom. This study was designed
to increase the frequency of these interruptions
Table

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%

P. Goldenthal, R. E. Johnston, and R. E. Kraut


and to study the behavior of the interrupters. As
in the first study, we hypothesized that those
making social mistakes, in this case interrupters,
would verbally apologize more and smile more
than noninterrupters. Pilot data suggested that
interrupters tended to avoid eye contact with
those they interrupted, and that they tended to
look at the floor while walking through the doorways. Based on these observations, and on van
Hooffs (1967) observation that appeasing chimpanzees sometimes look away from those they
appease, we also hypothesized that this behavior
would be more frequent among interrupters.
Methods

In the experimental condition, two confederates


stood in the doorway of one of two mailrooms
in such a way as to block approximately one half
of the doorway. These confederates were instructed to engage in seemingly important conversations, e.g., a conversation between a graduate student and her major professor about a
paper to be submitted for publication.
In the control condition, the two confederates
turned away from each other, so that they still
blocked one-half of the doorway, but they were
facing away from each other instead of toward
each other as in the experimental condition. The
two original confederates were then joined by
two more who each stood next to one of the
originals and engaged him or her in conversation. In neither condition did confederates initiate eye contact with or smile at subjects. There
were five different pairs of confederates.
In Study 1 it was found that there was no
significant difference in the frequency of the
three types of smiles. For this reason, the three
were combined and simplified as smile, defined
as an occurence of any one of the three types
of smiles: open mouth, closed mouth, or teeth
show, defined earlier. This behavior was recorded by five observers using a paper and pencil checklist for the 97 observed interaction sequences. Two other behaviors were also recorded:
excuse, a statement of excuse me or the
equivalent, and looking down, the inclination of
the subjects gaze or head toward the floor.
The observers were aware of the hypotheses
of the study and had received previous training
in the observation and recording of the behaviors
under study. In one location, the observers
stood leaning against a counter. In the other,
they sat in chairs in a lounge area immediately

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

The percentages of experimental and control


subjects who excused themselves, smiled, and
looked down are presented in Table 3, as are the
results of the log-linear analysis used to test for
main effects of, and interactions among, variables.
Many more interrupters excused themselves
(54%) than did controls (5%), x2 = 35.20, p <
0.001. Interrupters also looked down (32%) more
often than controls (14%) xZ = 3.70 p = 0.05.
While more interrupters (41%) than noninterrupters (24%) smiled, this difference only tended
toward significance. x2 = 3.25, p = 0.08.
One confederate pair produced many more
excuses than most, while one pair produced less
excuses than the others, x2(4) = 11.64, p < 0.05.
There was also a significant Confederate x
Treatment interaction for smiling, x(4) = 9.34,
p = 0.05, and for looking down x2(4) = 10.64,
p < 0.05. For each of these behaviors, the differences were in the predicted direction for four
of the five confederate pairs, with a reversal for
the fifth pair accounting for the interaction. In
general, then, interrupters smiled and looked
down more than noninterrupters. At the same
time, this behavior is clearly responsive to individual differences in the people who are interrupted.
It is possible to examine the pattern of cooccurrences of smiling, looking down, and saying excuse me by computing gamma (Darlington, 1975) a measure of association between
two behaviors. Gamma equals one when the
less frequent behavior either always occurs or
t Any examination
of the co-occurrence
of two behaviors
will be biased by the frequencies
of the individual behaviors.
Gamma (Yules Q) is a measure of association
between two
dichotomous
variables which is unaffected
by frequencies
of
individual variables.
Computationally,
if A. B, C. and D are
the individual
cell frequencies
in a 2 x 2 contingency
table,
then gamma = AD - BUAD
+ BC. Using this formula,
gamma will equal 1.00 if the more frequent behavior either
always or never occurs with the less frequent behavior.

Smiling and Appeasement


Table

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

never occurs with the more frequent behavior.


People who smiled rarely looked down. Only 3
of 32 subjects who smiled looked down, and only
3 of 23 who looked down also smiled, gamma
= -0.63, x2 = 5.6, p < 0.05. Examination of
the patterns of association between looking
down and saying excuse me and between
smiling and saying excuse me showed no significant relationships. These patterns suggest
that smiling and looking down may be alternative
responses to feeling that one has committed a
social mistake. In some situations an erring individual may be able to avoid all further social
interaction by avoiding eye contact. At other
times, or in other situations, such avoidance may
be impossible. In these cases people may smile
apologetically.

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

an apology in the first study, it is likely that


many more people exposed to that manipulation
felt apologetic, but expressed it in other, nonverbal, ways. A large percentage of these people
smiled in accordance with our predictions. This
difference in smiling was not associated with a
corresponding increase in talking. In the first
study experimental subjects typically turned
away immediately after learning of their mistake while the interaction between the confederate and control subjects continued briefly during the exchange of goods and cash. In the
second study confederates did not speak to subjects at all.
The message of a display such as smiling may
best be understood by examining the common
elements of the situations in which the display
occurs (see Smith, 1965, 1968, 1969). Several
other investigators have found that smiling occurs in situations that are not overtly happy,
such as situations in which an individual wants
to establish friendly relations (Blurton Jones,
1972; Grant, 1969; Kendon and Ferber, 1973;
Kraut and Johnston, 1979; Mackey, 1976) to
seek approval (Rosenfeld, 1965). to deceive another (Mehrabian, 1971), or to deny unpleasant
feelings (Schultz and Barefoot, 1972). It also
appears that submissive children are more likely

132

P. Goldenthal, R. E. Johnston, and R. E. Kraut

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,

1973, pp. 169-220.


P. Emotion
in rhe

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).
-.

-.

This article is based on a mastersthesis presented to


the Department of Psychology, Cornell University.

S.E..

Analysis.

in higher

Society

of

The facial displays


of the Catarrhine
Monkeys
and Apes.
In Primate
Ethology,
P. Morris
(Ed.).
Chicago:
Aldine
Press.
1967, pp. 7-69.
A comparative
approach
to the phylogeny
of
laughter
and smiling.
In Non-Verbal
Communica-

rion. R.A.
University

Hinde
Press,

(Ed.).
Cambridge:
1972, pp. 209-241.

Cambridge

Smiling

and Appeasement

133

Kendon, A., Ferber, A.A. A description of some


human greetings. In Studies in the Behavior ofSocial Inferaction,
A. Kendon (Ed.). Bloomington:
Research Center for Language Semiotic Studies,
1973, pp. 115-178.
Kenny, D.A. Data analyses in the social psychological
experiment. Representative
Research
in Social
Psychology
7: 120-132 (1976).
Kraut, R.E., Johnston, R.E. Social and emotional
messages of smiling: An ethological approach.
Journal

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).

Schultz, R., Barefoot, J. Non-verbal responses and


affiliative conflict theory. British Journal of Social
and Clinical
Psychology
13: 237-243 (1974).
Smith, W.J. Message, meaning and context in ethology.

-.

American

Naruralisr

99: 405407

(I%S).

Message-meaning analysis. In Animal Communicnrion,


T.A. Sebeok (Ed.). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1968, pp. 44-60.
-.
Messages of vertebrate communication. Science
165: 145-150 (1%9).

You might also like