Gender differences in smiling behaviour

Content

I. Introduction

II. The smile

III. Gender differences in smiling behaviour

IV. Empirical study

V. Conclusion

VI. Literature

I. Introduction

Nonverbal communication, and especially facial expression, is a highly interesting and highly complex theme. First, there are many different facial expressions and for each expression even more different hypothesis and opinions. To reduce this complexity, I want to concentrate on just one aspect of facial expression, which is smiling. As “smiles are the most easily recognized facial expression” (Sigmann and Feldstein 1987, p. 183) it offers a great variety of aspects for research, e.g. whether there are cultural differences and whether facial expressions are due to nature or nurture. Although they are all very interesting, I want to concentrate on the aspect of gender differences.

Therefore, I will begin with a more general part presenting what a smile is, what it is used for and which differences there are. Then there will be a greater part on gender differences and the various hypothesis and thesis around it. Finally, I will present my own empirical study, which is an observation of the anchormen and women on CNN, focusing on their smiling behaviour in connection with specific utterances. In this way, I will also develop my own hypothesis.

II. The smile

To beginn with, it is interesting to define what a smile is. On the Wikipedia webside we find the following, very comprehensive explanation that “in physiology, a smile is a facial expression formed by flexing muscles most notably near both ends of the mouth, but also around the eyes. Among humans, it is customarily an expression of pleasure or amusement, but can also be an involuntary expression of anxiety. There is much evidence that smiling is a normal reaction to certain stimuli and occurs regardless of culture. Happiness most often causes the smile to occur, though. Many studies indicate that smiling is an innate reaction, as children blind from birth, and even human fetuses smile; however feral children generally do not smile, perhaps lending evidence to the contrary. Among animals, the exposure of teeth, which may bear a resemblance to a smile, are often used as a threat - known as a snarl - or a sign of submission. Smiling not only changes a facial expression, but can also make the brain produce endorphins which reduces physical and emotional pain, and give a greater sense of well-being. “

This citation serves to get an impression on the complexity of the topic. It combines many different aspects and looks from many scientistic directions at the topic. Some of these we will get to know more deeply in the following.

Another definition of smiling is given by the researcher Guillaume Duchenne, who formed the theory of the "Duchenne smile". It is the most studied, and involves the movement of both the zygomaticus major muscle near the mouth and the orbicularis oculi muscle near the eyes. An example of the smile is shown in the following fotograph:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraqi_girl_smiles.jpg

It is believed that the Duchenne smile is only produced as an involuntary response to genuine emotion, and is therefore what we could call the "genuine" smile. However, some sources say that pretending to smile can eventually put you in a good mood, and therefore a fake smile can lead to a real one.

The "Pan American smile", on the other hand, is the voluntary smile involving only the zygomatcus major muscle to show politeness; for

example, by a flight attendant or a model.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Smile.jpg

Considered "insincere", this type of smile has also been called the "Professional Smile" by David Foster Wallace in his comedic short story A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again.

"... advertisement that pretends to be art is, at absolute best, like somebody who smiles warmly at you only because he wants something from you. This is dishonest, but what's sinister is the cumulative effect that such dishonesty has on us: since it offers a perfect facsimile or simulacrum of goodwill without goodwill's real spirit, it messes with our heads and eventually starts upping our defenses even in cases of genuine smiles and real art and true goodwill. It makes us feel confused and lonely and impotent and angry and scared. It causes despair.40

Note 40: This is related to the phenomenon of the Professional Smile, a national pandemic in the service industry; and noplace in my experience have I been on the receiving end of as many Professional Smiles as I am on the [cruise ship] Nadir: maitre d's, Chief Stewards, Hotel Managers' minions, Cruise Director -- their PS's all come on like switches at my approach. But also back at land at banks, restaurants, airline ticket counters, on and on. You know this smile: the strenuous contraction of circumoral fascia w/ incomplete zygomatic involvement, the smile that doesn't quite reach the smiler's eyes and that signifies nothing more than a calculated attempt to advance the smiler's own interests by pretending to like the smilee. Why do employers and supervisors force professional service people to broadcast the Professional Smile? Am I the only consumer in whom high doses of such a smile produce despair?

Who do they think is fooled by the Professional Smile?

And yet the Professional Smile's absence now also causes despair. Anybody who has ever bought a pack of gum at a Manhattan cigar store or asked for something to be stamped FRAGILE at a Chicago post office or tried to obtain a glass of water from a South Boston waitress knows well the soul-crushing effect of a service workers scowl, ie. the humiliation and resentment of being denied the Professional Smile. And the Professional Smile has by now skewed even my resentment at the dreaded Professional Scowl: I walk away from the Manhattan tobacconist resenting not the counterman's character or absence of good will but his lack of professionalism in denying me the Smile. What a fucking mess." (Wallace, 1997. p289).

Knapp (1980) described the different functions a smile can have by saying “our face is used to facilitate and inhibit our response in daily interaction. Component parts of the face are used to 1) open and close the channel of communication, 2) complement and qualify verbal and/or nonverbal responses, and 3) replace speech.“

In this sense, Ekman and Friesen (1982) differentiate between “felt”, “false” and “miserable” (occurring with negative effects such as sadness or shame) smiles. They can even show, although we might not perceive it by just observing the person, that there is a difference between a felt and a false smile: a felt smile has a duration of two third of a second to four seconds. The time bound correlated with the duration of the positive emotions, which were as well measure. On the other hand, a false smile differs in the following points: a) it does not involve the eye-area, the so called orbicularis oculi activity or the “crinkly-eye”, b) it tends to be slightly asymmetrically, generally stronger on the left side of the face if the person is right handed, c) it may occur in a time socially inappropriate, d) shows excessively long apex duration, short onset time, and irregular offset times.

Miserable smiles reflect the social acknowledgement of the presents of negative emotions. These smiles are thought by the authors mentioned above as a) asymmetrically, b) very brief, lasting two third of a second or less, c) occur together with pronounced facial behaviour signifying negative emotions.

[...]