People think of a smiling person as likable, trustworthy, cooperative, and believable. But smiling is so easy anyone can fake it and exploit the other person.
Genuine smiles involve a few wrinkles around the eyes and are also called Duchenne smiles. The problem is people can also crank out a seemingly genuine smile on demand.

Fake Smile Vs Genuine Smile

A smiling face is better than a non-smiling one, so many people put on a plastic smile.
According to research on human social interaction by Alex Pentland, a computer scientist: An engaged, responsive smile that is contextual is likely to be genuine. A consistent smile, without paying any attention to what is being said at the moment is most probably fake.

The Signalling Theory

<img src="https://alpha.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/2700x1530.jpg" srcset="https://alpha.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/300x170.jpg 300w, https://nu.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/600x340.jpg 600w, https://omicron.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/900x510.jpg 900w, https://omicron.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/1200x680.jpg 1200w, https://alpha.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/1500x850.jpg 1500w, https://alpha.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/1800x1020.jpg 1800w, https://alpha.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/2100x1190.jpg 2100w, https://epsilon.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/2400x1360.jpg 2400w, https://alpha.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/2700x1530.jpg 2700w, https://nu.psyche.co/images/767c662a-3637-4081-90b2-8ac72c1b8841/3000x1700.jpg 3000w" alt="If smiles are so easy to fake, why do we trust them? | Psyche" width="785" height="445">Photo by Tom Kelley Studios/GettyImagine you’re meeting someone for the first time – a hairdresser, an electrician coming to your home, a new colleague on Zoom – and they smile at you. What does the smile mean? It could just indicate that they’re feeling happy, of course, but it could also tell you something about the kind of person they are and their attitude towards you. Research shows that people tend to rate a smiling person as more <a href="https://abdn.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/be-careful-where-you-smile-culture-shapes-judgments-of-intelligen" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">honest</a> and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1982.9713408" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">likeable</a>, and someone they want to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487001000599" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">cooperate</a> with. When someone says they will cooperate, people are more likely to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513811001012?via%3Dihub" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">believe</a> them if it’s said with a smile. In other words, smiles seem to be a sign that says: ‘Trust me.’The trouble is that smiling is easy to do. If flashing a smile can so easily convey good intent, it could be ‘hacked’ by unscrupulous individuals who want you to think that they’re trustworthy so they can exploit you. These kinds of ‘false smiles’ certainly happen in everyday life, yet we still generally trust smiles. In my research, I wanted to understand why.Earlier research suggested one explanation: genuine smiles – those that happen spontaneously when a person is feeling happy – <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-14081-001" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">involve</a> a subtle crinkling around the eyes, which distinguishes them from fake or posed ones. Smiles that involve this muscle movement are referred to as ‘Duchenne smiles’ after the 19th-century French physiologist who studied them, and they tend to be <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-03824-009" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">rated</a> more positively (eg, more genuine and more trustworthy) than fake ones. However, people <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20001124/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">can</a> and do <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-03213-002" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">make</a> Duchenne smiles on demand, when they’re not genuinely experiencing happiness.To better understand why we trust smiles, psychologists like me have turned to a branch of evolutionary biology called signalling theory for insight. This theory states that a communication signal between animals can remain ‘honest’ – ie, it can be trusted – if it’s effortful for the animal sending it. Consider the way that African springbok jump in the air (what’s called ‘pronking’) to indicate to predators that they’re young and fit, and that chasing them will therefore be too difficult. Jumping is effortful for the springbok, so they’re unlikely to bother with it unless they’re genuinely young and fit – making the signal more believable to predictors.Something similar happens with human social interaction. In his <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/honest-signals" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">book</a> Honest Signals (2008), the computer scientist Alex (Sandy) Pentland argues that social interaction actually involves a lot of effort – which will ring true for anyone who’s been to a networking event or drinks party. To pull off a smooth interaction, you need to pay attention and respond appropriately to many different sources of information from the other person: their words, their tone, their body language. Pentland suggests that sensitive social signals have just the sort of cost that signalling theory requires: just like the springbok pronking, paying attention and responding appropriately to another person costs a lot of effort. So when people pay careful attention to us, we trust that they’re genuine – because we know that it’s hard work.Smiling consistently without paying attention to the context, while better than not smiling at all, didn’t foster such trustI wondered if Pentland’s idea applied to smiling, but one thing was unclear to me. Smiles might be a reliable, honest indicator of a person’s trustworthiness if it takes some effort to make them – but smiling doesn’t take any effort, does it?The critical thing is that smiles in the real world aren’t just one-off events, happening without anything coming before or after them. Flashing a smile to take a selfie on your own might be low effort, but most smiles are part of active social interactions, and they need to be integrated into the broader context of the conversation. People can tell when you’re smiling along without really following, and they can tell when you’re smiling in an active, responsive way to what they’re saying. Doing the latter costs attention and effort. Maybe it’s not just any smiling but engaged smiling – smiling that requires actively paying attention – that’s trustworthy.My colleague Michelle Shiota and I <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-51252-001" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" dir="ltr">tested</a> out this idea by asking 123 pairs of strangers to have a ‘getting to know you’ conversation. The pairs talked about whatever they wanted for five minutes, and we video-recorded their conversation. We then watched these recordings and carefully measured to what extent each person showed ‘engaged smiling’. To do this, we coded each person’s smile intensity throughout the conversation – meaning whether the smiles were Duchenne and how long they lasted – and also used a statistical model that captured how responsive one person’s smiling was to their partner’s smiling.We wanted to see whether people who had high levels of engaged, responsive smiling were trusted more by their partner. To do this, after the conversation, the pairs played an economic game called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In this game, each person must make one decision: to cooperate or compete with their partner. If both cooperate, both get $3. If both compete, both get $1. But if one person cooperates while the other competes, the cooperator gets nothing while the competitor gets $5. This task is essentially a measure of trust: it’s risky to choose to cooperate, so making this choice indicates that a person trusts their partner. Our hypothesis was that people would be more likely to cooperate with partners who were more engaged smilers.This was exactly what we found. Importantly, it wasn’t just about smiling more – although that predicted more cooperation too. What also mattered was how responsive the partner’s smiling was – when a partner smiled more reactively and appropriately, people cooperated more. Smiling consistently without paying attention to the context, while better than not smiling at all, didn’t foster such trust. The participants were strangers, so perhaps there would be different results for long-term friends or coworkers, but these were genuine conversations, where real money was on the line.Our results might sound like a life hack for unscrupulous individuals: if you want to dupe someone, just make sure you pay attention to what they’re saying, and smile responsively. But to do this – to follow someone’s words, tone, posture and facial expression, and to respond in a way that they actually believe – is genuinely hard to fake. Smiling is generally an honest signal of someone’s intent and character because to do it convincingly means actually being engaged and attentive. That’s why smiling takes more effort than it first appears to – and why we trust people who do it.EmailTweetShare

Smiles can be a way to dupe people because they’re easy to fake – but we’ve figured out which smiles can be trusted

Understand yourself and those around you.

psychology

Psychology

personaldevelopment

Personal Development

communication

Communication

Photo by Tom Kelley Studios/Getty

Imagine you’re meeting someone for the first time – a hairdresser, an electrician coming to your home, a new colleague on Zoom – and they smile at you. What does the smile mean? It could just indicate that they’re feeling happy, of course, but it could also tell you something about the kind of person they are and their attitude towards you. Research shows that people tend to rate a smiling person as more <a dir="ltr" href="https://abdn.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/be-careful-where-you-smile-culture-shapes-judgments-of-intelligen" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">honest </a>and <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1982.9713408" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">likeable </a>, and someone they want to <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487001000599" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">cooperate </a>with. When someone says they will cooperate, people are more likely to <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513811001012?via%3Dihub" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">believe </a>them if it’s said with a smile. In other words, smiles seem to be a sign that says: ‘Trust me.’

The trouble is that smiling is easy to do. If flashing a smile can so easily convey good intent, it could be ‘hacked’ by unscrupulous individuals who want you to think that they’re trustworthy so they can exploit you. These kinds of ‘false smiles’ certainly happen in everyday life, yet we still generally trust smiles. In my research, I wanted to understand why.

Earlier research suggested one explanation: genuine smiles – those that happen spontaneously when a person is feeling happy – <a dir="ltr" href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-14081-001" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">involve </a>a subtle crinkling around the eyes, which distinguishes them from fake or posed ones. Smiles that involve this muscle movement are referred to as ‘Duchenne smiles’ after the 19th-century French physiologist who studied them, and they tend to be <a dir="ltr" href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-03824-009" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">rated </a>more positively (eg, more genuine and more trustworthy) than fake ones. However, people <a dir="ltr" href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20001124/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">can </a>and do <a dir="ltr" href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-03213-002" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">make </a>Duchenne smiles on demand, when they’re not genuinely experiencing happiness.

To better understand why we trust smiles, psychologists like me have turned to a branch of evolutionary biology called signalling theory for insight. This theory states that a communication signal between animals can remain ‘honest’ – ie, it can be trusted – if it’s effortful for the animal sending it. Consider the way that African springbok jump in the air (what’s called ‘pronking’) to indicate to predators that they’re young and fit, and that chasing them will therefore be too difficult. Jumping is effortful for the springbok, so they’re unlikely to bother with it unless they’re genuinely young and fit – making the signal more believable to predictors.

Something similar happens with human social interaction. In his <a dir="ltr" href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/honest-signals" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">book </a>Honest Signals (2008), the computer scientist Alex (Sandy) Pentland argues that social interaction actually involves a lot of effort – which will ring true for anyone who’s been to a networking event or drinks party. To pull off a smooth interaction, you need to pay attention and respond appropriately to many different sources of information from the other person: their words, their tone, their body language. Pentland suggests that sensitive social signals have just the sort of cost that signalling theory requires: just like the springbok pronking, paying attention and responding appropriately to another person costs a lot of effort. So when people pay careful attention to us , we trust that they’re genuine – because we know that it’s hard work.

Smiling consistently without paying attention to the context, while better than not smiling at all, didn’t foster such trust

I wondered if Pentland’s idea applied to smiling, but one thing was unclear to me. Smiles might be a reliable, honest indicator of a person’s trustworthiness if it takes some effort to make them – but smiling doesn’t take any effort, does it?

The critical thing is that smiles in the real world aren’t just one-off events, happening without anything coming before or after them. Flashing a smile to take a selfie on your own might be low effort, but most smiles are part of active social interactions, and they need to be integrated into the broader context of the conversation. People can tell when you’re smiling along without really following, and they can tell when you’re smiling in an active, responsive way to what they’re saying. Doing the latter costs attention and effort. Maybe it’s not just any smiling but engaged smiling – smiling that requires actively paying attention – that’s trustworthy.

My colleague Michelle Shiota and I <a dir="ltr" href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-51252-001" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">tested </a>out this idea by asking 123 pairs of strangers to have a ‘getting to know you’ conversation. The pairs talked about whatever they wanted for five minutes, and we video-recorded their conversation. We then watched these recordings and carefully measured to what extent each person showed ‘engaged smiling’. To do this, we coded each person’s smile intensity throughout the conversation – meaning whether the smiles were Duchenne and how long they lasted – and also used a statistical model that captured how responsive one person’s smiling was to their partner’s smiling.

We wanted to see whether people who had high levels of engaged, responsive smiling were trusted more by their partner. To do this, after the conversation, the pairs played an economic game called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In this game, each person must make one decision: to cooperate or compete with their partner. If both cooperate, both get $3. If both compete, both get $1. But if one person cooperates while the other competes, the cooperator gets nothing while the competitor gets $5. This task is essentially a measure of trust: it’s risky to choose to cooperate, so making this choice indicates that a person trusts their partner. Our hypothesis was that people would be more likely to cooperate with partners who were more engaged smilers.

This was exactly what we found. Importantly, it wasn’t just about smiling more – although that predicted more cooperation too. What also mattered was how responsive the partner’s smiling was – when a partner smiled more reactively and appropriately, people cooperated more. Smiling consistently without paying attention to the context, while better than not smiling at all, didn’t foster such trust. The participants were strangers, so perhaps there would be different results for long-term friends or coworkers, but these were genuine conversations, where real money was on the line.

Our results might sound like a life hack for unscrupulous individuals: if you want to dupe someone, just make sure you pay attention to what they’re saying, and smile responsively. But to do this – to follow someone’s words, tone, posture and facial expression, and to respond in a way that they actually believe – is genuinely hard to fake. Smiling is generally an honest signal of someone’s intent and character because to do it convincingly means actually being engaged and attentive. That’s why smiling takes more effort than it first appears to – and why we trust people who do it.

If smiles are so easy to fake, why do we trust them? | Psyche Ideas

Fake Smile Vs Genuine Smile

The Signalling Theory

Lila S.'s ideas are part of this journey:

Related collections

Similar ideas