Smiling as non-verbal communication: typologies, comparisons, and situational contexts

Smiling (Non-Verbal communication)

Study of Relevant Literature on Smiling as a Non-Verbal Form of Communication: Typologies, Comparisons, and Situations

Among the various forms of non-verbal communication extant and utilized, it is the smile or the act of smiling that is considered universal and used by all communicating individuals, whatever social context or cultural background they have been exposed to. Smile as a form of non-verbal communication has evolved to convey different meanings and purposes, and is used in various communication interactions or situations.

Given this dynamic nature of the smile as a way of communicating messages or transmitting 'communication signals' from one communicator to another, it is not surprising, then, that a multitude of studies and researches have been conducted about this non-verbal communication form. These studies centered particularly on the typological, comparative interpretation, and situational dimensions of smiling.

The discussion that follows assume the position that, the dynamicity of smiling as a non-verbal communication form make it subject to various typologies, especially when determining its typologies, differences across different communicator characteristics, and usage in situational contexts. Overall, smiling as a communication action has evolved to become a complex form of non-verbal communication, expressed in various forms, used by different kinds of communicators, and applied in different situations/contexts.

Interpretations on Smiling as a Form of Non-Verbal Communication

The study of relevant literature on smiling are formed primarily from analyses of different studies that are quantitative in nature, wherein smiling or the concept of smile is determined quantitatively as well, through action units (AU). Thus, the results of these studies, in general, are expressed through interpretation of AUs provided for by the subjects of experiments or respondents for surveys on smiling or emotional expressions.

This section is divided into four sections, with each section discussing a specific dimension of smiling as a communication action. The first section centers on the typologies attached to smiling, which are basically identified into two main groups: Duchenne and mixed smile types. The second section focuses on the purposes and meanings attached to smiling, which, in this study of literature, is primarily attached to varying levels or degrees of trustworthiness given to another communicator. Section 3 provides a comparison of smiling as utilized by different communicators: male and female communicators. As will be shown later, the study of this comparative analysis showed no distinct differences in the utilization of smile as a communication form between males and females. The last section, meanwhile, applies the act of smiling in various situations or communication contexts, providing a clearer understanding of smiling as function of social interaction and establishment of social harmony.

Typologies of Smiling

Typologies of smiling is determined in Harris's (2005) analysis of how individuals respond when prompted or experiencing physical actions such as tickling, experiencing pain, or expressing (or responding to) sense of humor. Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), the author determined smiling as measured by the FACS in action units (AUs). Through the AUs, quantitative research has become more possible and easier to measure, providing useful insights into the question of the universality of smiling as a form of non-verbal communication.

Harris generally grouped smile types into two: the Duchenne-type of smiling, and the mixed type. The Duchenne smile is "composed of both smile (upturned lips produced by activation of the zygomatic major) and a crinkling of the eyes," facial expressions that most often convey feelings of "amusement or pleasure." Further, Duchenne smiles are considered "symmetrical" in nature, and have a duration of lasting for 0.5 up to 4 seconds. Mixed type smiles, meanwhile, are categorized as "controlled" expressions of happiness or positive emotions, often called "smile controls," which are defined as "muscular movements that either obscure a potential smile or counter the upward pull of the zygomatic major" (656)

It is through these types of smiling that Harris determined facial behavior, wherein an experiment exposed the subjects to different kinds of situations wherein smiling is the expected immediate response or one of the expected emotional responses. Through the AUs, the researcher then determined the subject's facial behavior, as collectively assessed from his/her facial expressions per situation, and reported emotions felt during a specific situation or inducement of the situations (tickling, experiencing pain, and expression of sense of humor).

Further into the author's analysis, it is important to note that mixed types of smile have more than just one form of expression of positive emotions or feelings. Unlike Duchenne smiles, which demonstrate pleasure and happiness, mixed types were identified to be more than just expressions of happiness and amusement. They also demonstrate negative emotions or feelings, which is described by the author as: "...a mixed smile might be produced to mask negative affect, as in pain, or it might reflect unintentional smiling combined with discomfort" (665).

This finding brings into fore an important function of mixed types of smiling. More than just expressions of feelings that are positive in nature, smiling can also signify feelings and emotions that are negative in their meaning. This is one indication that indeed, smiling has evolved into a complex non-verbal communication action, bringing with different meanings and connotations.

While Harris delved into the multi-faceted expressions of mixed types of smile, the study lacked further insights into how the smiles are actually "communicated" by the communicator or individual experiencing these emotions. It is vital that in addition to the quantitative determination of smiling (based on AUs), expression of smiling must be accompanied with an honest self-report from the part of the subject, in which s/he divulges exactly what s/he felt during the time s/he reacted with the 'kind' of smile identified (by the author/experimenter) during the experiment.

Gender differences in smiling

Smiling, like other forms of communication, is posited to be also gender-dependent. That is, communication theorists and researchers hold that there are differences between males and females while non-verbally communicating with another communicator or other communicators. Hess's (2005) study explores this hypothesis, wherein it was found out instead of being gender dependent, smiling is actually dependent on the personality characteristics of the individual more than his/her gender.

Findings from the study showed that levels of perceived affiliation of the individual determines the perceived expressiveness of smiles, whether this smile is given out by a man or a woman. In the study, individuals who were rated and perceived as "highly-affiliative" are perceived to be more expressive, and both highly-affiliative male and female participants of the study were identified as more expressive than participants with low affiliation ratings (532).

These findings support the claim earlier that the smile has complexly evolved as a form of non-verbal communication. Smiling is no longer treated or analyzed at "face value," since other factors, such as perceived personality traits of the individual, are attached in one's assessment of the individual's propensity to express his/her happiness through smiling. As in the words of the author, "...smiling...is mediated by differences in perceived dominance and affiliativeness of men and women rather than by gender per se..." (533).

Smiling in context / Situational smiling

Adding to the increasingly complex nature of smiling as a non-verbal act of communication is its variability when applied in specific situations or contexts of communication interaction. Zaalberg (2004) demonstrated the variability of human smiling when applied in two contexts: the expression of a funny joke by a stranger and an unfunny joke by a friend. These common and particularly specific contexts wherein smiling is the expected response behavior yielded important findings and insights into the study of smiling as a communication act.

It was found out that for both situations, "polite smiling" was the response given by the subjects, wherein the author discovered that an "increase in the duration of "polite" smiling" means there is an increase, on the individual's part, to become more 'prosocially motivated' (202). This finding is explicated by the insight that in contexts wherein a funny joke is given by a stranger, there is an effort to become prosocial, in the sense that one recognizes the funiness of a joke delivered by a stranger. Prosocial motivation is also present when the individual 'politely smiles' at a friend's unfunny joke. The difference between the two situations, however, is that the latter scenario, that of a friend telling an unfunny joke, yielded a greater duration of polite smiling, meaning there exists greater or increased prosocial motivation from the individual communicating the 'polite smile.' In the first scenario (stranger delivering a funny joke), the prosocial motivation is interpreted as the "motivation to share positive affect," while the second scenario is considered the "motivation to hide negative affect" (203).