Smile Contagion: A Replication of Gueguen

Running head: CONTAGION REPLICATION 1

Smile Contagion: A Replication of Gueguen

Elizabeth Hanson Smith

CONTAGION REPLICATION 2

Smile Contagion: A Replication of Gueguen

What is it about a smile that can bring forth such emotion?

When someone smiles, whether it is our quick, reciprocal smile in

reaction or perhaps surprise or uncertainty about how to respond,

smiles have the power to tug emotion from our souls (Dimberg &

Thunberg, 1998; Dimberg, Thunberg, & Elmehed, 2000; Hatfield,

Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993) Emotional contagion--the tendency to

catch another person’s emotions (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson,

1993) extends to smiles as well and is referred to as smile

contagion (Gueguen, 2013). Smiles produce emotional currents in

us, whether or not we are aware of it (Dimberg Thunberg, &

Elmehed, 2000) and are unique in their ability to impart a

positive impression (LaFrance, 2011) including the ability to

call forth a response in the form of a reciprocal smile.

Smiles, according to LaFrance (2011), are like

“interpersonal Velcro,” connecting people through the very act of

smiling (p. 58). We impact others’ behavior by smiling, whether

it is increasing the size of a gratuity (Gueguen, 2002),

activating helping behavior (Gueguen & de Gail, 2003; Vrugt &

Vet, 2009), heightening our attractiveness (Quadflieg, Vermeulen,


& Rossion, 2013; Rhodes, Lie, Thevaraja, Taylor, Iredell, Curran,

& Simmons, 2011; Schmidt, Levenstein, & Ambadar, 2012),

encouraging pro-social behavior (Aknin, Dunn, & Norton, 2011) or

simply helping others feel better about themselves and more

connected to the world. This effect begins from a young age--

even infants are impacted by the smiles around them (Jones &

Hong, 2004; Messinger, Fogel, & Dickson, 2001)--and continues to

develop and mature into adulthood.

Our happiness matters to others and diffuses into the world

around us. The happiness of one individual is associated with

the happiness of people up to three degrees removed in their

social network. Happiness doesn’t only affect us, then, but our

community and those we interact with. Indeed, according to

Fowler and Christakis (2008) “changes in individual happiness can

ripple through social networks and generate large scale structure

in the network giving rise to clusters of happy and unhappy

individuals” (p. 7). This means that the way we feel impacts

those around us and spreads out into our communities. It makes

sense, then, that our emotional expressions to others—our

smiles--matter not only for ourselves, but for others too,


extending into the further community beyond where we can see

their impact. We have the power to pass on positive emotion and

affect the world in a constructive way. Like laughter and

smiling, conclude the authors, the emotion of happiness might

serve the “evolutionarily adaptive purpose of enhancing social

bonds” (p. 8).

However, positive emotion must be perceived and reciprocated

in order to be passed on. This requires an open channel of

social communication which promotes the outward expression of

happiness, developed early in infancy (Jones & Raag, 1989). Even

if we develop into “normal” adults who encode and decode positive

emotion successfully and develop open communication, this does

not ensure positive outcomes. In fact, positive emotion isn’t

always appreciated. Sometimes a smile falls flat, is ignored, or

is misunderstood. For a myriad of reasons, smiles are not

always reciprocated. Trying to recognize and make sense of why

some smiles work whiles others do not has been a challenge for

researchers and is even more difficult for the layperson.

Understanding the intent of a smile (or non-smile) is difficult

to determine even by direct observation.


There are conceptual difficulties with the measurement of

smiling contagion. Many variables impact a target’s response

such as cognitive abilities, psychological capacity, and

dispositional traits which may determine whether a target smiles.

These variables are difficult to account for in direct

observation, even in self-reports. Did the target smile in

response to a researcher’s smile, did they smile because of the

conditioned social training imparted from infancy, or are they

even aware of the smile and the reasons for it? What of those

targets who do not smile—what meaning can be understood from

their response? Or is it necessary to be concerned with the non-

smilers? Researcher effects, such as approachability,

trustworthiness, and attractiveness can also mitigate responses

from a target, skewing results. These conceptual issues are

often left out of the final study results which can leave many

unanswered (and unasked) questions for those conducting and

reading research.

Method

In order to get a better understanding of the challenges

facing researchers in the measurement of smiles and contagion, a


small group of students in a southern college town modeled a

class assignment on Gueguen’s (2013) recent study on smiling

contagion, replicating his methodology. In the original study,

Gueguen was interested in the effects of weather on smile

contagion, but since our town is predominantly sunny, even in

cooler months, the lead researcher elected to study the effects

of contagion alone without accounting for weather conditions.

Procedure

Gueguen’s (2013) original study used twenty-six confederate

student researchers, (11 men: 15 women) aged 20-22 years old from

an undergraduate business management class. They observed

participants in southern France in two mid-sized towns (60 to

70,000 residents). The confederates were given the instruction

that “smiles are an important nonverbal behavior” and, as

business majors, they needed to learn to interact with strangers

(p. 52). They dressed “neatly” for people their age (t-shirts,

jeans, and sneakers) and were requested to “test” around 100

passersby (Gueguen, 2013, p. 52). I use quotations around the

words neatly and test since these words caused some confusion in

the replication, which will be explained further on.


Gueguen’s confederates were told to approach a man or woman

after allowing a definite number of pedestrians to go by first.

If the passerby was a child, an elderly person, or a member of a

group, then the confederate was to approach the man or woman

immediately following provided they fit the profile of the

target: a man or woman aged 20-50. If there was a match, then

the confederate was to look the passerby in the eye and, after

capturing the participant’s gaze, address him/her with a smile.

They were to then note on a sheet of paper the participant’s

facial response (smile/no smile) and gender (male/female). In

all, more than twenty-five hundred participants were observed (N=

male: 1243; female: 1308) in several two-hour periods.

Protocol

In our replication, we followed Gueguen’s protocol fairly

closely with several exceptions. First, only eight student

researchers aged 20-22 participated as confederates (2 men; 6

women) compared to Gueguen’s twenty-six. In addition, the lead

researcher, a more mature female student, participated as a

confederate as well. Second, in our study, the confederates were

volunteers from undergraduate communication classes in which the


lead researcher was the instructor, whereas the original study

used business major undergrads as part of a class (read required)

assignment. Third, the confederates in the replication study

were given about the same amount of information (which was

little), but it differed from Gueguen’s in that they were told

that their instructor was conducting a study on smile contagion

and needed volunteers as research assistants. No further

rationale was given which might encourage them to smile or not.

Fourth, once volunteers came forward, they were given an

instruction sheet and several observation forms (see Appendix).

Finally, the confederates observed participants in a variety of

locations in only one small city (pop. 48,000), as compared to

two larger cities in the original study

Instruments

The explicit instructions given to each volunteer

confederate were as follows:

Hang out in a well-trafficked area (your choice of location;

can be multiple areas). Watch pedestrians. Your target is

an individual man or woman aged approximately 20-50 years

old. Walk toward your target person, look them in the eyes,


and, after capturing their gaze, smile. Then report on a

sheet the participant’s facial response (smile/no smile) and

gender (male/female). In the notes section, mark the time,

your location (approximate), and your initials (you can do

the notes section at the very end—just keep approximate

times and location).

The instruction form was created by the lead researcher to

overcome the difficulty of preparation with varied class

schedules and little classroom time for training. The lead

researcher’s phone number and email contact were added in case

the confederates had questions while in the field.

As can be seen, there were many similarities to the original

study: confederates were to observe in a high traffic area,

approach the same type of target, follow the same procedure of

making eye contact and then smiling and note the reaction and

gender of the participant. However, there were important

differences to the original design as well, such as many fewer

confederates participated and hence, fewer participants’

responses were observed. The confederates were also given more

explicit instructions and observation forms to follow,


observations were more flexible in location given the small town

where the research was conducted, and the dress of observers was

not controlled for.

Results

Part of the value of this replication was in understanding

the difficulty that researchers face in the field and noting

things that do not make published research reports. Our

learning experience brought forth many of the challenges encased

in observation, such as training, understanding extenuating

variables, controlling for researcher effects, and recognizing

the limited amount of resources available to student researchers.

Training

Since this was a class project intended to take only a

portion of one semester, finding and training research assistants

was a challenge. Initially intending to pay students for their

help, I was pleasantly surprised by the generosity of my students

who happily volunteered for the project. However, anytime young,

inexperienced students are involved, especially when it is

nearing the end of the semester, uncertainty rises as to whether

they will complete their obligations in a timely manner. They


were given less than one week to complete their task, with the

specific instruction that they spend no more than two hours total

in their observation. I met with them several times during this

period and, by their valuable feedback, realized they were

unclear as to what their role was, expressed most succinctly by

one student as, “I can’t get any of them to smile at me!” When

I realized they were attempting to manipulate the participants

into smiling, I quickly explained again their role: to simply

smile and observe the reaction.

Extenuating variables

Many of the student researchers returned from the field

frustrated, unable to understand why their participants refused

to make eye contact, or shied away from their approach. Written

comments on their observation sheets followed a similar refrain:

“This is hard. Nobody will look at me.” I noticed this in my

own observations: many people were simply too hurried or wrapped

into their own lives to notice the attempts of a stranger to

initiate contact. My journal entry read: “Why do some people

refuse to make eye contact? How can so many people occupy the

same space yet not acknowledge each other’s existence, and then,


the worst: those who you catch their eye, smile, and nothing….no

smiles, no acknowledgement? You might as well not exist.”

Carrying a clipboard was probably not the best nonverbal message

to send to potential participants, as they might have avoided

what they believed to be a solicitor, but there was much

discouragement.

Despite my bleak attributions, however, any number of

variables could have intervened with a participant’s reaction to

a smile, including their own tendencies to smile, mood (Bhullar,

2012), personality disposition, busyness, context, physiological

concerns such as health, and their fear of strangers. My

students’ questions and observations from their field work

brought about some lively discussions about current research on

variables and differences between people. This also led me to

consider whether research assistants needed to be better informed

about the research goal, previous findings, and intentions of the

study before beginning.

Researcher effects

One effect noticed by several research assistants was that

people’s smiling reactions differed according to the


confederate’s dress. One assistant noted that when she was

wearing sweats, fewer people smiled at her than when she was

dressed more professionally. This was a reminder that I had

neglected to train them in how to dress for the observations

(compared to Gueguen’s instruction to dress “neatly”). It also

led to a richer discussion with several of the assistants about

how expectancies, attractiveness, gender, and disposition may

make a difference in the results that any given confederate may

see. For instance, if a confederate expected people to smile

back, would that affect how many smilers they noticed? Might

there be a difference in reaction based on perceptions of

attractiveness of the confederate (Rhodes, Lie, Thevaraja,

Taylor, Iredell, Curran, Tan, Camemolla, & Simmons 2011)?

Ethnicity was not mentioned in Gueguen’s study but could

also have been an extenuating variable in our replication.

Brittany, the French province in which Gueguen conducted his

research, is one of six Celtic nations in Europe in which there

are few foreigners and the locals share a common identity and

culture (Brittany, n. d.). Therefore, race and ethnicity may not

have been a factor. In our study, however, we had both black and


white student researchers. Due to our location in the Deep

South, race and ethnicity may very well have played a role in

whether a participant smiled at a confederate. Racial issues are

still present in our small town and may have accounted for

differences in responses from participants. However, no control

was made for ethnicity of confederate, and Gueguen’s study had no

confederate ethnicity data, so we cannot make any assumptions

about its possible effect, though this information would be good

to include in future studies.

Resources

Finally, the limited amount of resources available was

another challenge faced by researchers which can greatly affect

the outcomes of results. In our case, we were limited by the

small town where we all lived and studied. We did not have two

cities to choose from and enough participants to let an

undisclosed number pass by before we observed. This made getting

the number of participants difficult, but we expected to maintain

the same ratio of the original study (approximately 100

observations per confederate). We were also limited by time, but

since the purpose of the assignment was to gain insight into the


collection and methodological process, learning was productive

even with the limited timeframe. This revealed the greatest

resource challenge, which was relying on the observations of busy

undergrads during final projects and near the holidays. I admit

I was disappointed in their efforts to collect data. Of the

original eight who volunteered, only four returned data. Of the

four, only one student returned the requested 100 observations.

The others ranged from 3 observations to the mid-forties. A total

of 250 observations were made so we fell short of our goal of 100

per confederate, but the data will still be able to be analyzed

for a future study.

Discussion

Evaluations

My hope for the same number of participants as Gueguen’s

study was unrealistic and I simply overestimated the ability of

my student researchers. Even my “best” student—the one who was

so reliable with attendance and always had his assignments

completed on time—disappointed in his ability to get nearly the

amount of requested participants. It was surprising to me that

he claimed to only have been able to get three participants, when


I had just walked through the building where I teach and made

three observations just on my way down the staircase! When I

originally collected the assistant’s data on the due date, I was

disappointed to see that only one male and one female student

helper had returned any of the observer sheets. The student who

was unable to find more than three had not added to his

collection, giving me few observations. This was very

disappointing to me, and led me to wonder what other researcher’s

felt.

I was pleased when returning to campus to find that two more

researchers had brought data, so was somewhat restored in my

opinion of students’ helping. I didn’t want to be pessimistic

after only one experiment, but I definitely learned I need to be

more selective in helpers, increase the rewards or risks for

participation, and then allow more time for training, data

collection, and check points in progress.

Insight

Conceptual and theoretical implications extend to the

concept of contagion in general. Of the many people our group

observed, most notable were the many who refused to make eye


contact and looked away rather than engage in connection at all.

Certainly there are many reasons for this, but if only a small

percentage engage, then this would be noteworthy. What variables

impact the likelihood to engage or not? Are there individual

differences and traits involved, or is the lack of involvement

contextual or cultural? I point to the technology dependency

which may cause many people to look down, engage with their

phone, or avoid face-to-face contact as uncomfortable or

unfamiliar.

Another interesting finding is how many of the student

researchers were uncomfortable with the project. Several

expressed the feeling that it was “strange” to look people in the

eye when they were walking along, and how “unnatural” it felt to

try to smile at people. My students felt that this was not

behavior they would normally engage in. One wrote, “I felt like

people were thinking I’m totally crazy for just walking around

smiling at people.” This raises the question of whether people

have changed—and if so, why—and how this might impact the

community. If, as suggested by Fowler and Christakis (2008), we

impact those around us up to three degrees of separation, then


the lack of engagement and the lack of comfort in engagement would

have a large effect.

Criticisms/limitations of the method

The original study by Gueguen was very light on procedure,

theory, and implications. In his defense, he has a rich history

of studying the effects of smiling contagion and therefore may

have more deeply examined the literature and theory in other

articles. However, the lack of an operational definition of

smiling contagion and the ‘so what’ of studying this variable

left more questions than answers for me. The method itself, as

well, was very light on the information provided as to how the

experiment was conducted, limiting my ability to replicate it.

No mention of researcher effects, ethnicity, and theoretical

implications of those who did not respond limits the usefulness

of this study from a student perspective, though the findings of

weather influencing smiling behavior is interesting.

Conclusions about the method

In sum, Gueguen’s original study concluded that smiling

contagion is affected by the weather, with the sunny conditions

encouraging more smiles on participants. My findings weren’t


correlated to weather but rather, were based on an attempt to

replicate data collection using confederates. Living in a sunny

climate most of the year makes the findings from Gueguen’s study

limited in generalizability and usefulness to sunny southern

Mississippi.

However, my greatest difficulty was in using undergraduates

as research assistants. I felt that by asking for their help, I

somehow changed my relationship with them. Several, after

falling short of the expectations, have not returned to class

since. In other words, the three who did not return their data

skipped class the day after the data was due. I have only

received results from half of those who agreed to be assistants,

and even those results leave much to be desired. Only one

student met the expectation of gathering 100 observations. To

the best of my knowledge, only one fulfilled the time expectation

of two hours of observations. This, of course, is a great

disappointment to me because I counted on them. I didn’t feel

my expectations were too high, but I obviously miscalculated

their ability and motivation to help. Perhaps the time of the

semester made it more difficult, or perhaps helping just for the


sake of helping (rather than being paid, or having a grade

attached) was unrealistic. In any event, this was the more eye-

opening part of the replication. I will have to consider

carefully how to carry out research in the future when looking to

gather large numbers of data and will think hard before asking

for student volunteers.

The theoretical discovery I made while conducting this

research came not only from my own observations, but from those

of my student researchers as well (helping to clarify and verify

my observations). Not surprisingly, contagion effects are only

found in those participating in the behavior. While this may

seem obvious, what occurred to me is how many people do not

participate in observation, reciprocation, and/or connection with

others. This seems important, in that only certain traits and

dispositions, or certain contexts, or particular confederates

brought forth the diffusion effects. What might this mean?

Research needs to consider those who do not participate as a

means of understanding the phenomenon being observed since

diffusion or contagion only occurs when and if people pass on the

behavior.



References

Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Norton, M. I. (2012). Happiness runs

in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop

between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 13, 347–355. DOI 10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5

Bhullar, N. (2012). Relationship between mood and

susceptibility to emotional contagion: Is positive mood more

contagious? North American Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 517-529.

Brittany Celtic nations. Retrieved from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations

Dimberg, U., & Thunberg, M. (1998). Rapid facial reactions to

different emotionally relevant stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 39, 39–45.

Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Elmehed, K. (2000). Unconscious

facial reactions to emotional facial expressions.

Psychological Science, 11(1), 86-89.

Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). The dynamic spread of

happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis

over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. British Medical

Journal, 337, 1-9. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations


Gueguen, N. (2002). The effects of a joke on tipping when it is

delivered at the same time as the bill. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 32(9), 1955-1963.

Gueguen, N. (2013). Weather and smiling contagion: A quasi

experiment with the smiling sunshine. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 37, 51–55. DOI 10.1007/s10919-012-0140-y

Gueguen, N. & de Gail, M. (2003). The effect of smiling on

helping behavior: Smiling and good Samaritan behavior.

Communication Reports, 16(2). 133-140.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J T., & Rapson, R L. (1993). Emotional

contagion. Psychological Science, 2(3), 96-99.

Jones, S. S., & Hong, H-W. (2005). How some infant smiles get

made. Infant Behavior & Development, 261, 1-13.

doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.02.003

Jones, S. S., & Raag, T. (1989). Smile production in older

infants: The importance of a social recipient for the facial

signal. Child Development, 60(4), 811-818.

LaFrance, M. (2011). Lip service. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &

Company.


Messinger, D. S., Fogel, A., & Dickson, K. L. (2001). All smiles

are positive, but some smiles are more positive than others.

Developmental Psychology 37(5), 642-653. DOI: 10.1037//0012-

1649.37.5.642

Quadflieg, S., Vermeulen, N., & Rossion, B. (2013). Differential

Reliance on the Duchenne Marker During Smile Evaluations and

Person Judgments. Journal Of Nonverbal Behavior, 37(2), 69-77.

doi:10.1007/s10919-013-0147-z

Rhodes, G., Lie, H. C., Thevaraja, N., Taylor, L., Iredell, N.,

Curran, C., Tan, S. O C., Camemolla, P., & Simmons, L. W.

(2011). Facial attractiveness ratings from video-clips and

static images tell the same story. Plos ONE, 6(11), 1-6.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026653

Schmidt, K. K., Levenstein, R. R., & Ambadar, Z. Z. (2012).

Intensity of smiling and attractiveness as facial signals of

trustworthiness in women. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 114(3),

964-978. doi:10.2466/07.09.21.PMS.114.3.964-978

Vrugt, A, & Vet, C. (2009). Effects of a smile on mood and

helping behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(9), 1251-

1258. DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.9.1251


Appendix

Instructions for research:

Hang out in a well-trafficked area (your choice of location; can be multiple areas). Watch pedestrians. Your target is an individual manor woman aged approximately 20-50 years old. Walk toward your target person, look them in the eyes, and, after capturing their gaze, smile.Then report on a sheet the participant’s facial response (smile/no smile) and gender (male/female).

In the notes section, mark the time, your location (approximate), and your initials (you can do the notes section at the very end—just keep approximate times and location).

My goal is for you to observe 100 participants.

A sample is shown:

Smile Male Notes: time: 11am

Location: outside mall

No smile Female Initials: EHW

If you have any questions, please call my cell:Elizabeth Wellings830-237-7231.

Don’t work more than two hours total. As I said, my goal for you is to observe 100 participants, however many participants you observe is fine.


Return your samples to me (or in my box in LAB467) no later than Tuesday, November 26th.

Thanks for your help.

Documents

Smile Contagion: A Replication of Gueguen