People attempt to make sense of the facial expression of emotion they see in others. In their review, Niedenthal et al. examine the role of motor simulations (e.g., changes in perceivers' facial expressions) in recognizing and processing the smiles of others. According to authors' insightful embodiment account, people mentally simulate, and often mimic, the smiles they see. Although this facial mimicry is not critical for smile recognition (distinguishing whether an expression is a smile or not), it might be more important for making other judgments, such as the type of smile (e.g., distinguishing between joy, affiliative, and dominance smiles), and the sincerity of the smile (distinguishing true from false smiles).
The embodied simulation of smiles not only involves motor activity, but often changes the perceivers' own emotional (positive) experience. Although Niedenthal et al. mention this possibility, the psychological processes by which embodiment changes emotions and the consequences for processing other emotions are not discussed in the target article. We argue that understanding the processes initiated by embodiment is important for a complete understanding of the effects of embodiment on emotion perception. For example, smiling often makes us feel happier and can increase our liking of everything around us. In accord with multi-process theories of judgment, such as the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo Reference Petty and Cacioppo1986), smiling and other positive behaviors, such as head nodding, can influence judgments and emotions by serving as a simple positive cue, or by affecting either the amount (less thought) or direction (biased positive thoughts) of thinking (for a review, see Briñol & Petty Reference Briñol, Petty, Semin and Smith2008). If smiling reduces thinking, then embodied mimicry could influence subsequent judgments by reducing the discrimination between true and false smiles or between different types of smiles. Mimicking a smile might also facilitate the processing of other smiles when it make us feel happier by biasing our thoughts or serving as a positive cue, whereas the very same action might increase the difficulty in processing other, subsequent smiling faces when it operates by reducing our amount of thinking.
As these examples illustrate, understanding the processes underlying embodied perception and change are essential to fully understand whether, when, and how individuals process emotional information. Recently, we have proposed that embodiment can not only influence what people think, but can also impact what people think about their own thoughts (i.e., a metacognitive process called self-validation; Petty et al. Reference Petty, Briñol and Tormala2002). Meta-cognition refers to thoughts about thoughts (see Briñol & DeMarree, in press, for a review). The main idea behind the concept of embodied validation is that people's own behaviors can impact their judgments by affecting thought confidence. The confidence that emerges from behavior can magnify the effect of any available mental contents (Briñol & Petty Reference Briñol and Petty2003). In a recent study of embodied validation, Briñol et al. (Reference Briñol, Petty and Wagner2009) asked participants to think about and write down their best or worse qualities while they were sitting with their back erect and while pushing their chest out (confident posture) or slouched forward with their back curved (doubt posture). Then participants reported their self-esteem. In line with the self-validation hypothesis, thoughts generated about the self only affected self-attitudes in the relatively high confidence posture. Conceptually similar, DeMarree et al. (Reference DeMarree, Briñol, Petty and Smith2010) conducted research in which participants were presented with different facial expressions of emotion on a computer screen after generating positive or negative thoughts. Consistent with the notion that merely perceiving facial expressions of emotion can influence thought-confidence, people relied on their thoughts more when exposed to facial expressions depicting emotions associated with confidence (e.g., happiness, anger) than when exposed to facial expressions depicting emotions associated with doubt (e.g., sadness, surprise). Importantly, this research suggests that smiling can lead to negative feelings when it increases the confidence in previously generated negative thoughts. If smiling validates negative thoughts making people feel bad, it might produce a number of different consequences for processing subsequent smiles (e.g., introducing a negative bias, increasing attention and therefore discrimination between different types of smiles).
Furthermore, this research suggests that the confidence construal associated with smiles can be important, because happy and angry emotions produce similar outcomes by validating thoughts. Importantly, although the types of smiles discussed by Niedenthal and colleagues all have in common the presence of a positive valence, they might differ in their associated level of confidence, and these variations in confidence can also moderate some of the results described in the review. For example, smiles associated with more confidence (e.g., dominance smiles) might be perceived more easily than less confident smiles (e.g., affiliative smiles) because of the different amount of confidence created in the perceiver by mimicking these smiles.
Finally, consider research on behavioral mimicry beyond smiles, in which one person matches another's behavior (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh Reference Chartrand and Bargh1999). Smith et al. (Reference Smith, DeMarree, Briñol and Petty2010) have found that participants act more confident when they are mimicked by others. The thought-confidence that emerges from this mimicry could potentially validate positive or negative thoughts. As a consequence of this process, mimicked individuals might produce more or less smiles, and process other smiles more or less. Taken together, these lines of research suggest that both agents of any interaction can mimic the smiles they see, and also be mimicked simultaneously, and dynamically.
Along with the target article, this commentary has focused on cases when people imitate what they observe in others. Alternatively, however, people sometimes respond to others' behavior in contrasting, complementary ways (e.g., dominance-submission). Ideally, moderators of imitation versus complementarity should be discussed with regard to smiling.
In sum, although the ability of our bodily actions to influence our mind seems to be a well-established phenomenon, most research on this topic has not focused on the psychological mechanisms by which the body affects attitudes and emotions. We argue that understanding these processes is essential for models of embodiment.
People attempt to make sense of the facial expression of emotion they see in others. In their review, Niedenthal et al. examine the role of motor simulations (e.g., changes in perceivers' facial expressions) in recognizing and processing the smiles of others. According to authors' insightful embodiment account, people mentally simulate, and often mimic, the smiles they see. Although this facial mimicry is not critical for smile recognition (distinguishing whether an expression is a smile or not), it might be more important for making other judgments, such as the type of smile (e.g., distinguishing between joy, affiliative, and dominance smiles), and the sincerity of the smile (distinguishing true from false smiles).
The embodied simulation of smiles not only involves motor activity, but often changes the perceivers' own emotional (positive) experience. Although Niedenthal et al. mention this possibility, the psychological processes by which embodiment changes emotions and the consequences for processing other emotions are not discussed in the target article. We argue that understanding the processes initiated by embodiment is important for a complete understanding of the effects of embodiment on emotion perception. For example, smiling often makes us feel happier and can increase our liking of everything around us. In accord with multi-process theories of judgment, such as the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo Reference Petty and Cacioppo1986), smiling and other positive behaviors, such as head nodding, can influence judgments and emotions by serving as a simple positive cue, or by affecting either the amount (less thought) or direction (biased positive thoughts) of thinking (for a review, see Briñol & Petty Reference Briñol, Petty, Semin and Smith2008). If smiling reduces thinking, then embodied mimicry could influence subsequent judgments by reducing the discrimination between true and false smiles or between different types of smiles. Mimicking a smile might also facilitate the processing of other smiles when it make us feel happier by biasing our thoughts or serving as a positive cue, whereas the very same action might increase the difficulty in processing other, subsequent smiling faces when it operates by reducing our amount of thinking.
As these examples illustrate, understanding the processes underlying embodied perception and change are essential to fully understand whether, when, and how individuals process emotional information. Recently, we have proposed that embodiment can not only influence what people think, but can also impact what people think about their own thoughts (i.e., a metacognitive process called self-validation; Petty et al. Reference Petty, Briñol and Tormala2002). Meta-cognition refers to thoughts about thoughts (see Briñol & DeMarree, in press, for a review). The main idea behind the concept of embodied validation is that people's own behaviors can impact their judgments by affecting thought confidence. The confidence that emerges from behavior can magnify the effect of any available mental contents (Briñol & Petty Reference Briñol and Petty2003). In a recent study of embodied validation, Briñol et al. (Reference Briñol, Petty and Wagner2009) asked participants to think about and write down their best or worse qualities while they were sitting with their back erect and while pushing their chest out (confident posture) or slouched forward with their back curved (doubt posture). Then participants reported their self-esteem. In line with the self-validation hypothesis, thoughts generated about the self only affected self-attitudes in the relatively high confidence posture. Conceptually similar, DeMarree et al. (Reference DeMarree, Briñol, Petty and Smith2010) conducted research in which participants were presented with different facial expressions of emotion on a computer screen after generating positive or negative thoughts. Consistent with the notion that merely perceiving facial expressions of emotion can influence thought-confidence, people relied on their thoughts more when exposed to facial expressions depicting emotions associated with confidence (e.g., happiness, anger) than when exposed to facial expressions depicting emotions associated with doubt (e.g., sadness, surprise). Importantly, this research suggests that smiling can lead to negative feelings when it increases the confidence in previously generated negative thoughts. If smiling validates negative thoughts making people feel bad, it might produce a number of different consequences for processing subsequent smiles (e.g., introducing a negative bias, increasing attention and therefore discrimination between different types of smiles).
Furthermore, this research suggests that the confidence construal associated with smiles can be important, because happy and angry emotions produce similar outcomes by validating thoughts. Importantly, although the types of smiles discussed by Niedenthal and colleagues all have in common the presence of a positive valence, they might differ in their associated level of confidence, and these variations in confidence can also moderate some of the results described in the review. For example, smiles associated with more confidence (e.g., dominance smiles) might be perceived more easily than less confident smiles (e.g., affiliative smiles) because of the different amount of confidence created in the perceiver by mimicking these smiles.
Finally, consider research on behavioral mimicry beyond smiles, in which one person matches another's behavior (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh Reference Chartrand and Bargh1999). Smith et al. (Reference Smith, DeMarree, Briñol and Petty2010) have found that participants act more confident when they are mimicked by others. The thought-confidence that emerges from this mimicry could potentially validate positive or negative thoughts. As a consequence of this process, mimicked individuals might produce more or less smiles, and process other smiles more or less. Taken together, these lines of research suggest that both agents of any interaction can mimic the smiles they see, and also be mimicked simultaneously, and dynamically.
Along with the target article, this commentary has focused on cases when people imitate what they observe in others. Alternatively, however, people sometimes respond to others' behavior in contrasting, complementary ways (e.g., dominance-submission). Ideally, moderators of imitation versus complementarity should be discussed with regard to smiling.
In sum, although the ability of our bodily actions to influence our mind seems to be a well-established phenomenon, most research on this topic has not focused on the psychological mechanisms by which the body affects attitudes and emotions. We argue that understanding these processes is essential for models of embodiment.