Smile Big or Not? Effects of Smile Intensity on Perceptions of Warmth ...business.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/10/Wang-et-al... · Effects of Smile Intensity on Perceptions

Smile Big or Not Effects of Smile Intensityon Perceptions of Warmth and Competence

ZE WANGHUIFANG MAOYEXIN JESSICA LIFAN LIU

While previous work has focused on the positive impact of smiles on interpersonalperceptions this research proposes and finds that smile intensity differentially af-fects two fundamental dimensions of social judgmentsmdashwarmth and competenceA marketer displaying a broad smile compared to a slight smile is more likely tobe perceived by consumers as warmer but less competent Furthermore the facili-tative effect of smile intensity on warmth perceptions is more prominent amongpromotion-focused consumers and in low-risk consumption contexts while thedetrimental effect of smile intensity on competence perceptions is more likely tooccur among prevention-focused consumers and in high-risk consumption situ-ations Field observations in a crowdfunding context further indicate that the ef-fects of smile intensity on warmth and competence perceptions have downstreamconsequences on actual consumer behaviors

Keywords smile intensity warmth perceptions competence perceptions face-

based inferences social cognition

Smiles are widely used as a marketing tool to producepositive impressions among consumers Service with a

smile is an established mantra in customer relationshipmanagement (Lee and Lim 2010) and smiling faces are

omnipresent in advertisements (Petroshius and Crocker1989) A substantial amount of research suggests thatsmiles are powerful social forces that positively influenceinterpersonal judgments in a myriad of ways For instanceit has been found that people who express genuine smilesare perceived to be kinder more sociable more honest(Thornton 1943) more pleasant (Mueser et al 1984) morecarefree (Deutsch LeBaron and Fryer 1987) and more po-lite (Bugental 1986) than people who do not smile

The vast amount of evidence supporting the interpersonalbenefits of smiles may lead one to believe that smiles alwaysconvey positive informationmdashand hence the bigger thesmile the better Indeed research has documented that peo-ple sometimes deliberately intensify positive emotional dis-plays to receive favorable social feedback (Pugh 2001) Forexample service employees often exaggerate their positiveemotional expressions in order to enhance consumersrsquo con-sumption experiences (Barger and Grandey 2006) In this re-search however we caution that bigger and broader smilessometimes bring forth undesirable consequences

Integrating the social-functional perspective on emotion(Fridlund 1992 van Kleef De Dreu and Manstead 2004)

Ze Wang (corresponding author) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing

Marketing Department College of Business Administration University of

Central Florida Orlando FL 32816 email zewangucfedu phone (407)

823-6623 Huifang Mao is an Associate Professor of Marketing College of

Business Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 email hmaoiastateedu

phone (515) 294-7450 Yexin Jessica Li is an Assistant Professor of

Marketing School of Business University of Kansas Lawrence KS 66045

email jessicalikuedu phone (785) 864-7597 Fan Liu is an Assistant

Professor of Marketing Robert B Willumstad School of Business Adelphi

University Garden City NY 11530 email fliuadelphiedu phone (516)

877-4615 The authors are grateful for the valuable insights and constructive

comments from the editor associate editor and three anonymous reviewers

The authors thank Monica Biernat and Xin He for their helpful comments on

previous versions of this article Ursula Hess for her suggestions about

morphing techniques and Kristopher Preacher for his statistical guidance

Darren Dahl served as editor and Eduardo Andrade served as associate

editor for this article

Advance Access publication October 29 2016

VC The Author 2016 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research Inc

DOI 101093jcrucw062

with the stereotype content model (SCM) of social judg-

ments (Fiske et al 2002 Judd et al 2005) we hypothesize

that smile intensity differentially influences two fundamen-

tal dimensions of social judgmentmdashwarmth and compe-

tence Displaying a full or broad smile compared to a

partial or slight smile leads a marketer (defined as some-

one who promotes or sells a product or service) to be per-

ceived as warmer but less competentWe examine this main thesis in five studies in which we

manipulate or measure smile intensity in photos of mar-

keters Studies 1a and 1b lend support to our hypothesis

that compared to a slight smile a broad smile increases

warmth perceptions but decreases competence perceptions

Study 2a examines regulatory focus as a boundary condi-

tion for these effects and shows that the facilitative effect

of smile intensity on warmth perceptions is more promin-

ent among promotion-focused consumers whereas the det-

rimental effect on competence perceptions is more likely

among prevention-focused consumers Study 2b docu-

ments perceived consumption risk as another boundary

condition smile intensity is more likely to increase warmth

perceptions when consumption risk is low but decrease

competence perceptions when consumption risk is high In

addition study 2b shows that these changes in warmth and

competence perceptions predict consumersrsquo purchase in-

tentions Study 3 takes the investigation out of the labora-

tory into a field setting Using data from a crowdfunding

website (ie Kickstartercom) we demonstrate that smile

intensity influences different types of consumer behaviors

(eg money pledged support in social media)

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgments

The stereotype content model (SCM) was originally de-

veloped by Fiske and colleagues (2002) to explain differ-

ential perceptions of social groups but has since been

applied to judgments of individuals (Judd et al 2005)

brands (Kervyn Fiske and Malone 2012) and organiza-

tions (Aaker Vohs and Mogilner 2010) The SCM pro-

poses that interpersonal judgments are captured along two

fundamental dimensions that likely reflect evolutionary

pressures In order to survive and reproduce social animals

must quickly determine othersrsquo intentions (eg to help or

harm) and their ability to act on them Warmth judgments

relate to perceived intentions and typically include

evaluations of kindness friendliness trustworthiness and

helpfulness (Aaker et al 2010) whereas competence judg-

ments reflect perceived ability and include perceptions of

effectiveness intelligence power and skillfulness (Hoegg

and Lewis 2011) Together these two dimensions ldquoaccount

almost entirely for how people characterize othersrdquo (Fiske

Cuddy and Glick 2007 77)

Critically people can make social judgments simply byviewing a photograph of the target For instance peopleperceive individuals with babyish facial configurations(ie large round eyes small nose and chin) as honest andapproachable (Berry and Brownlow 1989) which leadsthem to evaluate a companyrsquos negative publicity less critic-ally when the firmrsquos spokesperson has a babyish face(Gorn Jiang and Johar 2008) Another line of researchfinds that when a salespersonrsquos face is blended with fea-tures of a celebrity face consumers perceive the salesper-son as more trustworthy and report higher purchaseintentions (Tanner and Maeng 2012) Extending this bodyof research which focuses on fixed and stable facial con-figurations we propose that dynamic and ephemeral facialexpressions such as smiles also have consequential effectson social perceptions of the target

Smiles and Social Judgments

The social-functional perspective on emotion asserts thatemotions have evolved to help facilitate social interactionsby signaling important information about the expresser(Fridlund 1992 Keltner and Haidt 1999) Darwin (1872)was among the first to propose human emotions evolvedand adapted over time resulting in a certain level of uni-versality in facial expressions across age gender and cul-ture Due to such universality people are able to makequick and spontaneous inferences from facial expressionsabout the expresser (van Kleef et al 2004) This view issupported by recent neuroimaging research that shows ex-posure to facial expressions tends to fire up brain activityin the amygdala medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and su-perior temporal sulcus (STS) areas that perform primaryroles in forming impressions and judgments (Ames Fiskeand Todorov 2011)

Smiles in particular are believed to have evolved to as-sist group living by facilitating cooperation among unre-lated individuals (Owren and Bachorowski 2001) Asignificant amount of literature substantiates that smilescommunicate positive intent agreement or assent and areused to encourage and support social interactions (AbeBeetham and Izard 2002) This is true even among nonhu-man animals as evolutionary studies suggest that mamma-lian species like chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys showbared-teeth display an expression homologous with humansmiles in affiliative contexts such as grooming or sexualsolicitation (Preuschoft and van Hooff 1997) Similarly ininterpersonal communications people often display smileswhen they intend to form cooperative relationships (Mehuand Dunbar 2008) or seek interpersonal rapport (Hennig-Thurau et al 2006) From an observerrsquos perspective smilesare thus often interpreted as signaling an intention to builda friendly relationship (ldquoLetrsquos be friendsrdquo Fridlund 1994)

Facial expressions convey not only the expresserrsquos emo-tions and intentions but also the intensity of those feelings

788 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

with more intense facial expressions connoting more in-

tense emotions and desires (Ekman Friesen and Ancoli

1980) There is some evidence that broad versus slight

smiles have different social consequences though the

cause of this difference has yet to be explored For ex-

ample women with the most intense smiles in photographs

were more likely to be married by age 27 (Harker and

Keltner 2001) and less likely to divorce later in life

(Hertenstein et al 2009) One interpretation of these find-

ings is that broader smiles are associated with greater lev-

els of sociability which lead to more positive relationship

outcomes (Scarr 1992) Thus compared to slight smiles

broad smiles may deliver stronger signals that the ex-

presser desires to make social connections which increase

the perception that the expresser is friendly and approach-

able Hence we propose that broad (vs slight) smiles en-

hance warmth judgments of the expresserOn the flip side broad smiles may also signal that the in-

dividual is less competent Research has associated broad

smiles with reduced aggression performance and domin-

ancemdashtraits that help one achieve status and power (Dabbs

1997 Kraus and Chen 2013) For example Dabbs (1997

46) found a negative relationship between smile intensity

and dominance defined as ldquoa quality that helps one win

whatever one wants to winrdquo Other research found that pro-fessional mixed martial arts fighters who displayed full

smiles in prefight photographs were more likely to lose

their match than those who smiled less intensely presum-

ably because ldquosmiles are an unintentional nonverbal sign

of reduced physical dominancerdquo (Kraus and Chen 2013

276) Consistent findings can also be gathered from animal

research which documents that bared-teeth display in

chimpanzees is an indicator of submission and acceptance

of subordinate status (de Waal and Luttrell 1985)These findings are in line with the competition hypoth-

esis of smiling and laughter which proposes that smiles

function to implement social hierarchies and signal low

motivation to compete for status (Mehu and Dunbar 2008)

Thus a broad smile may suggest that the individual is con-

tent with the current situation and unmotivated to change

or improve the status quo (Bodenhausen Kramer and

Susser 1994) In addition an individual expressing a broad

smile may be perceived as manifesting a carefree happy-

go-lucky attitude (Deutsch et al 1987) Such an attitude is

at odds with traits associated with competence such as de-

termination foresightedness and seriousness (Fiske et al

2007) Accordingly we propose that individuals with

broad smiles are perceived as less competent than those

with slight smilesIn sum while broad (vs slight) smiles convey that the

marketer is friendly and sociable traits that are associated

with warmth they also suggest that the marketer is un-

aggressive and submissive traits that are antithetical to

competence Hence we hypothesize that smile intensity

has opposite effects on consumersrsquo warmth and compe-tence perceptions of the marketer

H1 Compared to a slight smile a broad smile will lead to

higher perceptions of the marketerrsquos warmth but lower

perceptions of the marketerrsquos competence

STUDIES 1A AND 1B THE INITIALEVIDENCE

Study 1a

Stimulus To test hypothesis 1 we selected photos ofslight and broad smiles from the Montreal Set of FacialDisplays of Emotion (MSFDE) created by Beaupre andHess (2006) The MSFDE consists of digitally morphedphotos of facial expressions of different emotions (eghappiness fear sadness) at five levels of intensity We se-lected two photographs from the MSFDE with level 2(slight) and level 5 (broad) smiles from the same displayer(see figure 1 panel A) Prior literature has determined thatat a muscular level smile intensity is indicated by the amp-litude of the zygomatic major movement (the muscle groupthat pulls up the lips) (Ekman 1993) Consistently smilesin the two selected photos vary on the level of zygomaticmajor muscle movement producing more or less intensesmiles The two photos are consistent in other appearancecues such as head orientation (Farroni Menon andJohnson 2006) brow position (Sekunova and Barton2008) and gaze direction (Adams and Kleck 2003)

Participants and Procedure We recruited 123 individ-uals from Amazonrsquos Mechanical Turk (Mturk) to partici-pate in the study (Mage frac14 3128 ranging from 18 to 65 55females) Participants were told that the study examinespeoplersquos first impressions They were shown one of thetwo photos and asked to report warmth and competenceperceptions of the target on two four-item scales (warmthwarm kind friendly sincere 1 frac14 not at all 7 frac14 verymuch so a frac14 94 competence competent intelligent cap-able skillful 1 frac14 not at all 7 frac14 very much so a frac14 93Aaker et al 2010 Cuddy Fiske and Glick 2007)

Next we collected data on two confound checks Priorresearch suggests that smiles may vary in authenticitymdashthedegree to which the smile is consistent with the expresserrsquosinternal feelings (Hennig-Thurau et al 2006)mdashand thatsmiles may affect the perceived attractiveness of the target(Mueser et al 1984) To ensure our smile intensity manipu-lation did not inadvertently affect these variables we askedparticipants to report how authentic the smile is and howattractive the target is (1 frac14 not at all 7 frac14 very much soGorn et al 2008 Mueser et al 1984) Finally participantsresponded to additional questions including a manipula-tion check of smile strength (1 frac14 displays no smile 7 frac14displays a broad smile Barger and Grandey 2006) andprovided demographic information

WANG ET AL 789

Results We first conducted analyses on the manipula-tion and confound checks Independent sample t-testsshowed that ratings of smile intensity were significantlyhigher when the target displayed a broad rather than aslight smile (Mb frac14 528 Ms frac14 461 t frac14 260 p frac14 01)Ratings of perceived authenticity (Mb frac14 487 Ms frac14 453p gt10) and target attractiveness (Mb frac14 303 Ms frac14 342p gt10) did not differ across the two conditions

We next tested hypothesis 1 regarding the differential ef-fect of smile intensity on perceptions of warmth and compe-tence A 2 (smile intensity slight broad) 2 (socialjudgments warmth competence) mixed ANOVA revealeda significant interaction effect (F(1 121) frac14 2690 p lt 001see figure 2 panel A) Planned contrasts showed thatjudgments of warmth in the broad smile condition were sig-nificantly higher than the slight smile condition (Mb frac14 528Ms frac14 453 F(1 121) frac14 2328 p lt 001) Competence judg-ments however were significantly lower in the broad smilecondition than the slight smile condition (Mb frac14 443 Ms frac14483 F(1 121) frac14 629 p frac14 01) The same pattern of resultswas observed when we included authenticity and perceivedattractiveness as covariates (F(2 119) frac14 1968 p lt 001)These findings support hypothesis 1 and rule out authenti-city and attractiveness as potential confounds

Study 1b

Stimulus To ensure the effects obtained in study 1awere not due to particularities of the expresser we created anew set of photos of a different target (see figure 1 panel B)Specifically we took photos of a middle-aged Caucasianmale volunteer who was instructed to pose first with a neutralexpression and then with a broad smile Following the

procedure used in the MSFDE (Beaupre and Hess 2006) we

created a slight smile photo by digitally blending 40 of the

broad smile with the image of the neutral expression using

Morph Age Pro 40 software (Creaceed SPRL 2008)

Adobe Photoshop was used to fix blurriness caused by

morphing We also carefully reviewed the photos to ensure

they were equivalent in other appearance cuesA pretest was conducted to test the effectiveness of the

smile intensity manipulation Forty-nine undergraduate stu-

dents were shown either the slight or broad smile photo-

graph and rated the expresserrsquos smile intensity smile

authenticity and attractiveness using the same scales as

study 1a Independent t-test results indicate that the broad

(vs slight) smile received higher ratings on perceived

smile intensity (Mb frac14 558 Ms frac14 469 t frac14 255 p frac14 01)

Yet ratings of perceived authenticity (Mb frac14 400 Ms frac14383 p gt 10) and target attractiveness (Mb frac14 250 Ms frac14257 p gt 10) did not differ across the two smile

conditions

Participants and Procedure Two-hundred nineteen

undergraduate students (Mage frac14 2210 ranging from 18 to

38 119 females five unreported sex) from a large public

university participated in this study Unlike study 1a study

1b examined social perceptions in a marketing context In

particular participants viewed a ldquoprofile photordquo of a stock-

broker with a slight or broad smile and rated how likely

they believed the broker was to engage in certain behaviors

(1 frac14 highly unlikely 7 frac14 highly likely Judd et al 2005)

Four of these behaviors related to the warmth dimension of

social judgments (eg ldquohe always smiles at others just to

make their day betterrdquo ldquohe rarely talks to others in the

workplacerdquo [reverse coded] a frac14 74) and the other four

FIGURE 1

MANIPULATION OF SMILE INTENSITY IN STUDIES 1A AND 1B

behaviors related to the competence dimension (eg ldquohehas lots of clients because of his excellent skillsrdquo ldquohe isunassertive when making customer-related decisionsrdquo [re-verse coded] a frac14 77) At the end of the study participantsresponded to additional questions including those aboutdemographic information

Results Replicating the results of study 1a a 2 (smileintensity) 2 (social judgments) mixed ANOVA revealeda significant interaction effect (F(1 217) frac14 2123 p lt001 see figure 2 panel B) Participants in the broad smilecondition compared to the slight smile condition gener-ated higher warmth ratings (Mb frac14 505 Ms frac14 462 F(1217) frac14 1475 p lt 001) but lower competence ratings (Mb

frac14 411 Ms frac14 440 F(1 217) frac14 715 p lt 01)

DISCUSSION

Together studies 1a and 1b show that the impact ofsmile intensity on consumer perceptions varies along thefundamental dimensions of social judgments Findings pro-vide consistent support for the hypothesis that individualsdisplaying broad smiles tend to be judged as warmer butless competent than those displaying slight smiles Theseeffects are robust across different sets of stimuli and differ-ent measurements of warmth and competence

A potential confound for these results is perceptions ofthe displayerrsquos persuasive intent1 Extant research suggeststhat consumers are often aware of marketersrsquo attempts to

influence them (Friestad and Wright 1994) and may some-times view persuasive tactics as inappropriate or unethical(Kirmani and Zhu 2007) Consumers may perceive a mar-keterrsquos broad (vs slight) smile as a strong or an inappropri-ate persuasive attempt which consequently influencestheir perceptions of the marketer (Kirmani and Campbell2009) To assess the possible role of persuasive intent instudies 1a and 1b we conducted two post-tests (study 1aN frac14 60 study 1b N frac14 55) In each post-test participantswere exposed to the experimental stimuli and completedtwo multi-item scales that capture different aspects of per-suasive intent The first scale adapted from Campbell(1995) measured participantsrsquo knowledge or awareness ofthe marketerrsquos persuasive intent (eg ldquoThe person appearsto have strong intention to persuade peoplerdquo 1 frac14 stronglydisagree 7 frac14 strongly agree a frac14 85 and 89 for studies1a and 1b respectively) The second scale adapted fromKirmani and Zhu (2007) measured perceived inappropri-ateness of the persuasion attempt (eg ldquoDo you think theperson tries to persuade people by inappropriate meansrdquo1 frac14 not at all 7 frac14 extremely a frac14 98 and 98 for studies1a and 1b) Findings indicate that neither persuasion know-ledge (study 1a Mb frac14 333 Ms frac14 304 p gt 10 study 1bMb frac14 317 Ms frac14 344 p gt 10) nor perceived inappropri-ateness of the persuasion attempt (study 1a Mb frac14 285 Ms

frac14 263 p gt 10 study 1b Mb frac14 291 Ms frac14 334 p gt 10)was affected by smile intensity

In the next two studies we investigate consumption con-texts as boundary conditions for the observed effects ofsmile intensity on social perception To the extent that a

FIGURE 2

THE INTERACTION EFFECT OF SMILE INTENSITY ON PERCEPTIONS OF WARMTH AND COMPETENCE IN STUDIES 1A AND 1B

1 We thank the review team for this suggestion

WANG ET AL 791

consumption context highlights either the warmth or the

competence dimension in social judgments the effect of

smile intensity on the emphasized dimension is strength-

ened and the effect on the less emphasized dimension is

attenuated We examine two such consumption contextsmdash

regulatory focus (study 2a) and perceived risk (study 2b)

STUDY 2A THE BOUNDARYCONDITIONmdashREGULATORY FOCUS

It is well established that regulatory focus impacts con-

sumersrsquo information processing and perception (Higgins

1997) Promotion-focused individuals emphasize advance-

ment and growth and are in a state of eagerness to attain

gains As a result they are likely to pursue goals related to

attainment of positive outcomes and are sensitive to the

presence of positive cues On the other hand prevention-

focused individuals are concerned with protection and

safety and are in a state of vigilance to avoid losses Thus

prevention-focused individuals are motivated to minimize

negative outcomes and tend to focus on negative cues

(Aaker and Lee 2001 Pham and Higgins 2005) Germane

to our research recent work demonstrates that people may

derive different social judgments from the same behavior

in accordance with their promotion or prevention goal For

example a fast speech rate is associated with confidence

among promotion-focused individuals but is interpreted as

a sign of recklessness by prevention-focused people

(Cesario and Higgins 2008)Similarly we propose that regulatory focus moderates

judgments of slight and broad smiles Promotion-focused

consumers are likely to emphasize the positive affordance

of a smile and interpret broad smiles as the marketerrsquos

willingness to affiliate or help leading to higher warmth

ratings At the same time these consumersrsquo approach ten-

dencies make them less likely to focus on negative signals

of a smile such as decreased competence (Pham and

Higgins 2005) In contrast prevention-focused consumers

are wary of potential negative outcomes (Crowe and

Higgins 1997) and are more likely to interpret broad

smiles as signals of lack of skill or ability resulting in

lower ratings of the marketerrsquos competence Their focus on

negative cues also renders them less likely to make favor-

able warmth judgments associated with broad smiles

H2 The effect of smile intensity on social judgments is

moderated by consumersrsquo regulatory focus such that

(a) a broad (vs slight) smile is more likely to enhance

warmth perceptions when consumers are promotion-

focused (vs prevention-focused) (b) a broad (vs

slight) smile is more likely to undermine competence

perceptions when consumers are prevention-focused

(vs promotion-focused)

Stimulus

Following the procedures described in study 1b we de-veloped a new set of photos featuring broad and slightsmiles using a different middle-aged Caucasian maleThese photos were presented as part of an advertisementfor a lawyer Regulatory focus was manipulated in theadvertising message (see figure 3 Aaker and Lee 2001)While keeping the overall content comparable across thetwo conditions the main body of the ad copy accentuatedeither a promotion or a prevention focus by highlightingmessages related to ldquogainsrdquo or ldquolossesrdquo Specifically to in-crease participantsrsquo motivation to seek personal advance-ment and gains the main body of the promotion-focusedad copy stated ldquoIf you want to get full compensation callme to handle your caserdquo To induce a state of vigilance andincrease motivation to mitigate losses the main body ofthe prevention-focused ad copy read ldquoIf you are severelyinjured from an accident call me to handle your caserdquo

To test the validity of the regulatory focus manipulation50 Mturk participants (Mage frac14 3298 ranging from 19 to68 35 females) were randomly exposed to either thepromotion-focused or the prevention-focused advertise-ment They reported whether the ad made them think aboutlosing versus winning the case (1 frac14 not losing the case7 frac14 winning the case) and losing versus gaining financialassets (1 frac14 avoiding financial loss 7 frac14 gaining financialbenefit) To check potential confounds participates re-ported how much attention they paid to the ad (1 frac14 not atall 7 frac14 very much) how involved they were in processingthe ad (1 frac14 not at all involved 7 frac14 very much involved)and perceived difficulty of the advertised legal service(1 frac14 extremely easy 7 frac14 extremely difficult) Results re-vealed that participants in the promotion- (vs prevention-)focus condition thought about winning the case rather thannot losing the case (Mpro frac14 519 Mpre frac14 421 t frac14 224p lt 05) and gaining financial benefit rather than avoidingfinancial loss (Mpro frac14 523 Mpre frac14 425 t frac14 213 p lt05) The regulatory focus manipulation did not affect at-tention (Mpro frac14 515 Mpre frac14 492 p gt 10) involvement(Mpro frac14 519 Mpre frac14 550 p gt 10) or perceived difficultyof the service (Mpro frac14 323 Mpre frac14 358 p gt 10)

Participants and Procedures

Study 2a adopts a 2 (smile intensity broad slight) 2(regulatory focus promotion prevention) 2 (social judg-ments warmth competence) mixed-factorial design withsmile intensity and regulatory focus as between-subjectsvariables and social judgments as a within-subjects vari-able Three hundred twenty Mturk users (Mage frac14 3495ranging from 20 to 75 185 females) participated in thestudy Since prior research suggests that mood states mayinfluence the effect of regulatory focus (Pham and Avnet

2004) we first subjected participants to a procedure thatneutralizes their mood (Velten 1968) Specifically partici-pants read 30 neutral statements (eg ldquoThe MississippiRiver is the third longest river in North Americardquo) dis-played on the computer screen for 10 seconds eachSubsequently participants viewed one of the four adver-tisements varying in regulatory focus and smile intensityThey then reported perceptions of warmth and competenceof the lawyer using two four-item scales (warmth warmkind friendly approachable a frac14 92 competence compe-tent intelligent capable skillful a frac14 95)

In addition we conducted a manipulation check of smileintensity and three confound checks for authenticity targetattractiveness and persuasive intent The scales for smileintensity and target attractiveness were the same as in study1a We measured perceived authenticity with three itemsadapted from Grandey et al (2005) (ldquoTo what extent doesthe marketer appear to be putting on an act [reverse coded] be displaying his true feelings have actually experiencedthe expressed emotionsrdquo 1 frac14 strongly disagree 7 frac14strongly agree a frac14 84) Similar to the post-tests for studies1a and 1b persuasive intent was measured with twoscalesmdashpersuasion knowledge (a frac14 67) and perceivedinappropriateness of the persuasion attempt (a frac14 94)Participants responded to additional questions including

those about demographic information at the end of the

Results

Manipulation and Confound Checks We ran a 2 (smile

intensity) 2 (regulatory focus) ANOVA on participantsrsquo

perceptions of smile strength As expected results showed

only a significant main effect of smile intensity

(Mb frac14 609 Ms frac14 485 F(1 316) frac14 10387 p lt 001)

The same ANOVA performed on the confound

checksmdashauthenticity (Mb frac14 378 Ms frac14 381 p gt 10)

target attractiveness (Mb frac14 318 Ms frac14 337 p gt10) per-

suasion knowledge (Mb frac14 407 Ms frac14 384 p gt 10) and

perceived inappropriateness of the persuasion attempt (Mb

frac14 302 Ms frac14 284 p gt 10)mdashrevealed no significant main

effects or interactions

Perceptions of Warmth and Competence We ran a 2

(smile intensity) 2 (regulatory focus) 2 (social judg-

ments) mixed ANOVA Consistent with the findings in

studies 1a and 1b the two-way interaction between smile

intensity and social judgments was significant (F(1 316) frac142063 p lt 001) The predicted three-way interaction was

also significant (F(1 316) frac14 380 p frac14 05) (see figure 4)

FIGURE 3

SAMPLE ADVERTISEMENTS USED IN STUDY 2A

WANG ET AL 793

We decomposed this three-way interaction by perform-ing separate 2 (smile intensity) 2 (social judgments) ana-lyses for promotion-focused and prevention-focusedparticipants Among promotion-focused participants therewas a marginally significant interaction between smile in-tensity and social judgments (F(1 316) frac14 350 p frac14 06)Contrast analyses revealed that judgments of warmth weregreater in the broad smile condition than the slight smilecondition (Mb frac14 493 Ms frac14 448 F(1 316) frac14 1685 p lt001) However smile intensity did not affect judgments ofcompetence (Mb frac14 465 Ms frac14 449 p gt 10) For partici-pants with a salient prevention focus the interaction be-tween smile intensity and social judgments was alsosignificant (F(1 316) frac14 2028 p lt 001) Smile intensitydid not impact warmth perceptions (Mb frac14 462 Ms frac14 442p gt 10) but judgments of competence were lower in thebroad smile condition than the slight smile condition(Mbfrac14 414 Msfrac14 467 F(1 316)frac14 2126 plt 001) In add-ition the same pattern of results persisted when we includedsmile authenticity perceived attractiveness perceived persua-sive intent and perceived appropriateness of the persuasiveattempt as covariates (F(1 312)frac14 402 p lt 05)

Discussion

Study 2a finds support for hypothesis 2 the enhancementeffect of smile intensity on warmth perceptions occurs onlyfor consumers who are promotion-focused and thereduction effect of smile intensity on competence percep-tions ensues only for consumers who are prevention-focused Furthermore findings in this study empirically ruleout persuasive intent as an alternative explanation for ourresults

In study 2b we explore a different boundary conditionfor the effect of smile intensity on social perceptions risklevels associated with consumption In addition study 2bgoes beyond perceptions of the marketer to measure con-sumersrsquo purchase intentions as a downstream effect ofsmile intensity

STUDY 2B THE BOUNDARYCONDITIONmdashCONSUMPTION RISK

Perceived consumption riskmdashthe probability andormagnitude of experiencing adverse consequences after pur-chasing a product or service (Campbell and Goodstein2001 Oglethorpe and Monroe 1987)mdashis an importantcharacteristic inherent in various marketing contexts(Herzenstein Posavac and Brakus 2007) Prior researchshows that when perceived risk is high consumers aremotivated to adopt strategies that help reduce the risk to amanageable level (Dowling and Staelin 1994) such asrelying on familiar or well-known brands (Erdem 1998) orcorporate reputations that signal product functionality andperformance (Gurhan-Canli and Batra 2004) Similarly we

propose that when perceived risk is high consumers focus

more on perceptions of competence because this trait helps

increase consumer confidence that the marketer can suc-

cessfully deliver the outcome As a result the negative re-

lationship between smile intensity and competence

judgments should be more prominent when perceived risk

is high Meanwhile smile intensity is less likely to

FIGURE 4

THE INTERACTION EFFECT OF SMILE INTENSITY ANDREGULATORY FOCUS ON WARMTH AND COMPETENCE

JUDGMENTS IN STUDY 2A

influence warmth perceptions which are less relevant in

reducing riskOn the other hand when perceived risk is low the

chance of experiencing negative consequences is low

(Oglethorpe and Monroe 1987) and consumers are less

concerned about product or service failure (Gurhan-Canli

and Batra 2004) Instead they focus on having a positive

and satisfying consumption experience which to a large

extent depends on employee helpfulness and friendliness

(Tsai and Huang 2002) Since judgments of warmth rather

than those of competence are highlighted in a low-risk

marketing context we expect a broad (vs slight) smile to

enhance warmth perceptions but have no influence on

competence perceptions Formally we hypothesize

moderated by the risk level of the consumption con-

text such that (a) a broad (vs slight) smile is more

likely to enhance warmth perceptions when consump-

tion risk is low (vs high) (b) a broad (vs slight) smile

is more likely to undermine competence perceptions

when consumption risk is high (vs low)

Research suggests warmth and competence perceptions

are important predictors of consumersrsquo behavioral re-

sponses (Aaker et al 2010 Cuddy et al 2007) As dis-

cussed above consumers are likely to focus on the

marketerrsquos competence when perceived risk is high Thus

compared to a slight smile a broad smile is expected to de-

crease consumersrsquo intentions to purchase the product or

use the service in a high-risk context In contrast low per-

ceived risk is predicted to shift consumersrsquo focus to

warmth Thus a broad (vs slight) smile should increase

consumersrsquo purchase intentions through enhanced warmth

perceptions in a low-risk context

higher purchase intentions through warmth perceptions

when consumption risk is low but lower purchase in-

tentions through competence perceptions when con-

sumption risk is high

Stimulus

To test hypotheses 3 and 4 we created two advertise-

ments of a nutritionist featuring either a slight or broad

smile (see figure 5) Since prior research has suggested that

morphing facial images may change facial symmetry or per-

ceived attractiveness of the face (Langlois and Roggman

1990) we used two undoctored photos with different levels

of smile intensity in this study to curb potential problems

associated with comparison between doctored photos (slight

smiles) and undoctored photos (broad smiles) In addition

we used a female marketer to examine whether our effect

generalizes across genders

Specifically we purchased and downloaded two stock

photos from istockcom an online photograph provider

The two photos show the same woman displaying either a

slight or a broad smile We examined the zygomatic major

movement in the two photos to ensure that the two smiles

differed on intensity levels and were comparable to the

level 2 (slight) and level 5 (broad) smiles in the MSFDE

In addition we assessed and ensured the two photos were

equivalent on other facial cues (eg head orientation brow

position and gaze direction)Consumption risk was manipulated in an introductory para-

graph about nutrition coaching services which participants

were instructed to read before viewing the advertisement In

the high-risk condition the paragraph ended with a statement

that misleading advice or inappropriate dietary adjustment

from a nutritionist could lead to serious health-related issues

To maintain consumption risk at a relatively low level this

statement was omitted in the low risk conditionWe tested the validity of the consumption risk manipula-

tion in a pretest by assigning 67 Mturk participants (Mage

frac14 3607 ranging from 20 to 66 48 females) to read either

the high-risk or low-risk message and complete a two-item

scale on risk perceptions (ldquohow much risk is involved with

nutrition coachingrdquo 1 frac14 very little risk 7 frac14 a great deal

of risk ldquohow much risk is involved with purchasing a nu-

trition coaching servicerdquo 1 frac14 very low-risk purchase 7 frac14very high-risk purchase r frac14 84 Gurhan-Canli and Batra

2004) In addition we collected a confound check of per-

ceived importance of the nutrition coaching service (ldquoto

what extent is nutrition coaching important to yourdquo and

ldquohow important is nutrition coaching to consumersrdquo 1 frac14not at all important 7 frac14 very important r frac14 65) Results

revealed that participants in the high- (vs low-) risk condi-

tion perceived the nutrition coaching service to be signifi-

cantly riskier (Mh frac14 480 Ml frac14 372 t frac14 311 p lt 01)

but not more important (Mh frac14 470 Ml frac14 460 p gt 10)

Study 2b employs a 2 (smile intensity broad slight) 2

(consumption risk high low) 2 (social judgments warmth

competence) mixed-factorial design with smile intensity and

risk level as between-subjects variables and social judgments

as a within-subjects variable Two hundred eighty-one partici-

pants (Mage frac14 3629 ranging from 18 to 78 155 females)

were recruited from Mturk for this studyParticipants first read the high- or low-risk version of the

nutrition coaching introduction Subsequently to enhance

experimental realism we told participants that after provid-

ing their zip codes they would be matched with a local nu-

tritionist Next participants were informed that a

nutritionist in their area is expanding her business online

and presented with an ad for her online nutrition coaching

service (see figure 5)

WANG ET AL 795

Participants then reported perceived warmth and compe-tence of the nutritionist on the same scales as study 2a(warmth a frac14 94 competence a frac14 96) They also re-ported purchase intention on a four-item scale (eg ldquoI aminterested in the coaching program by this nutritionistrdquoldquoI am likely to pay for the coaching program offered bythis nutritionistrdquo 1 frac14 strongly disagree 7 frac14 stronglyagree a frac14 96 Dodds Monroe and Grewal 1991) Asanother attempt to measure purchase intention we alsoasked participants if they would like to sign up to receivea promotional package which includes a free trial ses-sion from the nutritionist Whether participants chose tosign up constitutes a behavioral measure of purchaselikelihood Afterward we collected a manipulation checkof smile intensity and confound checks on persuasionknowledge (a frac14 76) and perceived inappropriateness ofthe persuasion attempt (a frac14 96) using the same measuresas in studies 2a and on smile authenticity and target at-tractiveness using the same measures as in study 1a Wealso collected additional measures including partici-pantsrsquo demographics at the end of the study

Results

Manipulation and Confound Checks We ran a 2 (smileintensity) 2 (consumption risk) ANOVA on perceptions

of smile intensity As expected results showed only a sig-nificant main effect of smile intensity (Mb frac14 629 Ms frac14413 F(1 277) frac14 25819 p lt 001) The same analyses onthe confound checks revealed no significant main effectsor interactions on participantsrsquo ratings of persuasion know-ledge (Mb frac14 353 Ms frac14 350 p gt 10) perceived inappro-priateness of the persuasion attempt (Mb frac14 280 Ms frac14279 p gt 10) perceived smile authenticity (Mb frac14 452Ms frac14 444 p gt 10) or target attractiveness (Mb frac14 430Ms frac14 443 p gt10)

Perceptions of Warmth and Competence A 2 (smileintensity) 2 (consumption risk) 2 (social judgments)mixed ANOVA revealed a significant two-way interactionbetween smile intensity and social judgments (F(1 277) frac142907 p lt 01) There was also a three-way interaction be-tween smile intensity risk level and social judgments(F(1 277) frac14 393 p lt 05) (see figure 6) To interpret thethree-way interaction we examined the effect of smile in-tensity on perceptions of warmth and competence separ-ately across low- and high-risk consumption contexts

In the low-consumption-risk conditions the interactionbetween smile intensity and social judgments was signifi-cant (F(1 277) frac14 629 p frac14 01) Specifically judgmentsof warmth were greater in the broad smile condition thanin the slight smile condition (Mb frac14 535 Ms frac14 470 F(1

FIGURE 5

SAMPLE ADVERTISEMENTS USED IN STUDY 2B

277) frac14 2806 p lt 001) However smile intensity did notimpact perceptions of competence (Mb frac14 464 Ms frac14 443p gt 10) The interaction between smile intensity and so-cial judgments was also significant in the high-consump-tion-risk condition (F(1 277) frac14 2532 p lt 001) howeverthe pattern was reversed Perceptions of competence werelower in the broad smile condition than in the slight smilecondition (Mb frac14 440 Ms frac14 508 F(1 277) frac14 2666 p lt001) but smile intensity had no effect on warmth (Mb frac14508 Ms frac14 482 p gt 10) In addition the same three-wayinteraction effect held when potential confounds (smile au-thenticity perceived attractiveness perceived persuasive in-tent and perceived appropriateness of the persuasive attempt)were included as covariates (F(1 273) frac14 400 p lt 05)

Consumersrsquo Purchase Intentions We ran a 2 (smile in-tensity) 2 (risk level) between-subjects ANOVA on par-ticipantsrsquo self-reported purchase intention The two-wayinteraction between smile intensity and risk level was sig-nificant (F(1 277) frac14 1501 p lt 001) (see figure 7)Contrast analyses revealed that in the low-risk conditionparticipants reported higher purchase intentions in thebroad versus slight smile condition (Mb frac14 375 Ms frac14 328F(1 277) frac14 328 p frac14 07) The opposite was true for thehigh-risk condition broad smiles led to lower purchase in-tentions than slight smiles (Mb frac14 335 Ms frac14 437 F(1277) frac14 1299 p lt 001)

Next we analyzed participantsrsquo sign-up behavior A bin-ary logistic regression was conducted that included smileintensity risk and their interaction as independentvariables The smile intensity risk interaction wassignificant (v2 (1) frac14 684 p frac14 01) Simple effects testsrevealed that participants in the low-risk condition weremore likely to sign up if the service provider displayed abroad smile versus a slight smile (Mb frac14 329 Ms frac14192 v2 (1) frac14 360 p lt 06) in the high-risk conditionparticipants were more likely to sign up if the service pro-vider displayed a slight versus a broad smile (Mb frac14 179Ms frac14 318 v2 (1) frac14 328 p frac14 07)

In additional analyses we found that when persuasionknowledge inappropriateness of persuasive intent authen-ticity and attractiveness were included as covariates theinteraction effects between smile intensity and risk levelremain significant for both self-reported purchase intention(F(1 273) frac14 1207 p lt 001) and sign-up behavior (v2 (1)frac14 479 p frac14 03)

Mediation Analysis We examined whether warmthand competence perceptions mediate the effect of the inter-action between smile intensity and risk level on purchaseintention We conducted moderated mediation analysesusing the bootstrapping procedure (5000 resamples)(Hayes 2013) Findings indicate that in the low-risk condi-tion the indirect effect of the two-way interaction on self-reported purchase intention through warmth perceptionswas significant (a b frac14 20 95 CI 07 42) but the

indirect effect through competence perceptions was not

significant (a b frac14 08 95 CI ndash02 22) In the high-risk condition the indirect effect of the interaction on self-reported purchase intentions through competence percep-

tions was significant (a b frac14 ndash48 95 CI ndash80 ndash22)but the indirect effect though warmth perceptions was not

significant (a b frac14 15 95 CIfrac14 ndash14 50)

FIGURE 6

THE INTERACTION EFFECT OF SMILE INTENSITY ANDCONSUMPTION RISK ON WARMTH AND COMPETENCE

JUDGMENTS IN STUDY 2B

WANG ET AL 797

Similarly in the low-risk condition the indirect effect of

the interaction on sign-up behaviors through warmth per-

ceptions was significant (a b frac14 18 95 CI 00 52)

while the indirect effect through competence perceptions

was not (a b frac14 07 95 CI ndash05 34) In the high-risk

condition the indirect effect of the interaction on sign-up

behaviors through competence perceptions was significant

(a b frac14 ndash24 95 CI ndash57 ndash04) but the indirect effect

though warmth perceptions was not (a b frac14 07 95

CIfrac14 ndash01 29)Collectively these results support hypothesis 4 The ef-

fect of smile intensity on consumersrsquo purchase intentions is

driven by warmth perceptions in low-risk consumption

contexts but mediated through competence perceptions in

high-risk consumption contexts

Discussion

Study 2b documents how consumption risk moderates

the effect of smile intensity on social judgments and pur-

chase intentions In low-risk contexts warmth dominates

consumer perceptions a broad (vs slight) smile enhances

judgments of warmth but has no effect on judgments of

competence In high-risk contexts however competence

trumps warmth a broad (vs slight) smile reduces compe-

tence perceptions but has no effect on warmth perceptions

In addition warmth and competence perceptions bear

downstream consequences on consumersrsquo intentions to

purchase the product or service provided by the marketer

By increasing warmth perceptions a broad (vs slight)

smile leads to higher purchase intentions in a low-risk con-

text In a high-risk context however a broad (vs slight)

smile decreases behavioral intensions via less favorable

competence perceptions Having established the impact of

smile intensity in four experiments the next study extends

our investigation to a field setting to enhance the external

validity of this research

STUDY 3 IMPACT OF SMILE INTENSITY

IN A CROWDFUNDING CONTEXT

We collected data from Kickstartercom one of the

worldrsquos largest crowdfunding platforms for creative pro-

jects Entrepreneurs (called ldquocreatorsrdquo in Kickstarter) tap

this platform to raise the capital needed in 15 different pro-

ject categories (eg technology design music photog-

raphy) Project creators choose a minimum funding goal

and set up various pledge categories for backers to contrib-

ute In return for their financial support backers receive re-

wards such as the product or service under developmentA large percentage of project creators on

Kickstartercom provide profile photos of themselves

which allows us to code the smile intensity level displayed

in these photos As a profile photo is readily available on

the home page of a project social judgments based on

FIGURE 7

THE INTERACTION EFFECT OF SMILE INTENSITY AND CONSUMPTION RISK ON CONSUMER BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN STUDY2B

creatorsrsquo smile intensity are likely to influence backersrsquo

behaviorIn this study we collected publicly available panel data

on projects in the Technology and Design categories the

two categories with the largest and second-largest number

of projects featuring project creatorsrsquo photos at the time of

data collection in November 2014 Since data for

Technology and Design showed the same pattern of results

we combined the two categories in reporting our findings

After we excluded projects with photos that featured mul-

tiple faces partial views of the face or facial expressions

other than smiles as well as projects that had no backers

324 projects across the two categories remained in the final

dataset Besides the profile photo we recorded the follow-

ing information for each project title of the project the

funding goal the entrepreneurial experience of the project

creator (ie whether the creator has other projects on

Kickstartercom) whether the project received a ldquostaff

pickrdquo promotion from Kickstarter whether the project pro-

vided a video demonstration on the web page number of

backers total amount of money pledged number of

Facebook shares number of funding categories the pledge

amount and the number of backers in each funding

category

Measurements

Smile Intensity For each profile photo of the project

creator two coders independently classified the facial ex-

pression into one of three categories 0 frac14 no smile 1 frac14slight smile and 2 frac14 broad smile (Cupchik and Poulos

1984) Coders were informed of the definition of each cat-

egory following the extant literature with 0 being absence

of positive expression 1 being slightly upturned mouth

with no cheek elevation and 2 being smiling expressions

with mouth open andor cheeks elevated (Repacholi et al

2014) As part of the training process coders were pre-

sented with sample photos from the MSFDE (Beaupre and

Hess 2006) to familiarize them with smiles of different in-

tensity levels The intercoder reliability was 82 and differ-

ences in coding were resolved by a third coder Based on

the coding results 158 project creators were classified as

featuring slight smiles and 166 were categorized as featur-

ing broad smiles Illustrative photos are provided in

figure 8

Backer Behavior Driven by Competence PerceptionsTotal Amount Pledged and Pledged Amount perBacker Kickstarter creators often promise tangible re-

wards for those who fund their projects such as a sample

of the product or service being developed (Mollick 2014)

Indeed 954 of the projects in our dataset offered tan-

gible rewards for backers Recent research on crowdsourc-

ing identifies the desire to collect rewards as one of the

primary motivations of backers (Cholakova and Clarysse

2015 Gerber and Hui 2013) Since backers are interestedin ldquoreceiving a reward in exchange for giving moneyrdquo it issuggested that to some extent backers ldquoexhibit consumerbehaviorrdquo (Gerber and Hui 2013 13)

Research in the consumer behavior literature has associ-ated consumersrsquo willingness to pay with the skills expert-ise and reliability of the product or service provider (Berryand Parasuraman 2004) When convinced that the marketeris capable of successfully delivering quality offerings con-sumers are more likely to pay premium prices in exchangefor the product or service (Morales 2005) Researchers sug-gest this is because consumers perceive products or ser-vices offered by skillful and capable marketers to be morevaluable than those from less competent ones and are will-ing to pay at a level they believe is commensurate with thevalue of the offering (Homburg Koschate and Hoyer2005)

Accordingly we anticipate that a slight (vs broad)smile which enhances competence perceptions will leadbackers to contribute more money to the project henceincreasing total amount pledged to the project and averageamount pledged per backer

Backer Behavior Driven by Warmth PerceptionsNumber of Facebook Shares Desire to help others is an-other important motivation for backers in supportingcrowdfunding projects (Gerber and Hui 2013) Peoplersquos in-tention to provide help or social support to others is deter-mined by a variety of factors (Becker and Asbrock 2012)including perceived warmth of the receiver (Cuddy et al2007) People tend to like and feel positive emotions to-ward individuals who are warm and friendly (Fiske et al2002) and are more likely to extend help or assistance tothese individuals (Cuddy et al 2007)

In addition consumers balance the desire to help otherswith the desire to protect self-interest and helping behavioris more likely when the cost associated with helping is rela-tively low (Wagner and Wheeler 1969) In Kickstarter vis-itors can support a project by sharing the project page onFacebook which is a low-cost way of helping the creatorSuch acts involve no financial contribution and compe-tence perceptions of the creator should be less relevant inpredicting such behavior Consequently we expect a broad(vs slight) smile which increases warmth perceptions tobe positively related to the number of Facebook shares aproject receives

Backer Behavior Driven by Both Competence andWarmth Perceptions Large-Scale and Small-ScaleContributions Project creators on Kickstarter can set mul-tiple reward levels and provide greater rewards for backerspledging more money In our sample 95 of creators settheir first reward level as an amount lower than $25 with anaverage required contribution of $912 The averagerequired contribution for the second third and fourth levelsis $2692 $8053 and $180 respectively Based on these

WANG ET AL 799

statistics we classified pledges lower than $25 as smallcontributions pledges between $25 and $100 as mediumcontributions and pledges higher than $100 as large contri-butions As discussed earlier a broad (vs slight) smile ismore likely to elicit low-cost forms of helping behavior andthus project creators with a broad (vs slight) smile shouldreceive a greater number of small-scale contributions as anindicator of social support In contrast compared to a slightsmile a broad smile may undermine the perceivedcompetence of the project creator which may lead to fewerlarge-scale contributions which are likely viewed as invest-ments on promising projects

Results

Backer Behavior Driven by Competence Perceptions Aspredicted smile intensity was negatively related to bothtotal contribution and average contribution per backerWhen the creator displayed a broad (vs slight) smile in thephoto the total amount pledged plunged by more than 50(Mb frac14 $1017926 Ms frac14 $2156012 t frac14 ndash248 p frac14 01)and average contributions per backer were reduced bymore than 30 (Mb frac14 $9305 Ms frac14 $14311 t frac14 ndash284p lt 01)

Backer Behavior Driven by Warmth Perceptions Onthe other hand smile intensity positively predicts thenumber of Facebook shares A project page with a profilephoto featuring a broad (vs slight) smile received

more than twice as many Facebook shares (Mb frac14 47536

Ms frac14 22454 t frac14 244 p frac14 02)

Backer Behavior Driven by Both Competence andWarmth Perceptions To test whether smile intensity hasdifferent effects on the number of large-scale and small-

scale contributions we conducted a 2 (smile intensity

slight broad) 2 (contribution level small-scale vslarge-scale) mixed ANOVA with smile intensity as a

between-subjects variable and contribution level as a

within-subjects variable A significant two-way interactionsupported our prediction (F(1 322) frac14 992 p lt 01) The

number of small-scale contributions was significantly

greater in the broad smile condition than in the slight smilecondition (Mb frac14 6677 Ms frac14 3381 F(1 322) frac14 520

p frac14 02) The opposite pattern was found for the number of

large-scale contributionsmdashbroad smiles led to significantlyfewer large contributions than slight smiles (Mb frac14 1540

Ms frac14 4682 F(1 322) frac14 473 p frac14 03)

Control Variables Given the correlational nature of the

data in this study it is possible that the observed effects might

be caused by factors other than smile intensity To examinethis possibility we recorded the following information to use

as control variables the gender of the project creator the total

funding goal of the project the project creatorrsquos entrepreneurialexperience whether the project was promoted by Kickstarter

as a ldquostaff pickrdquo and whether the project had a video demon-

stration See table 1 for summary statistics

FIGURE 8

SAMPLE PHOTOS FROM KICKSTARTERCOM IN STUDY 3

Before including these control variables as covariates in

further analyses we first examined possible multicollinear-ity effects All correlations between control variables andsmile intensity were below 17 representing weak or small

associations (Cohen 1988) (see table 1) We also calculatedvariance inflation factors (VIF) to examine the extent towhich nonorthogonality among independent and covariate

variables inflated the standard errors All VIF valuesranged between 100 and 106 well below the standard cut-off values of 5 (Hair et al 2006) and 10 (NeterWasserman and Kutner 1989) Therefore multicollinearity

is unlikely a threat to the interpretation of our resultsWe thus included each control variable in the analyses

of backer behavior Results revealed that the total amountpledged is positively influenced by the creatorrsquos entrepre-

neurial experience (F(1 317) frac14 615 p frac14 01) and theinclusion of a video demonstration (F(1 317) frac14 418p frac14 04) The amount pledged per backer was positively af-

fected by the presence of a video demonstration (F(1 317)frac14 491 p frac14 03) Small-scale contribution was positivelyinfluenced by the creatorrsquos entrepreneurial experience(F(1 317) frac14 632 p frac14 01) Most importantly the

relationship between smile intensity and backer behaviorremained unchanged after we controlled for these potentialconfounds

DISCUSSION

We examined the effect of smile intensity on variousconsumer behaviors on Kickstartercom In line with our

predictions broad (vs slight) smiles increased social sup-port and low-cost helping behaviors such as Facebookshares and small-scale donations On the other hand broad

(vs slight) smiles decreased backer investment as reflectedin total amount pledged average amount pledged perbacker and number of large-scale donations These results

are consistent with our hypothesis that compared to slight

smiles broad smiles enhance warmth perceptions but re-

duce competence perceptions

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Marketers routinely use facial expressions as a persua-

sion tool to engage customers but little is known abouthow varying intensity levels of the same emotional expres-sion can lead to differences in social judgments Five stud-

ies revealed that brief exposures to emotional expressionsin still images are sufficient for consumers to form a pre-liminary impression of the marketer and that contrary to

intuition broader smiles do not always lead to more posi-tive interpersonal judgments Specifically greater smile in-tensity enhances perceptions of warmth but underminesperceptions of competence This effect is bounded by con-

sumersrsquo regulatory focus and level of consumption riskWhile promotion-focused consumers perceive marketerswith broad (vs slight) smiles as warmer prevention-

focused consumers view marketers with broad (vs slight)smiles as less competent Correspondingly broad smileslead to greater perceptions of the marketerrsquos warmth and

stronger purchase intentions in a low-risk consumptioncontext but result in lower perceptions of the marketerrsquoscompetence and weaker purchase intentions in a high-risk

consumption context Finally we extend our findings to afield setting and show that smile intensity has importantimplications in predicting different types of behavior in a

crowdfunding context Creators on Kickstartercom whodisplay slight smiles are more likely to receive large contri-butions in total and per backer whereas creators with

broad smiles are more likely to receive Facebook sharesand small-scale donations

The present work contributes to research on facial emo-tional expressions in still images (Harker and Keltner2001 Hertenstein et al 2009 Small and Verrochi 2009)

and extends prior work which has focused on valence

TABLE 1

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR 324 KICKSTARTER PROJECTS IN STUDY 3

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Smile type (1 frac14 slight 2 frac14 broad) 151 50 2 Total amount pledged ($)a 1572918 4159520 ndash14c 3 Average amount pledged per backer($)a 11746 20046 ndash13c 34c 4 Total number of Facebook shares 35305 100977 12c 14c 17c 5 Project creatorrsquos gender (1 frac14male 2 frac14 female) 113 34 16c ndash09 ndash07 ndash03 6 The total funding goal ($)a 4217498 12653053 ndash05 04 16c 07 ndash01 7 Project creatorrsquos entrepreneurial experience

(0 frac14 first-time creator 1 frac14 experienced creator)20 40 ndash14c 16c ndash01 ndash08 ndash06 ndash12c

8 Staff pick (0 frac14 no 1 frac14 yes)b 15 35 ndash04 07 02 06 02 04 08 9 Video on the project web page (0 frac14 no 1 frac14 yes) 91 28 07 11c 12c 10 ndash01 04 ndash01 13c

aProjects funded in other currencies were converted to US dollarsbldquoStaff pickrdquo refers to whether the project was recommended by Kickstarter staff marked by a green sticker on the project home pagecp lt 05

WANG ET AL 801

contrasts (positive neutral negative) by examining differ-ent intensity levels of positive affective displayInvestigating the effect of smile intensity reveals a morenuanced picture of smiling and moves beyond the generalnotion that all smiles have positive interpersonal effectsMore broadly our research contributes to the literature onemotions and decision making where recent work hasdocumented how arousal or intensity of an emotional statemay shape peoplersquos judgments of objects and events (DiMuro and Murray 2012 Fedorikhin and Patrick 2010Gorn Pham and Sin 2001 Vosgerau 2010)Complementing this stream of work focusing on felt emo-tional intensity our research shows that displayed emo-tional intensity impacts how people may be perceived andjudged by others

Implications for Marketers and Consumers

Human faces are omnipresent in marketing communica-tions Companies and universities for example routinelydisplay employee or faculty pictures on their websitesBillboards print ads and direct mail also frequently fea-ture faces with smiles Our research indicates that basedon the displayed smile potential customers make infer-ences about the pictured individualrsquos warmth and compe-tence which may influence their intentions to interact ortransact with that individual It is important to understandthat the interpersonal effects of smiles are not always posi-tive and smile intensity may need to be finely tailored tothe specific impression that the marketer wishes to makemdasha broad smile for warmth and a slight smile for compe-tence We also show that marketing context can moderatethese effects Consumers with a promotion goal or in alow-risk context are more likely to perceive warmth inbroad (vs slight) smiles while consumers with a preven-tion goal or in a high-risk context are more concerned withcompetence as smile intensity increases By understandingthe boundary conditions that moderate the impact of smileson consumer perceptions marketers can adapt their affect-ive displays and avoid situations when a well-intendedpositive display goes unrequited or even backfires

Our investigation is also relevant to consumers Facialexpressions are critically important for coordinating socialinteractions (Keltner and Haidt 1999) The emergence ofsocial media fosters the prominent usage of human faces asa communicative tool and impression management tacticFacebook and LinkedIn users often start their connectionswith a profile picture Our research suggests that facialcues can impact judgments of warmth and competencetraits that consumers often wish to convey through suchsites Consumers may benefit from our findings by usingthe appropriate facial expression as a strategic tactic to fa-cilitate social connections or build personal brands Abroad smile might benefit the displayer when warmth orfriendliness is the focus (eg on Facebook) but

moderation is recommended when signals of competenceare the primary goal (eg on LinkedIn)

Future Research Avenues and Caveats

Our research is not without limitations For one we usedstatic images instead of dynamic interactions Researchsuggests that perceivers can use nonverbal behaviors suchas arm gestures and body position to make judgmentsabout warmth and competence (Ambady Krabbenhoft andHogan 2006 Tsai and Huang 2002) To keep our manipu-lations as clean as possible we chose to focus on photo-graphs We encourage future research to test whether ourfindings can be replicated in interaction contexts

In this research we found consistent empirical evidencethat smile intensity does not influence the perceived per-suasive intent of the marketer We speculate this is becausebroad smiles are omnipresent in marketing communica-tions and consistent with consumersrsquo expectations in thesecontexts However it is important for future research tofurther explore when persuasive intent may influence con-sumersrsquo perception of marketersrsquo smiles For instancewhen the smile displayed by marketers is perceived asforced or fake (Grandey 2003) customers may perceivebroad smiles as more likely to be driven by persuasive in-tent compared to slight smiles Or a broad smile that is in-consistent with the customerrsquos emotional receptivitymdashthatis the preferred level of emotional intensity displayed byothers (Lee and Lim 2010)mdashmay elicit more suspicionabout the expresserrsquos persuasive intent It may be fruitfulfor future research to develop a new scale to measure per-ceived persuasive intent specifically in the context ofsmile-induced perceptions which is sufficiently sensitiveto capture nuances in consumersrsquo inferences about mar-ketersrsquo intentions

In addition this research focused on positive expressionsor smiles because of their ubiquity in marketing communi-cations and social interactions Future research may exam-ine whether intensity levels of negative emotions benefit orhurt social judgments For instance anger is associatedwith dominance or power (Tiedens 2001) However in-tense expression of anger may result in negative inferencesabout the individualrsquos ability to regulate emotions (Lewis2000)

Another promising direction for future research is testingwhether inferences based on smile intensity are correct-able Trait inferences drawn from facial cues are oftenspontaneous but can be corrected in the presence of add-itional evidence about the expresser (Gorn et al 2008) It isconceivable that the effects of slight and broad smiles onimpressions may be altered when other information isavailable to evaluate the marketer Research in this direc-tion could benefit marketers by identifying ways to in-crease perceptions of both warmth and competencePrevious research on organizations found that nonprofits

are typically seen as warm but incompetent but a nonprofit

can attain a ldquogolden quadrantrdquo by providing compelling

evidence that it is a competent organization (Aaker et al

2010) Future research may investigate whether a similar

effect may be achieved in social perceptions when

competence-related cues (eg speaking eloquently) are

presented for marketers with a broad smile or warmth-

related cues (eg friendly body gestures) are presented for

marketers with a slight smile

Conclusion

A growing body of literature supports the notion that

people make inferences about others based on their emo-

tional expressions The consensus is that positive affective

displays such as smiles lead to positive interpersonal

judgments (Deutsch et al 1987 Mueser et al 1984

Thornton 1943) The current research shows that this is not

always the case The intensity of a smile affects percep-

tions of warmth and competence such that targets with

broad smiles are judged to be warmer but less competent

than those with slight smiles This effect is moderated by

the perceiverrsquos regulatory focus and level of consumption

risk Importantly these inferences affect downstream be-

haviors such as purchase or investment decisions that

carry significant consequences to the marketer Taken to-

gether the results of this research demonstrate that when it

comes to smiles bigger isnrsquot always better

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

The first author and the fourth author collected data for

studies 1a 2a and 2b on Amazonrsquos Mechanical Turk be-

tween March 2013 and November 2015 The first author

conducted study 1b at the University of Central Floridarsquos

behavioral lab in October 2015 The first author supervised

the collection of data for study 3 by research assistants on

Kickstartercom in November 2014 The first author and

the fourth author jointly analyzed these data All four au-

thors reviewed and discussed the results for each study

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer Kathleen D Vohs and Cassie Mogilner (2010)ldquoNonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits asCompetent Firm Stereotypes Matterrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (2) 224ndash37

Aaker Jennifer L and Angela Y Lee (2001) ldquolsquoIrsquo Seek Pleasuresand lsquoWersquo Avoid Pains The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals inInformation Processing and Persuasionrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 28 (1) 33ndash49

Abe Jo Ann A Michael Beetham and Carroll E Izard (2002)ldquoWhat Do Smiles Mean An Analysis in Terms ofDifferential Emotions Theoryrdquo in An Empirical Reflectionon the Smile ed Millicent H Abel New York EdwinMellen 83ndash110

Adams Reginald B and Robert E Kleck (2003) ldquoPerceived GazeDirection and the Processing of Facial Displays of EmotionrdquoPsychological Science 14 (6) 644ndash47

Ambady Nalini Mary Anne Krabbenhoft and Daniel Hogan(2006) ldquoThe 30-Sec Sale Using Thin-Slice Judgments toEvaluate Sales Effectivenessrdquo Journal of ConsumerPsychology 16 (1) 4ndash13

Ames Daniel L Susan T Fiske and Alexander Todorov (2011)ldquoImpression Formation A Focus on Othersrsquo Intentsrdquo in TheOxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience ed Jean Decetyand John T Cacioppo New York Oxford University Press419ndash33

Barger Patricia B and Alicia A Grandey (2006) ldquoService with aSmile and Encounter Satisfaction Emotional Contagion andAppraisal Mechanismsrdquo Academy of Management Journal49 (6) 1229ndash38

Beaupre Martin G and Ursula Hess (2006) ldquoAn IngroupAdvantage for Confidence in Emotion RecognitionJudgments The Moderating Effect of Familiarity with theExpressions of Outgroup Membersrdquo Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin 32 (1) 16ndash26

Becker Julia C and Frank Asbrock (2012) ldquoWhat TriggersHelping versus Harming of Ambivalent Groups Effects ofthe Relative Salience of Warmth versus CompetencerdquoJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (1) 19ndash27

Berry Diane S and Sheila Brownlow (1989) ldquoWere thePhysiognomists Right Personality Correlates of FacialBabyishnessrdquo Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin15 (2) 266ndash79

Berry Leonard L and Anantharanthan Parasuraman (2004)Marketing Services Competing through Quality New YorkFree Press

Bodenhausen Galen V Geoffrey P Kramer and Karin Susser(1994) ldquoHappiness and Stereotypic Thinking in SocialJudgmentrdquo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(4) 621ndash32

Bugental Daphne Blunt (1986) ldquoUnmasking the lsquoPolite SmilersquoSituational and Personal Determinants of Managed Affect inAdult-Child Interactionrdquo Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin 12 (1) 7ndash16

Campbell Margaret C (1995) ldquoWhen Attention-GettingAdvertising Tactics Elicit Consumer Inferences ofManipulative Intent The Importance of Balancing Benefitsand Investmentsrdquo Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (3)225ndash54

Campbell Margaret C and Ronald C Goodstein (2001) ldquoTheModerating Effect of Perceived Risk on ConsumersrsquoEvaluations of Product Incongruity Preference for theNormrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 28 439ndash49

Cesario Joseph and E Tory Higgins (2008) ldquoMaking MessageRecipients lsquoFeel Rightrsquo How Nonverbal Cues Can IncreasePersuasionrdquo Psychological Science 19 (5) 415ndash20

Cholakova Magdalena and Bart Clarysse (2015) ldquoDoes thePossibility to Make Equity Investments in CrowdfundingProjects Crowd Out Reward-based InvestmentsrdquoEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 (1) 145ndash72

Cohen Jacob (1988) ldquoSet Correlation and Contingency TablesrdquoApplied Psychological Measurement 12 (4) 425ndash34

Creaceed SPRL (2008) ldquoProfessional Morphing Tool forEveryonerdquo httpwwwcreaceedcommorphageabout

Crowe Ellen and E Tory Higgins (1997) ldquoRegulatory Focus andStrategic Inclinations Promotion and Prevention in

WANG ET AL 803

Decision-Makingrdquo Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes 69 (2) 117ndash32

Cuddy Amy Susan T Fiske and Peter Glick (2007) ldquoThe BIASMap Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and StereotypesrdquoJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (4)631ndash48

Cupchik Gerald C and Constantine X Poulos (1984)ldquoJudgments of Emotional Intensity in Self and Others TheEffects of Stimulus Context Sex and Expressivityrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 46 (2) 431ndash39

Dabbs James M Jr (1997) ldquoTestosterone Smiling and FacialAppearancerdquo Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 21 (1) 45-55

Darwin Charles (1872) The Expression of Emotions on Man andAnimals New York Philosophical Library

Deutsch Francine M Dorothy LeBaron and Maury March Fryer(1987) ldquoWhat Is in a Smilerdquo Psychology of WomenQuarterly 11 (3) 341ndash52

de Waal Frans and Lesleigh Luttrell (1985)ldquoThe FormalHierarchy of Rhesus Macaques An Investigation of theBared-Teeth Displayrdquo American Journal of Primatology 9(2) 73ndash85

Di Muro Fabrizio and Kyle B Murray (2012) ldquoAn ArousalRegulation Explanation of Mood Effects on ConsumerChoicerdquo Journal of Consumer Research 39 (3) 574ndash84

Dodds William B Kent B Monroe and Dhruv Grewal (1991)ldquoEffects of Price Brand and Store Information on BuyersrsquoProduct Evaluationsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research307ndash19

Dowling Grahame R and Richard Staelin (1994) ldquoA Model ofPerceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling ActivityrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 21 (1) 119ndash34

Ekman Paul (1993) ldquoFacial Expression and Emotionrdquo AmericanPsychologist 48 (4) 384ndash92

Ekman Paul Wallace V Friesen and Sonia Ancoli (1980)ldquoFacial Signs of Emotional Experiencerdquo Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 39 (6) 1125ndash34

Erdem Tulin (1998) ldquoAn Empirical Analysis of UmbrellaBrandingrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 35 (3) 339ndash51

Farroni Teresa Enrica Menon and Mark H Johnson (2006)ldquoFactors Influencing Newbornsrsquo Preference for Faces withEye Contactrdquo Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 95(4) 298ndash308

Fedorikhin Alexander and Vanessa M Patrick (2010) ldquoPositiveMood and Resistance to Temptation The InterferingInfluence of Elevated Arousalrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (December) 698ndash711

Fiske Susan T Amy J C Cuddy and Peter Glick (2007)ldquoUniversal Dimensions of Social Cognition Warmth andCompetencerdquo Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2) 77ndash83

Fiske Susan T Amy J C Cuddy Peter Glick and Jun Xu (2002)ldquoA Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content Competenceand Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status andCompetitionrdquo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82 (6) 878ndash902

Fridlund Alan J (1992) ldquoThe Behavioral Ecology and Socialityof Human Facesrdquo in Emotion ed Margaret S ClarkNewbury Park CA Sage

mdashmdashmdash (1994) Human Facial Expression An Evolutionary ViewSan Diego Academic Press

Friestad Marian and Peter Wright (1994) ldquoThe PersuasionKnowledge Model How People Cope with PersuasionAttemptsrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1) 1ndash31

Gerber Elizabeth M and Julie Hui (2013) ldquoCrowdfundingMotivations and Deterrents for Participationrdquo ACMTransactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 20(6) 341ndash32

Gorn Gerald J Yuwei Jiang and Gita Venkataramani Johar(2008) ldquoBabyfaces Trait Inferences and CompanyEvaluations in a Public Relations Crisisrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 35 (1) 36ndash49

Gorn Gerald Michel Tuan Pham and Leo Yatming Sin (2001)ldquoWhen Arousal Influences Ad Evaluation and Valence DoesNot (and Vice Versa)rdquo Journal of Consumer Psychology 11(1) 43ndash55

Grandey Alicia A (2003) ldquoWhen lsquoThe Show Must Go OnrsquoSurface Acting and Deep Acting as Determinants ofEmotional Exhaustion and Peer-Rated Service DeliveryrdquoAcademy of Management Journal 46 (1) 86ndash96

Grandey Alicia A Glenda M Fisk Anna S Mattila Karen JJansen and Lori A Sideman (2005) ldquoIs lsquoService with aSmilersquo Enough Authenticity of Positive Displays duringService Encountersrdquo Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes 96 (1) 38ndash55

Gurhan-Canli Zeynep and Rajeev Batra (2004) ldquoWhen CorporateImage Affects Product Evaluations The Moderating Role ofPerceived Riskrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 41 (2)197ndash205

Hair Joseph F William C Black Barry J Babin Rolph EAnderson and Ronald L Tatham (2006) Multivariate DataAnalysis 6th ed Upper Saddle River NJ Pearson PrenticeHall

Harker Lee Anne and Dacher Keltner (2001) ldquoExpressions ofPositive Emotion in Womenrsquos College Yearbook Picturesand Their Relationship to Personality and Life Outcomesacross Adulthoodrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 80 (1) 112ndash24

Hayes Andrew F (2013) An Introduction to MediationModeration and Conditional Process Analysis ARegression-Based Approach New York Guilford

Hennig-Thurau Thorsten Markus Groth Michael Paul andDwayne D Gremler (2006) ldquoAre All Smiles Created EqualHow Emotional Contagion and Emotional Labor AffectService Relationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing 70 (July)58ndash73

Hertenstein Matthew J Carrie Hansel Alissa Butts and Sarah NHile (2009) ldquoSmile Intensity in Photographs PredictsDivorce Later in Liferdquo Motivation and Emotion 33 (2)99ndash105

Herzenstein Michal Steven S Posavac and J Josko Brakus(2007) ldquoAdoption of New and Really New Products TheEffects of Self-Regulation Systems and Risk SaliencerdquoJournal of Marketing Research 44 (2) 251ndash60

Higgins E Tory (1997) ldquoBeyond Pleasure and Painrdquo AmericanPsychologist 52 (12) 1280ndash1300

Hoegg Jo Andrea and Michael V Lewis (2011) ldquoThe Impact ofCandidate Appearance and Advertising Strategies onElection Resultsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 48 (5)895ndash909

Homburg Christian Nicole Koschate and Wayne D Hoyer(2005) ldquoDo Satisfied Customers Really Pay More AStudy of the Relationship between Customer Satisfactionand Willingness to Payrdquo Journal of Marketing 69 (2)84ndash96

Judd Charles M Laurie James-Hawkins Vincent Yzerbyt andYoshihisa Kashima (2005) ldquoFundamental Dimensions of

Social Judgment Understanding the Relations betweenJudgments of Competence and Warmthrdquo Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 89 (6) 899ndash913

Keltner Dacher and Jonathan Haidt (1999) ldquoSocial Functions ofEmotions at Four Levels of Analysisrdquo Cognition amp Emotion13 (5) 505ndash21

Kervyn Nicolas Susan T Fiske and Chris Malone (2012)ldquoBrands as Intentional Agents Framework How PerceivedIntentions and Ability Can Map Brand Perceptionrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 22 (2) 166ndash76

Kirmani Amna and Margaret C Campbell (2009) ldquoTakingthe Targetrsquos Perspective The Persuasion KnowledgeModelrdquo in Social Psychology of Consumer Behaviored Michaela Weuroanke New York Psychology Press297ndash316

Kirmani Amna and Rui Zhu (2007) ldquoVigilant againstManipulation The Effect of Regulatory Focus on the Use ofPersuasion Knowledgerdquo Journal of Marketing Research 44(4) 688ndash701

Kraus Michael W and Teh-Way David Chen (2013) ldquoA WinningSmile Smile Intensity Physical Dominance and FighterPerformancerdquo Emotion 13 (2) 270ndash79

Langlois Judith H and Lori A Roggman (1990) ldquoAttractiveFaces Are Only Averagerdquo Psychological Science 1 (2)115ndash21

Lee Yih Hwai and Elison Ai Ching Lim (2010) ldquoWhen GoodCheer Goes Unrequited How Emotional Receptivity AffectsEvaluation of Expressed Emotionrdquo Journal of MarketingResearch 47 (6) 1151ndash61

Lewis Kristi M (2000) ldquoWhen Leaders Display Emotion HowFollowers Respond to Negative Emotional Expression ofMale and Female Leadersrdquo Journal of OrganizationalBehavior 21 (2) 221ndash34

Mehu Marc and Robin I M Dunbar (2008) ldquoNaturalisticObservations of Smiling and Laughter in Human GroupInteractionsrdquo Behaviour 145 (12) 1747ndash80

Mollick Ethan (2014) ldquoThe Dynamics of Crowdfunding AnExploratory Studyrdquo Journal of Business Venturing 29 (1)1ndash16

Morales Andrea C (2005) ldquoGiving Firms an lsquoErsquo for EffortConsumer Responses to High-Effort Firmsrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 31 (4) 806ndash12

Mueser Kim T Barry W Grau Steve Sussman and Alexander JRosen (1984) ldquoYoursquore Only as Pretty as You Feel FacialExpression as a Determinant of Physical AttractivenessrdquoJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (2)469ndash78

Neter John William Wasserman and Michael H Kutner (1989)Applied Linear Regression Models Homewood IL Irwin

Oglethorpe Janet E and Kent B Monroe (1987) ldquoRiskPerception and Risk Acceptability in Consumer BehaviorConceptual Issues and an Agenda for Future Researchrdquo inProceedings of the AMA Winter Marketing EducatorsrsquoConference ed Russell W Belk et al Chicago AmericanMarketing Association 255ndash60

Owren Michael J and Jo-Anne Bachorowski (2001) ldquoTheEvolution of Emotional Expression A lsquoSelfish GenersquoAccount of Smiling and Laughter in Early Hominids andHumansrdquo in Emotions Current Issues and FutureDirections ed Tracy J Mayne and George A Bonanno NewYork Guilford Press 152ndash91

Petroshius Susan M and Kenneth E Crocker (1989) ldquoAnEmpirical Analysis of Spokesperson Characteristics on

Advertisement and Product Evaluationsrdquo Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 17 (3) 217ndash25

Pham Michel Tuan and Tamar Avnet (2004) ldquoIdeals and Oughtsand the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in PersuasionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 30 (4) 503ndash18

Pham Michel Tuan and E Tory Higgins (2005) ldquoPromotion andPrevention in Consumer Decision-Makingrdquo InsideConsumption 8ndash43

Preuschoft Signe and Jan A R A M van Hooff (1997) ldquoTheSocial Function of lsquoSmilersquo and lsquoLaughterrsquo Variations acrossPrimate Species and Societiesrdquo in NonverbalCommunication Where Nature Meets Culture ed UllicaChristina Segerstrale and Peter Molnar Mahwah NJLawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc 171ndash90

Pugh S Douglas (2001) ldquoService with a Smile EmotionalContagion in the Service Encounterrdquo Academy ofManagement Journal 44 1018ndash27

Repacholi Betty M Andrew N Meltzoff Hillary Rowe andTamara Spiewak Toub (2014) ldquoInfant Control ThyselfInfantsrsquo Integration of Multiple Social Cues to RegulateTheir Imitative Behaviorrdquo Cognitive Development 32(OctoberndashDecember) 46ndash57

Scarr Sandra (1992) ldquoDevelopmental Theories for the 1990sDevelopment and Individual Differencesrdquo ChildDevelopment 63 (1) 1ndash19

Sekunova Alla and Jason J S Barton (2008) ldquoThe Effects ofFace Inversion on the Perception of Long-Range and LocalSpatial Relations in Eye and Mouth Configurationrdquo Journalof Experimental Psychology Human Perception andPerformance 34 (5) 1129ndash35

Small Deborah A and Nicole M Verrochi (2009) ldquoThe Face ofNeed Facial Emotion Expression on Charity AdvertisementsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 46 (6) 777ndash87

Tanner Robin J and Ahreum Maeng (2012) ldquoA Tiger and aPresident Imperceptible Celebrity Facial Cues InfluenceTrust and Preferencerdquo Journal of Consumer Research 39(4) 769ndash83

Thornton George R (1943) ldquoThe Effect upon Judgments ofPersonality Traits of Varying a Single Factor in a PhotographrdquoJournal of Social Psychology 18 (1) 127ndash48

Tiedens Larissa Z (2001) ldquoAnger and Advancement versusSadness and Subjugation The Effect of Negative EmotionExpressions on Social Status Conferralrdquo Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 80 (1) 86ndash94

Tsai Wei-Chi and Yin-Mei Huang (2002) ldquoMechanisms LinkingEmployee Affective Delivery and Customer BehavioralIntentionsrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (5) 1001ndash8

van Kleef Gerben A Carsten K W De Dreu and Antony S RManstead (2004) ldquoThe Interpersonal Effects of Emotions inNegotiations A Motivated Information ProcessingApproachrdquo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87 (4) 510ndash28

Velten Emmett Jr (1968) ldquoA Laboratory Task for Induction ofMood Statesrdquo Behaviour Research and Therapy 6 (4)473ndash82

Vosgerau Joachim (2010) ldquoHow Prevalent Is Wishful ThinkingMisattribution of Arousal Causes Optimism and Pessimismin Subjective Probabilitiesrdquo Journal of ExperimentalPsychology General 139 (1) 32ndash48

Wagner Carl and Ladd Wheeler (1969) ldquoModel Need and CostEffects in Helping Behaviorrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 12 (2) 111ndash16

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

with the stereotype content model (SCM) of social judg-

ments (Fiske et al 2002 Judd et al 2005) we hypothesize

that smile intensity differentially influences two fundamen-

tal dimensions of social judgmentmdashwarmth and compe-

tence Displaying a full or broad smile compared to a

partial or slight smile leads a marketer (defined as some-

one who promotes or sells a product or service) to be per-

ceived as warmer but less competentWe examine this main thesis in five studies in which we

manipulate or measure smile intensity in photos of mar-

keters Studies 1a and 1b lend support to our hypothesis

that compared to a slight smile a broad smile increases

warmth perceptions but decreases competence perceptions

Study 2a examines regulatory focus as a boundary condi-

tion for these effects and shows that the facilitative effect

of smile intensity on warmth perceptions is more promin-

ent among promotion-focused consumers whereas the det-

rimental effect on competence perceptions is more likely

among prevention-focused consumers Study 2b docu-

ments perceived consumption risk as another boundary

condition smile intensity is more likely to increase warmth

perceptions when consumption risk is low but decrease

competence perceptions when consumption risk is high In

addition study 2b shows that these changes in warmth and

competence perceptions predict consumersrsquo purchase in-

tentions Study 3 takes the investigation out of the labora-

tory into a field setting Using data from a crowdfunding

website (ie Kickstartercom) we demonstrate that smile

intensity influences different types of consumer behaviors

(eg money pledged support in social media)

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgments

The stereotype content model (SCM) was originally de-

veloped by Fiske and colleagues (2002) to explain differ-

ential perceptions of social groups but has since been

applied to judgments of individuals (Judd et al 2005)

brands (Kervyn Fiske and Malone 2012) and organiza-

tions (Aaker Vohs and Mogilner 2010) The SCM pro-

poses that interpersonal judgments are captured along two

fundamental dimensions that likely reflect evolutionary

pressures In order to survive and reproduce social animals

must quickly determine othersrsquo intentions (eg to help or

harm) and their ability to act on them Warmth judgments

relate to perceived intentions and typically include

evaluations of kindness friendliness trustworthiness and

helpfulness (Aaker et al 2010) whereas competence judg-

ments reflect perceived ability and include perceptions of

effectiveness intelligence power and skillfulness (Hoegg

and Lewis 2011) Together these two dimensions ldquoaccount

almost entirely for how people characterize othersrdquo (Fiske

Cuddy and Glick 2007 77)

Critically people can make social judgments simply byviewing a photograph of the target For instance peopleperceive individuals with babyish facial configurations(ie large round eyes small nose and chin) as honest andapproachable (Berry and Brownlow 1989) which leadsthem to evaluate a companyrsquos negative publicity less critic-ally when the firmrsquos spokesperson has a babyish face(Gorn Jiang and Johar 2008) Another line of researchfinds that when a salespersonrsquos face is blended with fea-tures of a celebrity face consumers perceive the salesper-son as more trustworthy and report higher purchaseintentions (Tanner and Maeng 2012) Extending this bodyof research which focuses on fixed and stable facial con-figurations we propose that dynamic and ephemeral facialexpressions such as smiles also have consequential effectson social perceptions of the target

Smiles and Social Judgments

The social-functional perspective on emotion asserts thatemotions have evolved to help facilitate social interactionsby signaling important information about the expresser(Fridlund 1992 Keltner and Haidt 1999) Darwin (1872)was among the first to propose human emotions evolvedand adapted over time resulting in a certain level of uni-versality in facial expressions across age gender and cul-ture Due to such universality people are able to makequick and spontaneous inferences from facial expressionsabout the expresser (van Kleef et al 2004) This view issupported by recent neuroimaging research that shows ex-posure to facial expressions tends to fire up brain activityin the amygdala medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and su-perior temporal sulcus (STS) areas that perform primaryroles in forming impressions and judgments (Ames Fiskeand Todorov 2011)

Smiles in particular are believed to have evolved to as-sist group living by facilitating cooperation among unre-lated individuals (Owren and Bachorowski 2001) Asignificant amount of literature substantiates that smilescommunicate positive intent agreement or assent and areused to encourage and support social interactions (AbeBeetham and Izard 2002) This is true even among nonhu-man animals as evolutionary studies suggest that mamma-lian species like chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys showbared-teeth display an expression homologous with humansmiles in affiliative contexts such as grooming or sexualsolicitation (Preuschoft and van Hooff 1997) Similarly ininterpersonal communications people often display smileswhen they intend to form cooperative relationships (Mehuand Dunbar 2008) or seek interpersonal rapport (Hennig-Thurau et al 2006) From an observerrsquos perspective smilesare thus often interpreted as signaling an intention to builda friendly relationship (ldquoLetrsquos be friendsrdquo Fridlund 1994)

Facial expressions convey not only the expresserrsquos emo-tions and intentions but also the intensity of those feelings

Study 1a

WANG ET AL 789

Study 1b

conditions

FIGURE 1

DISCUSSION

FIGURE 2

WANG ET AL 791

Stimulus

Results

FIGURE 3

WANG ET AL 793

Discussion

FIGURE 4

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Study 1a

WANG ET AL 789

Study 1b

conditions

FIGURE 1

DISCUSSION

FIGURE 2

WANG ET AL 791

Stimulus

Results

FIGURE 3

WANG ET AL 793

Discussion

FIGURE 4

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Study 1b

conditions

FIGURE 1

DISCUSSION

FIGURE 2

WANG ET AL 791

Stimulus

Results

FIGURE 3

WANG ET AL 793

Discussion

FIGURE 4

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

DISCUSSION

FIGURE 2

WANG ET AL 791

Stimulus

Results

FIGURE 3

WANG ET AL 793

Discussion

FIGURE 4

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Stimulus

Results

FIGURE 3

WANG ET AL 793

Discussion

FIGURE 4

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Results

FIGURE 3

WANG ET AL 793

Discussion

FIGURE 4

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Discussion

FIGURE 4

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Stimulus

WANG ET AL 795

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Results

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

FIGURE 6

WANG ET AL 797

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Discussion

FIGURE 7

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

category

Measurements

figure 8

WANG ET AL 799

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Results

FIGURE 8

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION

TABLE 1

WANG ET AL 801

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Conclusion

REFERENCES

WANG ET AL 803

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

WANG ET AL 805

ucw062-FN1

ucw062-TF1

ucw062-TF2

ucw062-TF3

Smile Big or Not? Effects of Smile Intensity on Perceptions of Warmth ...business.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/10/Wang-et-al... · Effects of Smile Intensity on Perceptions

Documents

Comparing esthetic smile perceptions among laypersons with.....

Smile Healthy - Biometbiomet3i.com/Resource...

Appearance-Based Smile Intensity Estimation by Cascaded...

smile personalization and digital smile design

Smile, Smile, Smile by Wilfred Owen

Teeth Whitening for Sparking Smile | Smile Craft Dental

SMiLe ˜˚ Lisa - Sarasota Smile Design€¦ · smile...

Smile Smile - McDonald's

Sound Intensity Intensity definition Changes with distance.....

SILESIA SMILE · 2017. 3. 16. · SILESIA SMILE

SmileTracker: Automatically and Unobtrusively Recording...

Aesthetic smile- confident smile

Café p smile AMI 1 :OO --PM3:oo 'Smile* IJY±JV café smile...

You Smile I Smile Look Book

Intensity, Intensity Level , and Intensity Spectrum Level

Smile Designing in Bangalore | Smile Makeover in India