Why smiles generate leniency

LaFrance , M. Hecht Published 1 March Psychology Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin The authors investigated the social significance of human smiles, specifically the penchant for transgressors who smile to be judged more leniently than those who do not. Of particular interest was whether different types of smiles generate different degrees of leniency and what mediated the effect.

Subjects judged a case of possible academic misconduct. Materials included a photograph of a female target displaying a neutral expression, felt smile, false smile, or miserable smile. Smiling… Expand. View on SAGE. Save to Library Save. Create Alert Alert. Share This Paper. Background Citations. Results Citations. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters.

The contingent smile: a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. View 1 excerpt, cites background.

Duchenne smiles and the perception of generosity and sociability in faces. Although Duchenne smiles have been shown to have a social signal value, there is limited evidence as to whether this effect generalises to most positive attributes, or whether it is restricted to a … Expand. Sex differences in the effect of smiling on social judgments: An evolutionary approach.

While it is nice to believe that intuition is always right, it is not an efficient tool to use when taking a test. One-sided could also be the best option when the audience is not well educated or when they will not be exposed to a counter-persuasion.

Two-sided arguments should be given if you are speaking with an audience that does not agree with you or when you know they will hear counter-persuasion. When you inform the audience of both sides of the issue, they can make an educated decision. Two-sided arguments also produce longer lasting results. Further, utilitarianism explains why we should treat people justly, not violate their rights and keep our promises.

Because doing so promotes good consequences. Far from being incompatible with common sense, utilitarianism is common sense. This is stronger guidance for Bill and leads to the most happiness in this situation while it also remains in accordance with his duties as a husband. In order to better understand this case I will compare it to the scenario of a student cheating on a test. If said student were to follow Mill's advice then they would either 1 study for the test and not cheat on it or 2 cheat on the test but be careful enough not to get caught.

Get rid of egregious grades and labels, and kids will be happy. Additionally, this will improve test scores in the long run. Less tests, less stress, better kids, better statistics. When I lead the group we stayed on track and efficient, but when I am not interested the group may not get my idea even if they like it because I don 't believe it it the best I could come up with. The intuitive portion of my personality is a positive for the group because I use knowledge not feeling decide. As a decision maker or persuader I am very blunt and concise.

I like to work with the knowns. For example, in the glow product activity I supported ideas that were practical and inventive and persuaded why the other creative ideas wouldn 't work and would be a bad idea.

Each participant received a file that contain a description of the offense they commited, a picture was provided with either a smile or neutral facial expression. A leniency score was calculated based on the disciplimary decisions made by the participants. Leniency :Score assigned by a judgement panel higher is more lenient Group : Treatment group: neutral or smile.

The side-by-side boxplots of both the groups will give a good starting point for analysis Figure 1. The red dashed line is the average overall leniency score for both groups and the black dot representing the avg for the group. The plot shows that the smile led to greater leniency than the neutral expression. The median leniency for the smile is very close to the 75th percentile leniency score for the neutral expression.

The distributions do not appear to have much skew,as the median and mean of the groups are not very far away from each other.

To better understand the effects of smiling on decision making, in other words whether or nor people are more lenient toward people with smiling faces than with neutral faces, I will use statistical inference. Lets analyze the difference in mean leniency score between two group and if it can be generalized to all people in the world. The larger population for this study would be all people in the world.

Neutral mean leniency score between picture with Neutral or Smiling faces. My target population is the entire world population who does not suffer from any form of blindness. The descriptive statistics side-by-side boxplot shows that smiling pictures score more leniency than thr neutral picture , but its a good idea to test for the possibility of difference in both direction.

Point estimate for a difference of means leniency score is 0. So our best guess is a difference of 0. Next goal is to construct a confidence interval for the difference of two sample means. The t-test statistic is about 2. This value of degree of freedom is used to calculate the critical value to help to interpret the t-test statistic.

With a degree of freedom of Our t-test statistic value is 2.