Hubbry Logo
SmILESmILEMain
Open search
SmILE
Community hub
SmILE
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
SmILE
SmILE
SmILE
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

SmILE is a showcase car designed for Greenpeace in 1996 to demonstrate how fuel efficient a car can be. The name stands for "Small, Intelligent, Light, Efficient'. It is based on the Renault Twingo, halving its fuel consumption to 3.3 l/100km (30 km/L or 85 mpg (imperial) / 68 mpg (US)).

An important issue in the design was that it should use off-the-shelf technology (parts and know-how). As a result, in mass production, it should not cost significantly more than a 'heavier' equivalent. The engine should even be cheaper because it is made of fewer parts. However, parts that would be more expensive are supercharging (be it pressure wave supercharger or turbo-supercharger) and the wheels and the wheel suspension, which are made of aluminium.

The major changes made to the Twingo are:

  • 23% lighter (650 kg instead of 845 kg):
    • 80 kg less because of a smaller engine and lighter peripherals (battery, radiator and exhaust system)
    • 80 kg less in the vehicle interior and chassis through lighter seat structures (aluminium / plastic) and lighter metals for wheel suspensions, drum brakes, brake calliper and rims. To keep the cost down, no exotic materials (such as titanium screws or carbon gear boxes) were used.
    • lighter wheels, which also have a rolling resistance that is 35% lower.
  • Less air resistance, with a 30% improvement in the wind tunnel (Cw value (drag coefficient) down from 0.37 to 0.25)[1]
  • A smaller and more efficient engine: a supercharged flat-twin, four-stroke engine with four-valve technology in a boxer arrangement. A maximum torque of 75 N·m results from a swept volume of 358 cm3 at 2,900 rpm. The dynamic pressure supercharger makes sure the engine runs most efficiently at normal operating speeds. Most car engines are designed for optimum performance at maximum speed and load, which are in reality rarely used. At 55 bhp, the engine has the same performance as the original Twingo. Other performance parameters, such as maximum speed, elasticity and acceleration are the same or better.

The main consumption change of the engine stems from its more frequent use in the higher load range, which results in higher thermal stress. This is compensated for by an ingenious cooling system. The mean piston velocities are in the customary range. The use of the latest technologies in materials and surface coatings guarantees stability of piston rings and cylinder bearing surfaces despite the higher pressures due to supercharging.

At least a further 80 kg weight reduction could be achieved through the use of fibre composite materials, a smaller tank and replacing the glass windows with polycarbonate, but these modifications were not selected. The changes did not alter the safety standards of the Twingo and the airbag and lateral collision protection were kept in place. Aluminium accounts for 45 kg of the weight of the SmILE (7%), through replacement of both axles, wheel suspension and seat structure. In average cars in Europe this is 65 kg (6%) and rising. One problem with aluminium is the high energy cost of primary production. However, recycled aluminium has a much lower energy cost and identical mechanical properties.

In Germany, around 10% of all cars are replaced annually by new vehicles, so if all new vehicles had the SmILE standard that would mean an annual reduction of the CO2 emissions of the car fleet by 5%. A similar reduction in fuel consumption would be possible for all petrol cars, but not diesels because they are heavier (and require heavier batteries). The Twingo was chosen because of its favourable ratio between internal space and exterior and because it is a reasonable all-round car for everyone (it is the most imported car in Germany).

Greenpeace says that ultimately, this car is not a definitive solution. Reduction of the number of cars is still necessary, also to reduce other problems, such as traffic jams, the emission of toxic substances in cities, the death toll on roads (over a million per year) and the destruction (and carving up) of nature to build roads. Alternative fuels would be a better solution, but time is pressing, so an intermediate off-the-shelf solution like the SmILE is needed.

The car was designed by the Swiss company of Wenko. For this, they received a loan of roughly 1.3 million euro from Greenpeace, which they will return if the engine concept is taken over by a manufacturer for series production or profits are obtained from issuing licences.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

SmILE

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A smile is a facial expression characterized by the flexion of the mouth's corners upward, primarily driven by the zygomaticus major muscle, often signaling positive affect such as amusement, contentment, or social affiliation. Evolutionarily, the human smile traces its origins to primate "fear grins" or submissive displays, where baring teeth served to de-escalate aggression by indicating non-threat, gradually evolving into a gesture of cooperation and bonding in hominids. Distinctions exist between genuine Duchenne smiles, which engage the orbicularis oculi muscles to crinkle the eyes, and non-Duchenne smiles used for politeness or masking, though empirical research indicates that eye involvement may reflect smile intensity rather than exclusive authenticity. Cross-culturally, while the core muscular action for basic positive emotions remains consistent, smiling frequency and contextual interpretation differ, with high-context cultures like those in East Asia employing it more for harmony and deference than overt happiness display. Notable in psychological literature, smiles facilitate social rewards, empathy signaling, and even dominance modulation, underscoring their adaptive role in human interaction beyond mere emotional leakage.

Biological Foundations

Anatomy and Physiology of Smiling

The smile, as a facial expression, primarily involves the bilateral contraction of the zygomaticus major muscle, which originates from the zygomatic bone near the zygomaticotemporal suture and inserts into the modiolus—a fibrous nexus at the corner of the mouth—pulling the oral commissure superiorly and laterally to form the characteristic upward curvature of the lips. The zygomaticus minor muscle contributes by elevating the upper lip and contributing to the exposure of teeth, originating from the anterior surface of the zygomatic bone and inserting into the upper lip. These muscles are part of the buccolabial group of facial expression muscles, which are unique in their direct insertion into the skin rather than bone, allowing nuanced modulation of facial skin tension. In authentic or intense smiles, concurrent activation of the ** narrows the palpebral fissures and produces crow's feet wrinkles around the eyes, a feature distinguishing it from posed expressions; this muscle encircles the orbit, originating from the medial orbital margin and inserting into the skin around the eyelids. All facial expression muscles, including those for smiling, receive motor innervation exclusively from the (cranial nerve VII), with lower motor neurons residing in the facial motor nucleus within the pontine of the ; efferent fibers exit via the stylomastoid and branch peripherally to supply specific muscle groups. Damage to this nucleus or nerve, as in , can impair smiling unilaterally while sparing voluntary eye closure due to dual innervation patterns. Central control of smiling bifurcates between voluntary and emotional pathways. Voluntary smiling originates from upper motor neurons in the contralateral (face area in the ) and , descending via corticobulbar tracts to on the facial nucleus, enabling deliberate modulation. Emotional smiling engages limbic structures, including the and insula, which project indirectly to the facial nucleus through brainstem relays like the , facilitating spontaneous expressions tied to affective states; functional MRI studies confirm activation in these regions, alongside parietal lobules and , during active smiling tasks. This dual circuitry underscores the distinction between cortically driven and subcortically modulated smiles, with the latter often showing bilateral innervation for lower .

Evolutionary Origins

![Knoxville_zoo_-_chimpanzee_teeth.jpg][float-right] The human smile traces its evolutionary roots to the silent bared-teeth (SBT) display observed in nonhuman , a involving lip retraction to expose teeth without vocalization, functioning primarily as a signal of non-threat, submission, or . This display is homologous across , including chimpanzees, macaques, and , where it communicates affiliation and reduces the likelihood of from dominant individuals. Empirical observations in comparative demonstrate that SBT displays post-conflict lead to decreased aggressive responses and increased social tolerance, thereby facilitating group cohesion in hierarchical social structures. From a causal perspective, the adaptive value of the SBT display lies in minimizing conflict costs within cooperative groups, where submission signals avert escalation and promote , enhancing survival through stable alliances. In , such displays are elicited in subordinate contexts or during affiliation, with behavioral data showing higher frequencies in with despotic hierarchies, underscoring their role in modulating dominance interactions. and comparative anatomical supports the antiquity of this expression, as facial musculature enabling lip retraction—derived from mammalian platysma and zygomaticus homologs—predates the divergence of catarrhines around 30 million years ago. In , the SBT display evolved into the smile, retaining its affiliative function while integrating with vocal , a derived signal linked to play and positive social bonding. Genetic underpinnings for muscle control, including genes regulating zygomaticus major contraction for mouth corner elevation, are conserved across mammals, indicating deep homology in expressive mechanisms. This conservation reflects selection pressures for precise facial signaling in social species, where smiles signal and inhibit , paralleling displays but amplified in humans for complex reciprocity.

Classification of Smiles

Duchenne and Non-Duchenne Smiles

The Duchenne smile, named after French neurologist , involves the contraction of the to elevate the mouth corners and the to produce crow's feet wrinkles around the eyes, a pattern Duchenne identified through electrical stimulation of in his 1862 treatise Mécanisme de la physionomie humaine. This dual muscle engagement serves as an empirical marker of spontaneous positive affect, distinguishing it from other smile forms. Non-Duchenne smiles, by contrast, engage primarily the zygomaticus major without orbicularis oculi activation, yielding a mouth-focused expression typically elicited voluntarily for social or polite purposes rather than genuine . Common variants include closed-mouth smiles, with lips pressed together and no teeth visible, often indicating politeness, restraint, shyness, discomfort, or a forced/social smile, as well as asymmetrical expressions such as smirks (one corner of the mouth raised higher) and half-smiles (partial or one-sided), frequently tied to sarcasm, irony, contempt, smugness, dominance, or self-satisfaction. Although terms like smirk, half-smile, and closed mouth smile are common in everyday usage, they are not strictly standardized in scientific literature such as the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). (EMG) research, including studies measuring zygomatic and periocular muscle activity, reveals that Duchenne smiles produce reliably higher and more synchronized activation during authentic enjoyment, while non-Duchenne smiles show diminished or absent eye-region responses even in deliberate posing attempts. Psychologist , utilizing his (FACS), validated these distinctions through observational analyses, finding Duchenne smiles (coded as action units AU6 and AU12) occur more frequently in contexts of verified positive , such as truthful self-reports of , compared to non-Duchenne forms. Ekman's experiments from the 1970s onward, involving participants from isolated and literate societies, demonstrated that Duchenne smiles are consistently judged as more sincere and emotionally intense than non-Duchenne smiles, supporting their role as a universal authenticity cue independent of cultural . Psychological studies further indicate that Duchenne smiles, as genuine expressions engaging both the eyes and mouth, increase perceived likability, politeness, and competence while conveying trust and friendliness. These effects arise from the smile's ability to trigger positive emotions in observers' brains, fostering social bonds and reciprocity.

Other Variants and Dimples

Common facial expression terms such as smirk, half-smile, and closed mouth smile are widely used in everyday language and popular descriptions, though they are not strictly standardized in scientific systems like the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). Smirks represent an asymmetric variant of smiling, involving unilateral contraction of the , which elevates one corner of the mouth while the other remains relatively neutral. This configuration produces a lopsided expression often associated with social signals of smugness, contempt, irony, , dominance, self-satisfaction, or , as the partial activation modulates the intensity of positive affect to convey subtle superiority. Half-smile is frequently used synonymously with smirk or to describe similar partial or asymmetrical expressions involving limited movement on one side. A closed mouth smile is a symmetrical variant featuring lips pressed together with no teeth visible, typically conveying politeness, restraint, shyness, discomfort, or a forced social smile, and is generally non-Duchenne, lacking significant orbicularis oculi involvement. Broad grins, conversely, feature symmetric and extensive engagement of the and minor muscles, resulting in a pronounced upward and lateral stretch of the that amplifies the display of or emphasis, distinguishing it from subtler smiles through greater oral exposure and muscle recruitment. Facial dimples arise from a structural variation in the zygomaticus major muscle, typically a bifid or duplicated form where a fascial slip inserts into the dermis of the cheek rather than exclusively the modiolus, forming a visible indentation upon contraction during smiling. This heterozygous expression stems from a genetic mutation affecting muscle attachment, manifesting as an autosomal dominant trait with prevalence estimates of 20-37% across populations, corroborated by anatomical dissections reporting bifid zygomaticus major in 22.7% of cases (95% CI 14.3-34.2%). Twin and heritability studies on facial morphology further indicate moderate genetic influence on such muscle insertions, though specific dimple loci require additional genomic mapping. Functionally, dimples impose no measurable alteration to the signaling efficacy of smiles, as perceptual experiments reveal equivalent recognition rates for emotional valence in dimpled versus non-dimpled expressions, underscoring their role as neutral morphological overlays rather than modulators of communicative accuracy.

Psychological and Social Roles

Reinforcement and Bonding Mechanisms

Laboratory experiments demonstrate that exposure to smiles functions as a social reinforcer, eliciting reciprocal smiles and increasing compliance with requests. In a field study involving pedestrians, those approached by a smiling solicitor were significantly more likely to comply with a request for directions or a compared to those approached without a smile, with compliance rates rising by approximately 20-30% in smiling conditions. Similar effects appear in controlled settings where genuine smiles promote , as participants exposed to smiling faces donated more or assisted more readily than to neutral expressions. These outcomes align with Pavlovian conditioning principles, where smiles signal positive social outcomes, thereby reinforcing affiliative responses and reciprocity in interactions. Smiles facilitate bonding through neural mechanisms involving activation and hormonal modulation. Observation of a genuine smile triggers in the observer's , promoting and empathetic resonance that builds interpersonal trust. This process correlates with elevated oxytocin levels, the associated with pair-bonding and social attachment; for instance, maternal viewing of smiles activates oxytocin-responsive regions, enhancing caregiving motivation and dyadic closeness. In adult dyads, reciprocal smiling during face-to-face exchanges similarly boosts oxytocin release, fostering and reducing perceived as measured by behavioral trust games. Longitudinal data indicate that habitual genuine smiling predicts enduring social benefits, including denser and more supportive networks. Analysis of facial expressions in photographs from participants tracked over decades reveals that higher smile intensity correlates with greater marital satisfaction and broader well-being, mediated by sustained positive social exchanges. In cohort studies, individuals displaying frequent authentic smiles report stronger relational ties and higher social capital, with effects persisting independently of baseline happiness levels. These patterns suggest smiles reinforce network stability by cumulatively enhancing affiliation over time.

Deception, Manipulation, and Detection Challenges

Non-Duchenne smiles, characterized by mouth-only contractions without orbicularis oculi involvement around the eyes, frequently serve social functions such as or dominance assertion rather than reflecting genuine positive . These smiles enable individuals to conform to affiliative norms or project approachability without underlying enjoyment, as evidenced in studies where participants produced non-Duchenne displays to maintain in mismatched emotional contexts. In manipulative scenarios, such smiles obscure true intentions; for example, experimental research demonstrates that fake smiles overlaying negative expressions impair observers' ability to detect uncooperative or cheating behavior in trust-based games. Human detection of these insincere smiles remains limited, with accuracy rates often approximating chance levels. Meta-analyses of deception judgments across thousands of trials report average lie detection success at approximately 54%, marginally better than random guessing, where facial smiles contribute to persistent errors by eliciting undue affiliation despite inconsistencies. Specific to smiles, adults struggle to differentiate enjoyment from non-enjoyment variants, even when attentional cues are primed, as non-Duchenne signals exploit holistic face processing biases that prioritize movements over subtler eye discrepancies. Training interventions yield modest gains, but baseline failures persist at 50-60% due to overreliance on salient but deceptive features. From an evolutionary standpoint, genuine smiles likely function as costly signals of potential, requiring metabolic and social investment that fakes circumvent, creating an exploitation in repeated interactions. Game-theoretic models of signaling predict overtrust in such mimics because ancestral environments favored rapid affiliation over vigilant scrutiny, a mismatch amplified in contemporary deception-heavy domains like . Video-based analyses corroborate this in applied settings; in political debates, speakers deploy non-Duchenne smiles to strategic intent, correlating with viewer perceptions of warmth independent of policy authenticity, as quantified in frame-by-frame reviews of expressions. Similarly, interactions feature smiles that boost compliance by simulating , though intent-masking reduces long-term detection when verbal cues align superficially.

Health and Physiological Impacts

Mood, Pain, and Feedback Effects

Smiling has been associated with reduced perception of in controlled experiments. In a 2020 study, participants who smiled sincerely or grimaced during subcutaneous needle injections reported significantly lower levels compared to those with neutral expressions, with reductions up to 40% in some measures, potentially linked to endogenous release akin to . This aligns with broader evidence that positive facial expressions during stress tasks can modulate sensitivity, though direct measurement of endorphin levels specifically from isolated smiling remains limited and inferred from related physiological responses. The proposes that manipulating facial muscles, such as those involved in smiling, can causally influence subjective mood states by providing afferent signals to the . A foundational experiment in 1988 by Strack, Martin, and Stepper had participants hold a pen in their mouths either with teeth (facilitating a smile) or lips (simulating a ) while rating cartoon funniness; the smiling condition yielded higher ratings, suggesting feedback from zygomaticus major activation enhances positive affect. However, a large-scale 2016 replication across 17 laboratories with over 1,800 participants found no consistent evidence for this effect, with smiling manipulations failing to significantly alter emotional ratings in the majority of tests, highlighting potential methodological sensitivities or overestimation in the original small-sample design (N=42). Subsequent meta-analyses of facial feedback studies indicate small overall effects on emotional experience (Hedges' g ≈ 0.21), which are variable and often context-dependent, such as stronger in low-intensity emotional stimuli but negligible for intense states; these findings temper claims of robust mood uplift, emphasizing that feedback may facilitate minor, short-term affective adjustments rather than drive profound emotional shifts. A multi-lab preregistered study further tested smiling manipulations (e.g., via chopstick biting) and detected modest increases in positive affect under specific conditions like viewing positive images, but effects were weak (d < 0.2) and not universal, underscoring replicability challenges and the hypothesis's limited causal potency beyond or expectancy influences. Empirical caveats persist, as smiling appears to aid transient mood regulation—potentially via feedback—but lacks evidence for altering core emotional valence or long-term psychological states, per aggregated data controlling for characteristics.

Cardiovascular and Immune Benefits

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Kansas in 2012 examined the effects of manipulated facial expressions on physiological stress responses, involving 169 participants who underwent a stressful speech task while holding either smiling or neutral expressions, some covertly via chopstick placement. Results showed that all smiling participants, including those unaware of their expression, exhibited significantly lower heart rates during the post-stress recovery period compared to the neutral group, indicating that smiling facilitates cardiovascular recovery from acute stress independently of conscious intent or emotional state. Regarding immune function, evidence suggests indirect benefits through smiling's role in buffering stress-induced elevations, as certain affiliative smiles have been observed to mitigate spikes in contexts, potentially preserving immune competence by countering suppression of adaptive responses like production. However, direct links from smiling to immune markers remain limited, with stronger associations derived from broader positive affect or humor exposure, where reduced correlates with enhanced activity and fewer upper respiratory infections in observational cohorts, though specific attribution to smiling frequency lacks large-scale verification. While these findings highlight potential somatic advantages, causal claims are constrained by methodological limitations; acute experimental effects on do not extrapolate unequivocally to long-term cardiovascular outcomes, and immune benefits rely heavily on correlational data prone to by underlying mood or traits. Reviews emphasize that popular assertions of robust health gains often exceed the evidence, which consists primarily of small-scale manipulations and self-reports rather than randomized controlled trials establishing directionality beyond facial feedback's modest physiological modulation. Further longitudinal RCTs are required to disentangle from causation, particularly given variability in smile types and contexts.

Cultural and Historical Dimensions

Cross-Cultural Variations in Interpretation

Interpretations of smiles differ significantly across cultures, contradicting assumptions of their universally positive signaling. Empirical studies reveal that while smiles often convey warmth and affiliation in individualistic Western societies like the , they can signal incompetence or insincerity in other contexts. For instance, research utilizing the project's cultural dimensions framework demonstrates that in societies low on institutional collectivism—such as —smiling individuals are rated as less intelligent compared to non-smiling counterparts, whereas the reverse holds in high collectivism cultures. In , smiles directed at strangers are frequently perceived as foolish or manipulative, reflecting a cultural norm where genuine smiling requires a specific reason, like shared amusement, rather than polite convention. This contrasts with U.S. perceptions, where smiles enhance judgments of trustworthiness and . experiments confirm these divergences: Russian participants associate unprompted smiles with lower cognitive ability, attributing them to or hidden motives, while view them as indicators of approachability. East Asian cultures emphasize smiles for maintaining , distinct from the Western focus on authentic . Intercultural studies show Western observers infer greater positivity and genuineness from smiles than Eastern counterparts, leading to misattributions; for example, Americans may overinterpret Japanese smiles as reflecting true , while Japanese perceivers prioritize contextual cues like social over facial cues alone. In high societies, such as those in parts of , excessive smiling by subordinates can diminish perceived competence, as it signals deference over authority, per findings on smile intensity and judgments.

Evolution of Smiling Norms Over Time

![In her Self-portrait with her daughter Julie 17861786, Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun painted herself smiling. When it was exhibited at the Salon of 1787, the court gossip-sheet Mémoires secrets commented: "An affectation which artists, art-lovers and persons of taste have been united in condemning, and which finds no precedent among the Ancients, is that in smiling, Vigée LeBrun shows her teeth."](./assets/Madame_Vigee-Lebrun_and_her_daughter%252C_Jeanne_Lucia_JulieJulie In Western portraiture prior to the 19th century, smiles were exceedingly rare, with teeth depictions almost nonexistent, reflecting stoic cultural norms derived from classical antiquity and Renaissance traditions that emphasized dignity and restraint over overt emotional display. This convention persisted in early photography, which emulated painting practices, resulting in subjects maintaining serious expressions even as exposure times shortened from minutes to seconds by the mid-19th century. A notable exception occurred in 1787 when Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun exhibited her self-portrait smiling with visible teeth, drawing sharp criticism for defying precedents among the Ancients and contemporary taste, as noted in the Mémoires secrets. The advent of faster photographic processes around facilitated a , enabling more frequent smiles as holding expressions became feasible without prolonged discomfort. By the late , smiles proliferated in photographs, particularly among non-elites like performers using them in promotional images, contrasting with persistent formality in upper-class portraits influenced by Victorian etiquette. This surge aligned with broader societal changes, including improved dental hygiene and the rise of individualism, which encouraged expressive self-presentation over rigid decorum. In the , smiling norms intensified through and , with over 70% of advertisements featuring and nearly 80% of those depicting smiles in positive contexts, correlating with economic booms that promoted cheerfulness as a marker of prosperity and approachability. Yearbook analyses reveal a steady increase in smile frequency from the early onward, peaking mid-century amid and advertising's emphasis on affable, consumer-friendly personas. Contemporary often mandate smiling as part of "," yet empirical surveys link this coercion to reduced and heightened burnout, as surface —faking expressions without genuine feeling—erodes employee more than voluntary displays. Studies indicate that while authentic smiles enhance customer encounters, enforced ones via company policy correlate with , prompting debates on balancing productivity norms against psychological costs.

Comparative Aspects in Animals

Primate and Mammalian Smile-Like Displays

In great apes, such as , the play face represents a key homologue to the smile, featuring a relaxed open mouth with exposed teeth and often paired with panting vocalizations during social interactions. This display signals non-serious intent in , reducing the risk of escalation and facilitating group cohesion, as documented in long-term field studies at sites like Gombe Stream National Park since the 1960s. Ethological analyses indicate that play faces activate similar facial muscles, including the zygomaticus, to those in human smiling, supporting shared evolutionary origins from ancestral affiliative signals. Observations across communities reveal its consistent role in tension reduction, with higher frequencies during intense play bouts involving multiple individuals. Other exhibit bared-teeth displays that vary in function, often denoting submission or affiliation rather than pure playfulness. In macaques and baboons, these silent or vocalized expressions typically convey fear grimace or post-conflict, differing from the more playful variant in apes by lacking accompanying -like sounds. Comparative studies trace these to a common relaxed open-mouth display, hypothesized as the precursor to both smiles and , with morphological continuity evident in and living . Unlike smiles, primate versions appear as honest signals without documented deceptive intent, tied directly to immediate social contexts like submission hierarchies. In domesticated dogs, the submissive grin—lip retraction exposing front teeth without ear perking or eye squinting—functions as an gesture to signal non-threat, particularly toward dominant conspecifics or humans, rather than expressing . Owners frequently anthropomorphize this as a smile, with surveys showing over 70% of dog owners interpreting it positively, though behavioral studies from the onward reveal its association with stress or scolding contexts. Breed-specific variations, such as more frequent grins in retrievers versus herding dogs, stem from for neotenous, human-compatible traits since domestication around 15,000–40,000 years ago, biasing perceptions without altering the display's submissive core function. Experimental data confirm humans, especially children aged 4–7, misattribute it to at rates exceeding 50%, risking unsafe interactions. Smile-like facial displays remain scarce beyond and canids, generally limited to affiliative or play contexts without the contextual versatility seen in humans. In felids and , play involves postural signals like bows but lacks prominent toothy facial equivalents, with ultrasonic "" in rats tied to rather than visible expressions. Across mammals, these displays emphasize honest communication for immediate social regulation, absent evidence of manipulation, highlighting human smiling's unique expansion via cognitive and from homologues.

Contemporary Research and Debates

Personality Insights and Inference Accuracy

Smile characteristics, including intensity and variability, offer modest cues to personality traits such as extraversion, with controlled experiments showing that observers' judgments improve when exposed to dynamic smiles compared to static or neutral expressions. A 2024 study in PNAS Nexus analyzed idiosyncrasies in posed smiles—such as breadth, duration, and dynamism—revealing diagnostic leaks about extraversion and other traits like aggression, where higher smile variation aligned with greater extraversion and enabled accuracy gains in trait inference over baseline assessments. These effects, however, remain probabilistic rather than deterministic, as smile cues interact with perceptual noise, situational factors, and observer biases, yielding only incremental predictive power in lab settings. Authenticity markers in smiles, such as Duchenne involvement of the , further signal traits like by conveying genuine warmth and reliability, distinguishing them from posed equivalents in perceptual tasks. A Duchenne smile is a genuine smile that engages both the eyes and mouth, conveying trust and friendliness; psychological studies show it increases perceived politeness, competence, and likability by triggering positive emotions in the recipient's brain. indicates that genuine smiles enhance attributions of and trustworthiness, yet this linkage is vulnerable to masking or cultural modulation, preventing reliable deduction without corroborating evidence. Observers achieve higher fidelity in trait judgments from authentic smiles, but aggregate accuracy hovers below thresholds for foolproof inference, emphasizing the role of contextual validation. In applied domains, a 2025 Scientific Reports experiment demonstrated that founders' smiles in pitch videos boosted investor-perceived trust and funding success rates by eliciting positive affective responses, with smiling presenters receiving 15-20% higher allocations in simulated decisions. This underscores smiles' utility in signaling affiliative traits amid uncertainty, but overreliance invites systematic biases, such as conflating performative positivity with substantive competence, particularly when smiles obscure low-conscientiousness signals. Controlled findings thus advocate cautious integration of smile-based insights, prioritizing multimodal data to mitigate inferential errors.

Applications in Medicine, Business, and Replication Issues

In medical settings, genuine smiles from healthcare providers have been shown to enhance comfort and perceptions of communication . A 2025 study involving medical students found that smiling significantly predicted higher patient-reported comfort levels and better-rated interactions, independent of other nonverbal cues. Similarly, nurses' smiles foster trust and interpersonal , contributing to positive experiences, though these effects stem from relational dynamics rather than isolated physiological mechanisms. In business contexts, smiling during entrepreneurial pitches correlates with increased investor trust and funding success. Analysis of 1,091 episodes revealed that founders displaying smiles had higher odds of securing funding, mediated by perceived trustworthiness. platforms show analogous patterns, where smiling profile images on elevate investor perceptions of reliability, boosting campaign outcomes. These findings hold across online and in-person formats but require differentiation from insincere expressions, which may erode credibility. Technological applications leverage AI for detecting Duchenne smiles—characterized by eye muscle involvement—to advance systems. Automated tools achieve detection accuracies of 82.9% sensitivity and 89.7% specificity, with 90% episode identification rates in controlled video analyses, enabling uses in and screening. Benchmarks for genuine versus posed smiles often reach 80-90% overall precision, supporting integrations in emotion AI for real-time feedback, though performance varies with lighting and cultural factors. Replication challenges in undermine broader claims about smiling's causal effects, particularly the positing that forced smiles elevate mood. A 2016 multilaboratory replication across 17 sites found no evidence that induced smiling or frowning alters emotional states, contradicting earlier single-study assertions. Failures in replicating paradigms like the pen-in-mouth task highlight selective reporting and p-hacking in original research, casting doubt on therapeutic protocols relying on voluntary smiling for pain reduction or mood enhancement. Consequently, applications prioritize robust, verified relational benefits over unconfirmed feedback loops, emphasizing empirical caution amid 's issues.

References

  1. https://www.melbourneorthodontics.com/blog/the-science-behind-smiles/
  2. https://www.paulekman.com/blog/science-of-smiling/
  3. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-did-the-smile-become-a-friendly-gesture-in-humans/
  4. https://www.livescience.com/34056-evolution-smiling.html
  5. https://www.verywellmind.com/duchenne-smile-7547656
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7193529/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4840223/
  8. https://www.niedenthalemotionslab.com/cliche-busters/culture-and-the-meaning-of-smiles-ybwnj
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6056899/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12194095/
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493209/
  12. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272060
  13. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/835286-overview
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.23908
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25139308/
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3958699/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9535227/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2238342/
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419304749
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11251757/
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5559596_The_facial_expression_musculature_in_primates_and_its_evolutionary_significance
  22. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/bf03329317
  23. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031008065504.htm
  24. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-psychological-study-of-smiling
  25. https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Duchenne-Smile-Emotional-Expression-And-Brain-Physiolog.pdf
  26. https://www.healthline.com/health/duchenne-smile
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9641245/
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167876097000883
  29. https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Argument-And-Evidence-About-Universals-In-FacialExpressi.pdf
  30. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-32252-001
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5554339/
  32. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5235852
  33. https://news.wisc.edu/researchers-crack-the-smile-describing-3-types-by-muscle-movement/
  34. https://www.visiblebody.com/blog/learn-the-science-behind-a-smile-visualized-with-visible-body
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30807476/
  36. https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/dimples
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2839541/
  38. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20170419/Twin-study-shows-which-facial-features-are-highly-influenced-by-genetics.aspx
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18361136/
  40. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08934210309384496
  41. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612472203
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166432822004120
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3041266/
  44. https://larrymolendadds.com/the-surprising-psychology-of-smiling-and-its-impact-on-well-being/
  45. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550611424968
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2600606/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103124000714
  48. https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:1873/fulltext.pdf
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257592989_A_Fake_Smile_Thwarts_Cheater_Detection
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260613003_Does_Training_Improve_the_Detection_of_Deception_A_Meta-Analysis
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23627721/
  52. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1846256
  53. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=plscuht
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282917944_Predicting_Ad_Liking_and_Purchase_Intent_Large-Scale_Analysis_of_Facial_Responses_to_Ads
  55. https://news.uci.edu/2020/12/01/smiling-sincerely-or-grimacing-can-significantly-reduce-the-pain-of-needle-injection/
  56. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-25514-001
  57. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/effect-of-facial-expression-on-emotional-state-not-replicated-in-multilab-study.html
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30973236/
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01458-9
  60. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/bul-bul0000194.pdf
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23012270/
  62. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21536-1
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2686627/
  64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35285408/
  65. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022113513922
  66. https://theconversation.com/why-are-russians-so-stingy-with-their-smiles-98799
  67. https://nautil.us/what-a-russian-smile-means-237120/
  68. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/53803134/Fang2020_Article_UnmaskingSmilesTheInfluenceOfC.pdf
  69. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41809-020-00066-1
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4760873/
  71. https://aeon.co/essays/a-history-of-the-smile-through-art-culture-and-etiquette
  72. https://time.com/4568032/smile-serious-old-photos/
  73. https://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/17/jones.php
  74. https://www.lafayette.ie/blog/detail/452/a-brief-history-of-the-smile-in-photography
  75. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-smiles-rare-art-history
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5506251/
  77. https://hyperallergic.com/261201/the-rise-of-the-20th-century-yearbook-smile/
  78. https://news.uga.edu/quiet-quitting-can-lead-to-burnout/
  79. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/what-service-with-a-smile-means-for-employee-well-being.html
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2555422/
  81. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-74089-x
  82. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2021.0177
  83. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42761-022-00138-1
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7613043/
  85. https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/why-doggie-what-beautiful-teeth-you-have/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8614696/
  87. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/9/pgae343/7738421
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39246668/
  89. https://neurosciencenews.com/smile-personality-psychology-27705/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12539761/
  91. https://www.zakwitkower.com/smiles-reveal-personality
  92. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12544-z
  93. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394175688_Founder_smiles_increase_investor_trust_and_funding
  94. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1518517/full
  95. https://journals.lww.com/inpj/fulltext/2021/30010/nurse_with_smile__does_it_make_difference_in.3.aspx
  96. https://jsbs.scholasticahq.com/article/124011-the-power-of-a-smile-the-use-of-smiles-and-adjectives-in-crowdfunding-social-media
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9828522/
  98. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384030278_The_Duchenne_Smile_Differentiating_Genuine_and_Fake_Smiles_through_Facial_Muscle_Analysis
  99. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/effect-of-facial-expression-on-emotional-state-not-replicated-in-multilab-study
  100. https://www.livescience.com/56740-facial-feedback-hypothesis-fails-in-replication-attempt.html
  101. https://replicationnetwork.com/2019/09/06/the-replication-crisis-to-smile-or-not-to-smile-that-is-the-question/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.