Dominance, reward, and affiliation smiles modulate the meaning of uncooperative or untrustworthy behaviour

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic overview of the five studies, showing the experimental manipulations, the intergroup game, the study platform, and the actors used in each study.

Figure 2. Still frames illustrating the dynamic facial expression stimuli (Studies 1-4): The three smile types, neutral, and regret expressions displayed by the other group’s representative following an uncooperative decision.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the main dependent variables.

Measure and study	Dominance smile	Reward smile	Affiliation smile	Neutral	Regret
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Positivity
Study 1	5.80 (1.25)	6.22 (1.21)	5.46 (1.33)	3.94 (1.20)	3.78 (1.22)
Study 2	5.54 (1.33)	6.04 (1.14)	5.38 (1.10)	3.74 (1.17)	3.34 (1.35)
Study 3	5.70 (1.32)	5.89 (1.29)	5.49 (1.20)	4.33 (1.32)	3.61 (1.19)
Study 4	4.30 (1.59)	5.87 (1.21)	5.06 (1.33)	3.52 (1.38)	3.64 (1.57)
Study 5	6.10 (0.88)	6.65 (0.52)	5.93 (0.67)	3.77 (0.76)	2.51 (0.87)
Superiority
Study 1	5.52 (1.31)	5.80 (1.52)	4.96 (1.37)	3.19 (1.51)	3.41 (1.46)
Study 2	5.52 (1.34)	5.58 (1.42)	4.46 (1.66)	3.50 (1.27)	2.78 (1.57)
Study 3	4.94 (1.29)	4.95 (1.54)	4.70 (1.37)	2.92 (1.50)	2.56 (1.30)
Study 4	4.96 (1.41)	5.21 (1.66)	4.43 (1.72)	3.04 (1.74)	3.28 (2.01)
Study 5	6.25 (0.73)	6.28 (0.80)	5.64 (0.90)	3.06 (1.24)	3.30 (1.33)
Desire to repair relationship
Study 1	2.69 (1.65)	2.50 (1.75)	3.11 (1.57)	3.13 (1.54)	4.48 (1.49)
Study 2	2.88 (1.38)	2.96 (1.74)	3.36 (1.59)	3.34 (1.19)	4.68 (1.79)
Study 3	2.14 (1.27)	2.16 (1.29)	2.72 (1.44)	2.44 (1.20)	3.31 (1.61)
Study 4	2.93 (1.41)	2.65 (1.47)	2.89 (1.51)	2.71 (1.42)	3.05 (1.33)
Study 5	1.87 (0.79)	2.28 (1.22)	2.62 (0.98)	3.47 (0.79)	5.27 (0.99)
Desire to change decision
Study 1	2.33 (1.54)	2.28 (1.55)	2.91 (1.52)	3.26 (1.71)	4.26 (1.53)
Study 2	2.28 (1.32)	2.24 (1.45)	3.04 (1.54)	3.66 (1.14)	5.02 (1.50)
Study 3	1.94 (1.38)	2.05 (1.78)	2.06 (1.44)	2.35 (1.54)	3.00 (1.81)
Study 4	2.80 (1.62)	2.27 (1.54)	2.95 (1.68)	3.10 (1.78)	3.31 (1.77)
Study 5	1.78 (0.84)	1.99 (1.03)	2.34 (0.90)	3.59 (0.79)	5.27 (1.16)
Trust
Study 1	1.74 (3.07)	1.36 (2.60)	2.32 (3.21)	3.11 (3.97)	5.51 (4.49)
Study 2 (Trust game)	3.52 (4.17)	3.24 (4.28)	4.56 (4.85)	4.14 (4.25)	5.84 (5.12)
Study 2 (Split or Steal)	2.50 (0.93)	2.38 (1.17)	2.96 (1.12)	2.92 (0.72)	3.67 (0.92)
Study 3	2.16 (1.03)	2.27 (0.10)	2.30 (1.07)	2.23 (1.08)	2.23 (0.98)
Study 4	2.69 (1.07)	2.34 (0.96)	2.50 (0.86)	2.43 (0.96)	2.26 (0.84)
Study 3 (Behavioural)	14.3%	25.0%	18.8%	16.7%	25.8%
Study 4 (Behavioural)	17.96 (7.71)	17.79 (6.39)	17.42 (6.48)	18.83 (7.77)	17.85 (7.72)

Note: Columns correspond to different facial expressions displayed by the representative. For ease of comparison among studies in the present table, measures of positivity, superiority, desire to repair the relationship and to change the decision in Study 4 were converted to 7-point scales. Descriptives for behavioural measures of trust display the percentage of “Split” decisions (Study 3) and the number of tokens sent to the other team (Study 4).

Table 2. Summary of the findings.

	Contrast 1a, 1b Hypothesis 1	Contrast 2a, 2b Hypothesis 2	Contrast 3a, 3b Hypothesis 3	Contrast 4a, 4b Hypothesis 4
Measure and Study	ηp^2	ηp^2	ηp^2	ηp^2
Positivity
Study 1	.76***	.19**	.11*(-)	.01
Study 2	.69***	.10*	.14**(-)	.06^†
Study 3	.31***	<.01	<.01	.03***
Study 4	.29***	.02**	.02**(-)	< .01
Study 5	.94***	.29***	.35***(-)	.56***
Superiority
Study 1	.73***	.23***	.03	.01
Study 2	.62***	.32***	< .01	.15**
Study 3	.35***	< .01	< .01	< .01
Study 4	.19***	.02**	< .01	< .01
Study 5	.88***	.33***	< .01	.02
Desire to repair relationship
Study 1	.36***(-)	.09*(-)	.01	.36***(-)
Study 2	.23***(-)	.08^†(-)	< .01	.34***(-)
Study 3	.03**(-)	.02**(-)	< .01	.04***(-)
Study 4	< .01	< .01	.01	<.01
Study 5	.77***(-)	.30***(-)	.11*(-)	.70***(-)
Desire to change decision
Study 1	.45***(-)	.14**(-)	< .01	.22*** (-)
Study 2	.60***(-)	.17**(-)	< .01	.49***(-)
Study 3	.04***(-)	< .01	< .01	.02*(-)
Study 4	.02**(-)	.01^†(-)	.01*	< .01
Study 5	.84***(-)	.25***(-)	.04	.62***(-)
Trust
Study 1	.33***(-)	.07*(-)	.02	.23***(-)
Study 2 (Trust game)	.17*(-)	.08	.01	.18*(-)
Study 2 (Split or Steal)	.36**(-)	.25*(-)	.01	.28**(-)
Study 3	< .01	< .01	< .01	< .01
Study 4	< .01^†	< .01	.01*	<.01
Study 4 (Behavioural)	< .01	< .01	< .01	< .01

Note:. Hypotheses and analysed contrasts are depicted in the headings. The table shows effect sizes (partial eta squared). Asterisks denote significance, †p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001. Darker green shading denotes significant contrasts in line with our predictions, lighter green shading denotes marginal contrasts in line with our predictions. Darker blue shading denotes significant contrasts opposite to our predictions, lighter blue shading denotes marginal contrasts opposite to our predictions. Minus signs denote the inverse of the patterns shown in the column headings.^‡

^‡ Meta-analytic findings (see main text):

Contrast 1

Positivity: M_d = 3.46, t(4) = 2.79, p = .049; superiority: M_d = 2.79, t(4) = 3.50, p = .025; desire to repair the relationship: M_d = 1.36, t(4) = 2.10, p = .104; desire to change decision: M_d = 1.95, t(4) = 2.43, p = .072; trust measures: M_d = 0.61, t(4) = 1.78, p = .149.

Contrast 2

Positivity: M_d = 0.73, t(4) = 2.43, p = .027; superiority: M_d = 0.87, t(4) = 3.15, p = .035; desire to repair the relationship: M_d = 0.59, t(4) = 2.73, p = .055; desire to change decision: M_d = 0.64, t(4) = 2.96, p = .041; trust measures: M_d = 0.46, t(4) = 2.19, p = .093.

Contrast 3

Positivity: M_d = 0.59, t(1, 4) = 2.38, p = .076; superiority: M_d = 0.13, t(4) = 2.21, p = .092; desire to repair the relationship: M_d = 0.09, t(4) = 0.54, p = .614; desire to change decision: M_d = −0.02, t(4) = −0.18, p = .863; trust measures: M_d = 0.11, t(4) = 1.34, p = .251.

Contrast 4

Positivity: M_d = 0.83, t(4) = 2.08, p = .106; superiority: M_d = 0.32, t(4) = 2.32, p = .081; desire to repair the relationship: M_d = 1.34, t(4) = 2.56, p = .063; desire to change decision: M_d = 1.21, t(4) = 2.48, p = .068; trust measures: M_d = 0.55, t(4) = 2.16, p = .097.

Figure 3. Key dependent measures for Studies 1-5. Bars show average values across studies, while data points show individual study values. Error bars denote standard deviations. For ease of comparison in this figure, Study 4 measures were converted to 7-point scales.

Table 3. Summary of correlations between the indices of trust and social motives communicated by the other group’s representative in Studies 1-4.

Study (Measure of trust)	Positivity	Happiness	Pleasure	Superiority	Desire to repair the relationship	Desire to change decision
Study 1 (Expectations)	-.04	-	-	-.09	.44**	.33**
Study 2 (Expectations, Trust game)	-.05	-	-	-.36^†	.58***	.47*
Study 2 (Expectations, Split or Steal)	-.21	-	-	-.53***	.66**	.44*
Study 3 (Expectations)	-.09	-.10^†	-	-.04	.17**	.17**
Study 4 (Expectations)	-	-.10*	-.06	-.05	.27***	.13**
Study 4 (Behavioural trust)	-	-.03	-.01	.06	.10*	.05
Overall effect size^‡		-.10^†		-.21	.37*	.27*

Note: Correlations in bold are significant or trending, with ^†p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001. Dashes denote measures that were not collected in a given study. The last row reports overall effect sizes derived from a random effects internal mini meta-analysis (Goh et al., 2016). Bold fonts and superscripts indicate that the overall effect size was significantly greater than zero in a one-sample t-test (N = 5). Full correlation tables can be found in the Supplemental Materials.

^‡ To compute the effect sizes, we used a random effect approach, which maximises generalisability and is more suitable when the sample size is confounded with a moderator variable, such as study design (Goh et al., 2016). Effect sizes for different trust and positivity measures with repeating participants within each study were averaged to form one effect size (see Supplemental Materials for all measures). That is, we assessed correlations between (1) expectations in Study 1, (2) average of expectations and predicted trust for Trust game in Study 2, (3) average of expectations and predicted trust for Split or Steal in Study 2, (4) average of expectations and predicted trust in Study 3, (5) average of expectations and behavioural trust in Study 4, with measures of positivity, superiority, and desire to repair the relationship and change decision.

Goh, J., Hall, J., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Supporting data will be openly available at https://osf.io/n82s9/.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ruth Lee and Gary McKeown for their help with ggplot2.