Facial expressions of emotion are hardwired into our genes, according to a study published today in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  The research suggests that facial expressions of emotion are innate rather than a product of cultural learning.  The study is the first of its kind to demonstrate that sighted and blind individuals use the same facial expressions, producing the same facial muscle movements in response to specific emotional stimuli.

The study also provides new insight into how humans manage emotional displays according to social context, suggesting that the ability to regulate emotional expressions is not learned through observation.

San Francisco State University Psychology Professor David Matsumoto compared the facial expressions of sighted and blind judo athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games.  More than 4,800 photographs were captured and analyzed, including images of athletes from 23 countries.

“The statistical correlation between the facial expressions of sighted and blind individuals was almost perfect,” Matsumoto said.  “This suggests something genetically resident within us is the source of facial expressions of emotion.”

Matsumoto found that sighted and blind individuals manage their expressions of emotion in the same way according to social context.  For example, because of the social nature of the Olympic medal ceremonies, 85 percent of silver medalists who lost their medal matches produced “social smiles” during the ceremony.  Social smiles use only the mouth muscles whereas true smiles, known as Duchenne smiles, cause the eyes to twinkle and narrow and the cheeks to rise.

“Losers pushed their lower lip up as if to control the emotion on their face and many produced social smiles,” Matsumoto said.  “Individuals blind from birth could not have learned to control their emotions in this way through visual learning so there must be another mechanism.  It could be that our emotions, and the systems to regulate them, are vestiges of our evolutionary ancestry.  It’s possible that in response to negative emotions, humans have developed a system that closes the mouth so that they are prevented from yelling, biting or throwing insults.”

A growing amount of research is finding that smoke-free air laws help smokers quit or reduce the amount that they smoke. Rather than changing smokers’ own attitudes about smoking, the influence of the policies, particularly the strong ones, might lie more in changing smokers’ perceptions of other people’s attitudes about smoking — changing the perceived social norms, according to an Indiana University study involving smoke-free air laws in four Texas communities. “Everyone knows it’s unhealthy to smoke,” said Jon Macy, the study’s lead researcher. “Our study suggests that the success of strong smoke-free air policies may be more about changing the social acceptability of smoking.” The IU study used a telephone survey of 407 adults to compare perceived norms about smoking between adults living in two cities with strong smoke-free air laws and adults living in two cities with weak smoke-free air laws. Those who lived in cities with a strong smoke-free air law perceived a lower prevalence of smoking in their city, were less likely to report that other people in their city believed smoking was acceptable, and were more likely to report that people in their city believed that smokers should take measures to not smoke. Macy said that while researchers are aware that smoke-free air policies, which are designed primarily to protect the public from the harm of secondhand tobacco smoke, also influence smoking behavior, the mechanism or cause has not been nailed down. This study offers one possible explanation. Macy said insights provided by this study could help with public communication messages that accompany smoke-free air policies. The messages, for example, could tap into the impact societal norms have on smoking behavior.

A study from researchers at Children’s Hospital Boston published in Pediatrics found that a simple infection control intervention in elementary schools – disinfecting frequently-touched surfaces and using alcohol-based hand sanitizers – helped reduce illness-related student absenteeism.Illnesses caused by bacteria and viruses account for millions of lost school days each year.(1) According to Thomas Sandora, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Children’s Hospital Boston, “The best ways to avoid common infections are cleaning your hands and preventing exposure to the germs that cause these illnesses. Our research indicates that elementary schools should consider a few simple infection control practices to help keep students healthier.”

The study, led by Dr. Sandora, was a randomized, controlled trial involving 285 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students in an elementary school system in Avon, Ohio. Teachers in intervention classrooms used disinfecting wipes on student desks, and students used hand sanitizer in the classroom at key points throughout the school day. Control classrooms followed usual hand washing and cleaning procedures.

Over eight weeks, researchers tracked the frequency of absences and the reasons for missing school. Study investigators also tested several classroom surfaces for total bacterial counts and for the presence of several common viruses.

Researchers found absenteeism rates for gastrointestinal illnesses were nine percent lower in classrooms that followed the infection control regimen of disinfecting surfaces and using alcohol-based hand sanitizers. The absenteeism rate for respiratory illness was not affected by this intervention.

Gastrointestinal illnesses are extremely common for school-age children, and children can be at risk for these infections because of frequent exposure to ill peers and poor hand hygiene.(1) In fact, the bacteria and viruses that cause these gastrointestinal infections can be easily passed from one person to another on the hands.(2) The germs can also survive on surfaces in the environment, where some of them can persist for hours to days.(1)

The study suggests that schools should consider adopting simple infection control practices, including disinfecting desktops once a day and using hand sanitizer before and after lunch, to help reduce days lost to common illnesses.

When a corporation has a public relations crisis, the news media splash photos of the company’s CEO around the world. According to new research in the Journal of Consumer Research the shape of the CEO’s face evokes judgments about the person and the situation.

“A company can control what face is put on the crisis, and [our] research suggests that the face shape of this person is not a trivial consideration,” say authors Gerald J. Gorn, Yuwei Jiang (both Hong Kong University), and Gita V. Johar (Columbia University).

In the study, participants examined news accounts of fictitious corporate misdeeds. The research found that in a minor public relations crisis, participants held a more favorable attitude toward a baby-faced CEO (large eyes, small nose, high forehead, and small chin) than a mature-faced CEO. The study subjects perceived baby-faced CEOs as more honest.

However, when the situation was more serious, and especially when it involved questions of competency, a baby-faced representative didn’t help the company. “In contexts where innocence conveys naïveté, a mature face is evaluated more favorably,” write the authors. For example, if a company failed to detect important defects in products, the baby-faced CEO was perceived to be detrimental.

The research also found that the “baby-face effect” is unconscious, and that when participants were distracted (by memorizing a number) the babyface had greater influence. The unconscious nature of baby-face effects has not previously been shown in other research. The authors also demonstrate that the association between baby-faced people and honesty can be overcome by showing participants pictures of supposed criminals with babyfaces.
So, what advice do the authors give?  “While there is no panacea for a company suffering a PR crisis, putting the right face on a response might just help save some face.”