Republicans are more likely to see a smile as a play for power, study suggests

A recent study published in the American Behavioral Scientist suggests that a person’s political identity influences how they interpret the meaning behind a smile. The findings indicate that while some people view smiles primarily as a way to build social connections, others, particularly those identifying with the Republican Party, tend to see smiles as tools for managing social hierarchies. These insights provide evidence that political affiliations shape not only voting habits but also how people decode fundamental human facial expressions.

Smiles are generally thought of as simple expressions of happiness. However, psychological research suggests that smiling is a complex behavior serving multiple social purposes. Instead of just reflecting an internal emotional state, a smile acts as a way to communicate a person’s social intentions. Different muscular movements in the face can subtly change the meaning of a smile.

Some smiles function to promote social bonding and reward others. These expressions help people build coalitions and feel comfortable in diverse or newly formed groups. A social bonding smile signals that a person is approachable, friendly, and willing to cooperate as an equal.

Other smiles serve a completely different purpose by helping individuals manage social hierarchies. These smiles might assert dominance, establish boundaries, or signal submission within a competitive environment. A person might use a hierarchy management smile to show superiority or to appease someone who holds more power.

Because political campaigns are highly social events, politicians constantly use nonverbal cues to connect with potential voters. A political leader might smile to welcome new supporters into their coalition. A leader might also use a different type of smile to project strength against political rivals or to react to an external threat.

Patrick Stewart, a professor of political science at the University of Arkansas and lead author of the study, noted that studying these facial expressions helps reveal the true nature of politicians and the people who support them.

“In the real world of politics you want to know who your leaders really are, and the best way of accomplishing that is by closely watching what they do and not just what they say,” Stewart explained. “But perhaps most important is understanding followers and just what they want out of their leaders. After all, there are no leaders without followers.”

The authors designed this study to see if everyday voters expect different functions from smiles depending on their own political beliefs.

“More specifically, there is a bit of a gap with the research in the field of political science,” Stewart said. “Recent cross-cultural survey research by the Niedenthal Emotions Lab inspired me to replicate and expand upon what they found, that different cultures see smiles as serving different purposes.”

Past cross-cultural research suggests that societies with high levels of historical diversity tend to rely on smiles for social bonding. The authors wanted to test if different political groups in the United States act like distinct cultural communities with their own nonverbal expectations.

“Seeing the United States as having different cultures, driven by the homogeneity or heterogeneity of a person’s surroundings, in other words, how many different and unique people you run into on a regular basis, that are then reflected in political identity might help us understand how and why we have political differences,” Stewart told PsyPost.

To explore this dynamic, Stewart and his colleagues surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,385 adults in the United States. They collected this data in the days immediately preceding the 2024 presidential election. The sample included a diverse mix of participants across different age brackets, ethnicities, and income levels.

The participants completed an online questionnaire asking them to evaluate 15 different reasons why someone might smile. The participants rated each reason on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The statements were specifically chosen to represent either egalitarian bonding or competitive hierarchy.

Some of the statements focused on social bonding. For example, participants rated whether they thought people smile to make someone feel comfortable, to show friendly intentions, or to accept someone as an equal. Other statements focused on hierarchy and control. These included rating whether people smile to manipulate someone, to show superiority, or to mask feelings of inferiority.

The survey also asked the participants to provide their demographic information. This included their age, gender, ethnicity, and income bracket. Most importantly for the research, the participants reported their political ideology on a scale from liberal to conservative. They also reported their political party identification and which candidate they intended to vote for in the upcoming presidential election.

When the researchers analyzed the survey responses, they grouped the data to find underlying patterns. They found that participant answers generally fell into two broad categories. One category favored social bonding as the main reason for smiling, while the other category favored managing social hierarchies as the primary motivation.

The authors found that identifying with the Republican Party was the strongest and most consistent predictor of how a person viewed smiles. Participants who identified as Republicans had substantially higher odds of endorsing hierarchy management as a reason for smiling compared to non-Republicans. This relationship remained consistent even after the researchers accounted for different demographic factors like age, gender, and income.

The researchers also looked at the intention to vote for Donald Trump and general conservative political ideology. Both factors were associated with viewing smiles as tools for managing social hierarchy. However, these associations were much smaller in magnitude than the link with Republican Party identification.

This specific finding suggests that belonging to a defined political party might shape emotional interpretations more strongly than general political beliefs. Party identification acts as a strong social signal that guides expectations about interpersonal interactions. Stewart explained that growing up in a close-knit, uniform community often shapes this hierarchical view of social interactions.

“If you grew up and live in a small community where everyone knows everybody else and everyone has a ‘place’ in the power structure, you don’t need to smile to signal that you are friendly and cooperative, you just have to show that you know who has power and who doesn’t,” Stewart said. “And this perspective of the world affects how an individual approaches the public good, in other words, politics.”

In contrast, living in a highly diverse environment tends to foster a bonding-focused interpretation of smiles.

“On the other hand, if you grew up in a situation where you dealt with new people and change on a regular basis, you would want to appear nonthreatening, even cooperative, to others to open up opportunities that would normally not be there in the first place,” Stewart said.

He added that dealing with constant social changes can lead to relying on smiles as a tool for emotional regulation and connection.

“And, because there is a level of uncertainty about this lifestyle, you would likely feel a bit more anxious, and would want to change your own feelings in a positive manner,” Stewart explained. “As a result, you would probably smile more and laugh more, both contagious behaviors that makes others feel better and thus helps connect with others. And these behaviors, and the perspectives that go with it, would be reflected in political identity.”

These environmental and cultural differences provide a foundation for understanding broader political divides across the country.

“In short, culture affects our behaviors and underlying psychology, which then affects our approach to politics,” Stewart said. “And for a society to survive and thrive, we need a mixture of stability in managing power relationships and openness to building cooperative relationships.”

The scientists also found an unexpected relationship with age. Younger participants were slightly more likely to interpret smiles through the lens of social hierarchy and control. The older the participant was, the less likely they were to view a smile as a tool for dominance or manipulation.

The authors propose that younger generations might be more sensitive to power dynamics due to their heavy engagement with digital communication. In an era dominated by social media, younger people are constantly navigating complex social environments that emphasize subtle rankings and influence. Because of this, younger people might view smiles not just as spontaneous gestures of friendliness, but as strategic actions used to manage boundaries.

While the study provides evidence for a link between politics and nonverbal communication, it contains certain limitations. The authors caution that the two categories of smile interpretations are not completely rigid groups.

Instead, viewing smiles for bonding or for hierarchy exists on a continuum. People likely use both interpretations depending on the specific situation they find themselves in.

“I would suggest that when we consider findings like this, that they think about these behaviors as reflecting a person’s expected or preferred strategy for dealing with other people, but not 100 percent,” Stewart said. “Because life is ever-changing, the strategies we use when dealing with other people will change based upon our experience, the other person or persons we are dealing with, and the overall context. But, we all have preferred interpersonal strategies that we develop early in life.”

The statistical grouping in the study essentially drew a dividing line through one large cluster of responses. As a result, the findings provide a broad descriptive overview rather than strict categories of human behavior.

The effect sizes for age and general political conservatism were relatively small. These factors only subtly changed a person’s view on smiling, especially when compared to the much larger effect of party identification. Because of this, the authors note that the findings regarding age should be treated as preliminary and suggestive.

The study also found sporadic associations regarding race and ethnicity. Identifying as Black occasionally associated with higher odds of endorsing hierarchy-focused smiling, but this finding was not consistently robust across all statistical models. More targeted data collection is required to fully understand how ethnicity intersects with nonverbal expectations.

Looking ahead, the researchers plan to continue exploring how context changes the way people read facial expressions. Stewart noted that future studies will aim to build upon these foundational concepts.

“To build towards understanding people’s nonverbal behavior based upon whether it occurs in a competitive or cooperative situation, or when people are unsure about what their situation is,” Stewart said. “Currently, my research team is coding the Epstein hearings for a host of different nonverbal behaviors, of which smiles play an important role.”

Continuing this line of work could help explain how nonverbal behaviors silently shape the balance of power in human societies. As long as humans engage in face-to-face politics, facial expressions will play an active role in how leaders build coalitions and manage rivals.

The study, “Follower Expectations Regarding the Functions of Smiles During the 2024 Presidential Election Reflect Political Identity,” was authored by Patrick Stewart, Austin D. Eubanks, Megan Zingerman, and Annabel Brooks.