Page 164 - Demo

162Chapter 9Table 2. Mean and SD of behavior expression and mimicry for each behavior and as a function of attraction to partner summed across two partnersin a date.Variable Attraction to PartnerAttracted Not AttractedCoy smile expression 94.00 (53.98) 62.80 (33.10)Genuine smile expression 24.04 (15.18) 21.75 (12.84)Polite smile expression 29.49 (19.61) 26.11 (16.88)Eyebrow flush expression 36.12 (22.78) 23.14 (15.07)Coy smile mimicry 32.08 (14.21) 17.80 (8.82)Genuine smile mimicry 7.62 (5.36) 7.29 (5.91)Polite smile mimicry 9.87 (7.50) 8.26 (6.18)Eyebrow flush mimicry 10.82 (8.27) 6.78 (4.59)Table 3. Overview of the Model Predicting Date OutcomePredictors Date outcome (Median estimate of the coefficient with 95% HDI)β (95% HDI) pd+Intercept 0.31 (-0.21, 0.86) 87.7%Coy smile mimicry 1.94 (1.06, 2.91) 100%Coy smile expression 0.23 (-0.79, 1.20) 66.8%Genuine smile mimicry -0.98 (-1.77, -0.19) 99.5%Genuine smile expression -0.37 (-1.21, 0.55) 79.8%Polite smile mimicry 0.00 (-0.76, 0.78) 50.4%Polite smile expression 0.04 (-0.82, 0.92) 53.6%Eyebrow flush mimicry 0.16 (-0.63, 0.94) 64.8%Eyebrow flush expression 0.75 (-0.01, 1.52) 97.5%Note: Robust effects are depicted in bold.As expected, we found that mimicking subtle facial expressions, specifically coy smiles, predicts attraction. This finding supports the idea thatmimicry promotes the formation of romantic bonds (Roth, Samara, Tan, etal., 2021; Rasmussen, 1981). It is also in line with the literature suggesting that subtle nonverbal facial expressions or so-called flirting behaviorsare relevant for attraction (Argyle, 1988; Eibl-Eiblsfeldt, 1989; Guerrero& Wiedmaier, 2013; Givens, 1978; Grammer, 1990; Hall et al., 2015; McCormick & Jones, 1989; M. M. Moore, 1985, 2010). Of note, we did notfind the same results for other types of smiles, including genuine and polite smiles, as neither genuine nor polite smiles were related to attraction.These findings are consistent with the findings of (Prochazkova et al., 2022)who demonstrated that smile mimicry did not predict attraction in a speeddating context. Importantly, not every type of smile, but only the mimicryof coy-smile seems to be relevant for attraction.Surprisingly, we found that mimicking genuine smiles decreased the likeTable 2. Mean and SD of behavior expression and mimicry for each behavior and as a function of attraction to partner summed across two partnersin a date.Variable Attraction to PartnerAttracted Not AttractedCoy smile expression 94.00 (53.98) 62.80 (33.10)Genuine smile expression 24.04 (15.18) 21.75 (12.84)Polite smile expression 29.49 (19.61) 26.11 (16.88)Eyebrow flush expression 36.12 (22.78) 23.14 (15.07)Coy smile mimicry 32.08 (14.21) 17.80 (8.82)Genuine smile mimicry 7.62 (5.36) 7.29 (5.91)Polite smile mimicry 9.87 (7.50) 8.26 (6.18)Eyebrow flush mimicry 10.82 (8.27) 6.78 (4.59)Table 3. Overview of the Model Predicting Date OutcomePredictors Date outcome (Median estimate of the coefficient with 95% HDI)β (95% HDI) pd+Intercept 0.31 (-0.21, 0.86) 87.7%Coy smile mimicry 1.94 (1.06, 2.91) 100%Coy smile expression 0.23 (-0.79, 1.20) 66.8%Genuine smile mimicry -0.98 (-1.77, -0.19) 99.5%Genuine smile expression -0.37 (-1.21, 0.55) 79.8%Polite smile mimicry 0.00 (-0.76, 0.78) 50.4%Polite smile expression 0.04 (-0.82, 0.92) 53.6%Eyebrow flush mimicry 0.16 (-0.63, 0.94) 64.8%Eyebrow flush expression 0.75 (-0.01, 1.52) 97.5%Note: Robust effects are depicted in bold.As expected, we found that mimicking subtle facial expressions, specifically coy smiles, predicts attraction. This finding supports the idea thatmimicry promotes the formation of romantic bonds (Roth, Samara, Tan, etal., 2021; Rasmussen, 1981). It is also in line with the literature suggesting that subtle nonverbal facial expressions or so-called flirting behaviorsare relevant for attraction (Argyle, 1988; Eibl-Eiblsfeldt, 1989; Guerrero& Wiedmaier, 2013; Givens, 1978; Grammer, 1990; Hall et al., 2015; McCormick & Jones, 1989; M. M. Moore, 1985, 2010). Of note, we did notfind the same results for other types of smiles, including genuine and polite smiles, as neither genuine nor polite smiles were related to attraction.These findings are consistent with the findings of (Prochazkova et al., 2022)who demonstrated that smile mimicry did not predict attraction in a speeddating context. Importantly, not every type of smile, but only the mimicryof coy-smile seems to be relevant for attraction.Surprisingly, we found that mimicking genuine smiles decreased the likeTable 2. Mean and SD of behavior expression and mimicry for each behavior and as a function of attraction to partner summed across two partnersin a date.Variable Attraction to PartnerAttracted Not AttractedCoy smile expression 94.00 (53.98) 62.80 (33.10)Genuine smile expression 24.04 (15.18) 21.75 (12.84)Polite smile expression 29.49 (19.61) 26.11 (16.88)Eyebrow flush expression 36.12 (22.78) 23.14 (15.07)Coy smile mimicry 32.08 (14.21) 17.80 (8.82)Genuine smile mimicry 7.62 (5.36) 7.29 (5.91)Polite smile mimicry 9.87 (7.50) 8.26 (6.18)Eyebrow flush mimicry 10.82 (8.27) 6.78 (4.59)Table 3. Overview of the Model Predicting Date OutcomePredictors Date outcome (Median estimate of the coefficient with 95% HDI)β (95% HDI) pd+Intercept 0.31 (-0.21, 0.86) 87.7%Coy smile mimicry 1.94 (1.06, 2.91) 100%Coy smile expression 0.23 (-0.79, 1.20) 66.8%Genuine smile mimicry -0.98 (-1.77, -0.19) 99.5%Genuine smile expression -0.37 (-1.21, 0.55) 79.8%Polite smile mimicry 0.00 (-0.76, 0.78) 50.4%Polite smile expression 0.04 (-0.82, 0.92) 53.6%Eyebrow flush mimicry 0.16 (-0.63, 0.94) 64.8%Eyebrow flush expression 0.75 (-0.01, 1.52) 97.5%Note: Robust effects are depicted in bold.As expected, we found that mimicking subtle facial expressions, specifically coy smiles, predicts attraction. This finding supports the idea thatmimicry promotes the formation of romantic bonds (Roth, Samara, Tan, etal., 2021; Rasmussen, 1981). It is also in line with the literature suggesting that subtle nonverbal facial expressions or so-called flirting behaviorsare relevant for attraction (Argyle, 1988; Eibl-Eiblsfeldt, 1989; Guerrero& Wiedmaier, 2013; Givens, 1978; Grammer, 1990; Hall et al., 2015; McCormick & Jones, 1989; M. M. Moore, 1985, 2010). Of note, we did notfind the same results for other types of smiles, including genuine and polite smiles, as neither genuine nor polite smiles were related to attraction.These findings are consistent with the findings of (Prochazkova et al., 2022)who demonstrated that smile mimicry did not predict attraction in a speeddating context. Importantly, not every type of smile, but only the mimicryof coy-smile seems to be relevant for attraction.Surprisingly, we found that mimicking genuine smiles decreased the likeTable 2. Mean and SD of behavior expression and mimicry for each behavior and as a function of attraction to partner summed across two partnersin a date.Variable Attraction to PartnerAttracted Not AttractedCoy smile expression 94.00 (53.98) 62.80 (33.10)Genuine smile expression 24.04 (15.18) 21.75 (12.84)Polite smile expression 29.49 (19.61) 26.11 (16.88)Eyebrow flush expression 36.12 (22.78) 23.14 (15.07)Coy smile mimicry 32.08 (14.21) 17.80 (8.82)Genuine smile mimicry 7.62 (5.36) 7.29 (5.91)Polite smile mimicry 9.87 (7.50) 8.26 (6.18)Eyebrow flush mimicry 10.82 (8.27) 6.78 (4.59)Table 3. Overview of the Model Predicting Date OutcomePredictors Date outcome (Median estimate of the coefficient with 95% HDI)β (95% HDI) pd+Intercept 0.31 (-0.21, 0.86) 87.7%Coy smile mimicry 1.94 (1.06, 2.91) 100%Coy smile expression 0.23 (-0.79, 1.20) 66.8%Genuine smile mimicry -0.98 (-1.77, -0.19) 99.5%Genuine smile expression -0.37 (-1.21, 0.55) 79.8%Polite smile mimicry 0.00 (-0.76, 0.78) 50.4%Polite smile expression 0.04 (-0.82, 0.92) 53.6%Eyebrow flush mimicry 0.16 (-0.63, 0.94) 64.8%Eyebrow flush expression 0.75 (-0.01, 1.52) 97.5%Note: Robust effects are depicted in bold.As expected, we found that mimicking subtle facial expressions, specifically coy smiles, predicts attraction. This finding supports the idea thatmimicry promotes the formation of romantic bonds (Roth, Samara, Tan, etal., 2021; Rasmussen, 1981). It is also in line with the literature suggesting that subtle nonverbal facial expressions or so-called flirting behaviorsare relevant for attraction (Argyle, 1988; Eibl-Eiblsfeldt, 1989; Guerrero& Wiedmaier, 2013; Givens, 1978; Grammer, 1990; Hall et al., 2015; McCormick & Jones, 1989; M. M. Moore, 1985, 2010). Of note, we did notfind the same results for other types of smiles, including genuine and polite smiles, as neither genuine nor polite smiles were related to attraction.These findings are consistent with the findings of (Prochazkova et al., 2022)who demonstrated that smile mimicry did not predict attraction in a speeddating context. Importantly, not every type of smile, but only the mimicryof coy-smile seems to be relevant for attraction.Surprisingly, we found that mimicking genuine smiles decreased the likeIliana Samara 17x24.indd 162 08-04-2024 16:36