The authors present a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling based on 448 effect sizes derived from 162 research reports. There was a statistically significant tendency for women and adolescent girls to smile more than men and adolescent boys (d ϭ 0.41). The authors hypothesized that sex differences in smiling would be larger when concerns about gender-appropriate behavior were made more conspicuous, situational constraints were absent or ambiguous, or emotion (especially negative) was salient. It was also predicted that the size of the sex difference in smiling would vary by culture and age. Moderator analysis supported these predictions. Although men tend to smile less than women, the degree to which this is so is contingent on rules and roles.It is virtually a cliché of Western culture that women are both more emotional and more expressive than men. Although the extent of sex differences 1 in measured emotionality remains in dispute (Brody, 1997;Fischer, 1993;LaFrance & Banaji, 1992), there is substantial agreement that women are more overtly expressive than men

Sexual harassment studies that use hypothetical situations and retrospective surveys may overestimate the degree to which victims actually confront their harassers. The result is that immediate emotional reactions are little understood and victims are often taken to task for nonconfrontational behavior. To address this neglect, we describe our experimental investigation of immediate reactions to sexually harassing questions encountered during a realistic job interview. Behavioral and emotional responses are compared to those in an imagined harassing interview. Results indicate that interviewees who are actually harassed react very differently than those who only imagine their responses. For example, imagined victims anticipate feeling angry but actual targets report being afraid. Anticipated behavior also did not mesh with actual behavior. Implications of these discrepancies for perceptions of "correct" ways to respond to harassment are examined.

This experiment tested whether social power and sex affect amount and type of smiling. Participants were assigned to low-, high-, or equal-power positions and interacted in dyads. For high- and equal-power participants, smiling correlated with positive affect, whereas for low- power participants, it did not. Women smiled more than men overall and showed more Duchenne smiling in the equal-power context, but they did not differ in the high-power context or low-power context. Results are interpreted as reflecting the license given to high-power people to smile when they are so inclined and the obligation for low-power people to smile regardless of how positive they feel.

Correlates and consequences of newspaper accounts of research on sex differences were examined. In Study 1, articles from high-circulation newspapers were coded for the degree to which biological factors were used to explain sex differences. Results showed that political conservatism and traditional attitudes toward gender roles coded from other newspaper sections predicted greater use of biological explanations than did political liberalism and less traditional attitudes toward gender roles. In Studies 2 and 3, participants read a fictional newspaper article reporting research on a gender difference that cited either biological or sociocultural factors as explaining the difference. Results showed that exposure to biological explanations significantly increased participants' endorsement of gender stereotypes. Moreover, exposure to social explanations significantly increased participants' belief in the mutability of human behavior. Together, these studies show that political ideology influences how the popular press reports research findings and that such reporting in turn affects readers' beliefs and attitudes.

No abstract