Self-Presentations of Happiness: Sincere, Polite, or Cautious?

Abstract

Two studies addressed the meaning of expressed happiness in social relationships. In the first study, men expected to interact with a socially desirable or a socially undesirable woman. It was predicted that (a) when about to meet a socially undesirable woman, men would display more happiness publicly than is felt privately and (b) when about to meet a socially desirable woman, men would display less happiness publicly than felt privately. Results supported the former and tended to support the latter prediction. In the second study, the authors predicted that women would mistrust men's expressions of happiness upon meeting them such that (a) unattractive women would suspect men of inflating happiness and (b) attractive women would suspect men of suppressing happiness. Results supported the former but not the latter hypothesis. Taking relationship-specific goals into account appears to be important in determining whether emotion will be accurately conveyed and can be trusted.

Gaming Emotions in Social Interactions

“…In an experimental setting, Clark, Pataki, and Carver (1996) demonstrate that when people are presented with a goal to get others to like them, they deliberately report higher levels of happiness relative to their own previous assessment before knowing the goal. The authors argue that if people intuit that happiness and likeability are positively associated, they may intensify their happiness in order to be perceived as a more likeable person (see also Pataki and Clark 2004). Finally, children are less likely to display either a positive or a negative emotion in the presence of their friends than in front of their parents or when they are alone (Zeman and Garber 1996).…”

“You’re Just Saying That.” Contingencies of self-worth, suspicion, and authenticity in the interpersonal affirmation process

“…This might occur, for instance, before partners learn of actors’ sensitivities, when partners unintentionally communicate less positive evaluations through nonverbal channels than what is expressed verbally (DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985), when partners expresses negative evaluations during a moment of anger, or when partners succumb to actors’ pursuit of more veridical evaluations (Swann, 1987). Indeed, lies are more often detected in close relationships than in distant relationships (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998) and people are generally able to detect others’ ingratiation attempts (DePaulo et al, 1985; Jones, Stires, Shaver, & Harris, 1968) and exaggerated positive emotions (Pataki & Clark, 2004). That is, Sarah may realize Derek’s lack of authenticity when, after repeatedly inquiring as to whether she looks fat, he finally concedes that she could lose a few pounds or when his avoidance of eye contact and suggestions for light meals betray his explicit positive feedback.…”

The Formation of Social Rules for Digital Interactions

“…For Pataki and Clark (2004) such emotional expressiveness encourages interaction where shared social interests are about an enabling of bonds between individuals. This kind of 'emotional dialogue' provides a rich source of information exchange where the ability to empathize and express emotion act as clear signals to potential partners about needs, vulnerabilities and desires.…”