In an effort to further evaluate the positive effect of smiling on interpersonal attraction and perception, an experiment was conducted to determine the relationship between smiling and helping behavior.  The experiment was designed to evaluate the link between smiling and positive mood, as opposed to just a positive perception of the smiler.
           One important term in understanding the study is their use of the term “confederate.”  In this situation, since human interaction was needed, the confederates were simply individuals who knew what was going on in the study.  Each was responsible for one small task, and all were integral to the success of the experiment.
          With the help of 8 confederates (4 young men and 4 young women), each of whom were considered “average” in appearance, researchers were able to conduct an experiment testing 800 passersby.  Each case involved 2 confederates and a passerby.  The first confederate would either smile or not smile at the passerby—the confederate smiled in half of the cases.  A few seconds later, the passerby would get the opportunity to help another confederate who had dropped his/her computer diskettes on the ground. 
          There were several independent and dependent variables in this experiment.  Independent variables included the following: the sex of the first and second confederates, whether or not the first confederate smiled, and the sex of the passerby.  The dependent variable was helping behavior, or whether or not the subject stopped to help the second confederate.  The independent variables are rather self-explanatory; the dependent variable is simply measured by whether or not the subject stops to help the second confederate pick up the computer diskettes.  These behaviors were observed and recorded.
           From the study, researchers were able to draw some significant conclusions regarding the relationship between smiling and helping behavior, as well as gaining some insight into gender issues.  First, the findings showed that in all of the categories except for one (where both confederates and the passerby were male), the likeliness that subjects would stop and help improved if the first confederate smiled.  In some areas the change was small, but in others, the likelihood of the subject helping nearly doubled when the first confederate smiled.  In total, subjects were nearly ten percent more likely to help if the first confederate smiled.  The most significant result from the study showed that males were more likely to help female confederates, and likewise, females were more likely to help males.  In both cases, the best probability for help came when both confederates were members of the subject’s opposite sex. 
I think that the study supplies a small chunk of valuable information to the larger question of whether smiling has an effect on interpersonal attraction and perception.  The results showed that helping behavior towards others is enhanced when we are smiled at by another person.  This only seems logical because I believe that our self-confidence gets a little boost when someone smiles at us (especially a member of the opposite sex).  In turn, this gives us the increased confidence needed to approach and help a stranger.  What I find particularly interesting about the study is that it went one step further than most research in this area.  By using two confederates instead of one, they were able to show that smiling not only enhances our perception of the person who smiled, but also creates a more positive mood.  In turn, we see that smiling can increase helping behavior even when the person receiving the help is not the smiler.  I feel that this is an interesting link. 
 

I affirm that I have adhered to the college’s expectations for integrity in the completion of this paper. (signature) 

A test on the effects of three types of nonverbal behaviors (facial expression, eye contact, and body posture on perceptions of five power bases (reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, expert) and credibility was conducted.  The researchers attempted to clearly define power bases in order to test specific relationships between those power bases and nonverbal behaviors. 

• Power:  The ability or potential an agent has to change the behavior, intentions, attitudes, beliefs, emotions or values of a target.
• Credibility:  The power source’s objectively determined honesty, achievement, and accuracy.
• Non-traditional student: Any person with a mean age of 23 years and a considerable amount of work experience.
• Reward power: The agent’s ability to provide a target with desired or elusive objects.
• Coercive power: The agent’s ability to discipline the target.
• Legitimate power: the agent’s ability to influence the complying target.
• Referent power: The target’s identification with or liking of the agent.
• Expert power: The agent’s ability to share certain knowledge with the target.

Results of the study showed that a relaxed facial expression indicated higher perceptions of referent, reward, legitimate, and expert power bases as well as on credibility.  However, there was no significant effect on coercive power.  Eye contact had no significant effect on any of the power bases, but credibility was perceived as higher when eye contact was direct.  Body posture had no relationship with any of the power bases or credibility. 

Although the researchers were able to control the independent variable by having participants read and imagine the nonverbal behaviors, I feel that using real people on a video tape or acting out a scene would have been a better way to create the different scenarios.  Nonverbal behavior is visible to the eye, making it seem more logical to have the participants actually observe the behaviors.  Perhaps the participants would have made greater connections with the nonverbal behaviors and power bases if they had actually witnessed them.  However, I think that the clearly defined terms in this study allowed for the researchers to investigate power in more than one dimension.  This is helpful in answering my own research question that power can be perceived by an individual in more than one way. 

I affirm that I have adhered to the college’s expectations for integrity in the completion of this paper. (signature) 

       Professor Solomon initiated her research in an attempt to prove or find the exact relationship of the effect of intimacy in a dating relationship on the explicitness of requests made by the partners in the relationship.  The predictions stated by Professor Solomon indicate that a difference in explicitness in a relationship changes because of the level of intimacy in the relationship.  The second prediction suggests that there is a curvilinear association between intimacy and the explicitness of requests made by one person in the couple. 
       Some of the important terms used throughout Solomon’s study include request explicitness and intimacy.  “Request explicitness refers to the clarity with which an individual indicates what he or she wants a message target to do.” (p. 99).  This could be thought of as how direct or indirect the sender’s message is.  Although we all have our own personal meaning for the word “intimacy,” there is a more precise definition for the word when it is used in scientific research.  Intimacy implies the level of relational involvement and can be separated into two categories; social closeness and affection.  “Social closeness is the connection, activity sharing, interdependence and commitment that a couple experiences.” (p. 101).  “Affection is the feelings of appreciation, passion, or love with the desire to have these feelings reciprocated from a partner.” (p. 101).  These precise meanings are important to the study as they are the focus of the research. 
       To complete this study Solomon used a sample of 82 people (35 males, 47 females).  For various reasons 11 of the individuals were unable to complete the procedure.  The final sample included 30 males and 41 females, for a total of 71 participants.  These participants were undergraduate students enrolled in a communication course at a mid-western university, with ages ranging from 18 to 26.  There were three stipulations on the participants, they had to be: 1 involved in a dating relationship, where at least one date had occurred; 2 intend to date this person again; 3 open to call their partner with the intent of setting up a date. 
       The procedure for this research required the participants to first set up an appointment at a time when they knew their relationship partner would be able to receive a phone call.  The next step for the participants was to fill out a questionnaire concerning their dating relationships.  The actional part of the study occurred when the participants were put in a private room with a telephone, tape recorder, and instructions posted by the phone.  Verbal instructions given to the participants included a reminder of the goal to set up a date with their partner while speaking to them as normally as possible.  The instructions also included a reminder of the importance of informing the partner that the conversation would be recorded.  There was no given minimum or maximum time allotment.  After the phone call was ended the participants were once again asked to fill out a questionnaire, this time about their conversation. 
       The independent variable in this study is the intimacy in a dating relationship, where the dependent variable is the explicitness of the requests.  This means that the intimacy of the relationship was established prior to the phone call through the questionnaire.  After the phone call was made, the explicitness of the requests was measured and the results were compared. 
       The first prediction was proven to be true.  It was found that affection or feelings for a partner greatly effects explicitness, especially when the affection level was low.  The second prediction was also proven to be true.  The research showed that explicitness is high, low and high respectively as intimacy is low, moderate, and high.  One difference between males and females was discovered concerning the levels of liking and explicitness.  Liking hindered explicitness for males, while it elevated explicitness among females.  From the research that was conducted Professor Solomon was able to answer her questions. 
       I think that although the research findings are interesting, they may not be as accurate as indicated.  For instance having a more defined control group, such as people who have dated for a specific amount of time, might help the accuracy.  Another difficulty of this study is finding out the participants’ definitions of intimacy, liking, and dating.  Unless each person understood completely what the researchers meant by these words the results may have been skewed.  The results concerning the difference in actions between males and females were particularly interesting to me.  It intrigues me to find scientific evidence supporting the idea that males and females are not alike in their actions and emotions in a relationship. 

I affirm that I have adhered to the college’s expectations for integrity in the completion of this paper. (signature)