








































Counselor Smiling Effects on Perceivers 1


Graduate Student Journal of Psychology                                                                             Copyright 2009 by the Department of Counseling & Clinical Psychology 
2009, Vol. 11                                                                                                                        Teachers College, Columbia University                          
 
 

The Effects of a Counselor Smiling on Perceivers 
 

Tyler Duffield 
Colorado State University 

 
The Duchenne smile has been suggested to be a signaler of altruistic intentions. Other nonverbal cues 
of altruistic intentions have also been found. The current study controlled for other nonverbal cues of 
altruism in investigating the Duchenne smile in a counseling setting. Participants, using the “zero-
acquaintance video presentation paradigm” viewed actual counselors genuinely smiling (Duchenne) 
and posing a smile (Non-Duchenne). The zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm entails 
presenting perceivers video clips depicting target individuals performing a particular task and then 
assessing the videotaped individuals. A 2 (Counselor Gender) X 2 (Smile) multivariate analysis of 
variance on perceived altruism levels of counselors revealed a significant main effect for smiling 
condition. Genuine smiling counselors were rated significantly higher on perceived altruism levels 
than posed smiling counselors.  

 
Much research has been conducted on functions and 

uses of smiling (Brown et al., 2003; Burt & Perrett, 1997; 
D’Augelli, 1974; Dooley, 1978; Ekman et al., 1985; Ekman 
& Freisen, 1982; Frank, 1988; Gazzaniga & Smylie, 1990; 
Giudice & Colle, 2007; Mehu, Grammer, & Dunbar, 2007; 
Mehu, Little, & Dunbar, 2007; Wylie & Goodale, 1988). It 
is known that there are different types of smiles. One can 
force a smile, or pose a smile. A genuine smile, in contrast, 
is known as a Duchenne smile.  

The Duchenne marker is the contraction of the 
orbicularis oculi muscle (Ekman & Freisen, 1982). The 
Duchenne marker is named after Duchenne de Boulogne 
who first discussed the contraction of the orbicularis oculi 
muscle in relation to smiling in 1862 (Giudice & Colle, 
2007). The contraction of the orbicularis oculi, or change in 
the muscle by shortening or tensing of the muscle, has 
multiple effects. Its effects on the face are the narrowing of 
the eye aperture, or reduction in the amount of the eye 
exposed, “crow’s feet” on the external side of the eye, 
raising of the cheek, and lowering of the eye cover fold 
(Giudice & Colle, 2007). The Duchenne (felt) smile is a 
spontaneous expression of positive emotion (Ekman & 
Freisen, 1982). A spontaneous emotion-based smile has 
greater displacement of the left-hand corner of the mouth 
than a posed smile due to right-hemisphere involvement 
(Wylie & Goodale, 1988). Posed smiles (smiles without an 
underlying emotional basis) are less intense on the left side 
(Gazzaniga & Smylie, 1990). For this reason, humans 
scrutinize the left side of the face more than the right side 
when assessing facial expressions (Burt & Perrett, 1997). 
Also, genuine smiles have extremely short durations, 
whereas posed smiles are significantly longer in duration 
(Ekman & Freisen, 1982).1  

                                                            

Correspondence: Tyler Duffield, tyduff25@rams.colostate.edu 

The current study examined smiling in a “mock” 
counseling context, in that the counseling sessions used 
volunteers as the clients and not the counselors’ actual 
clients. Filming of these simulated sessions occurred in the 
counseling rooms of a local clinic. Two doctoral students 
(one male, one female) in Counseling Psychology served as 
counselors and were filmed (as is their training program’s 
procedure for counselor evaluation) during the simulated 
counseling sessions. The primary research question focused 
on the extent to which the client interprets altruism from a 
genuine-smiling counselor.  

Eldakar, Wilson, and O'Gorman (2006) defined an 
altruist as an individual who helps others as an end in itself. 
Altruism is scientifically defined as instinctive behavior that 
is detrimental to the individual, but favors the survival or 
spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its 
relatives (Altruism, n.d.). By definition, altruism is 
identified in an individual’s behavior, or the act of helping. 
Therefore, to be quantified as an altruist is dependent on 
behavior. This study, however, continued investigation in 
the signaling of altruistic dispositions (Brown et al., 2003; 
Frank, 1988; Mehu et al., 2007). Trivers (1971, as cited in 
Mehu et al., 2007, p. 135) suggested the role of pro-social 
emotions as a solution to commitment issues between 
unrelated individuals. Frank (1988) predicted that the cues 
to altruism should be under involuntary control, and that 
humans have cognitive architecture designed by natural 
selection to assess altruism and selfishness in others. 
According to both models, the nonverbal cues related to 
positive emotions are seen as genuine signals of altruistic 
dispositions because they are not easy to fake because of 
their contingency with physiological processes (Mehu et al., 
2007). Also, since the Duchenne smile is believed to be a 
spontaneous emotional expression (Ekman & Friesen, 1982; 
Gazzaniga & Smylie, 1990), it is reasonable to expect that 
the Duchenne smile is an indicator of altruism. Research 
does suggest that the Duchenne smile could be a reliable 

20 



EFFECTS OF COUNSELOR SMILING 
 

  21

indicator of altruistic dispositions (Brown et al., 2003; 
Mehu et al., 2007).  

Brown et al. (2003) found significant nonverbal 
differences between altruists and non-altruists. After 
completing an altruism scale, 10 altruists comprising the top 
10% of the altruism scale and 10 non-altruists comprising 
the bottom 10% of the altruism scale were video-taped 
giving a self-presentation (e.g. stating name, likes and 
dislikes). “Concern for others” was then assessed on a six-
point Likert-type scale by a group of thirty perceivers 
viewing the videotapes (Brown et al., 2003). Four nonverbal 
differences between altruists and non-altruists were of 
particular theoretical interest, including felt smiling 
(orbicularis oculi muscle activity or Duchenne smile), 
concern furrows (Corrugator supercilii muscle activity 
drawing the eyebrow downward and medialward, producing 
the vertical wrinkles of the forehead), smile duration, and 
smile symmetry. These four nonverbal behaviors are 
particularly difficult to fake since they are linked to 
spontaneous emotional expression (Ekman & Freisen, 1982; 
Gazzaniga & Smylie, 1990). Results indicated that these 
cues corresponded to increased “concern for others” ratings 
by the separate group of perceivers. This suggests that 
likelihood to cooperate [i.e., altruism as defined by Brown 
et al. (2003)] is signaled nonverbally, and the putative cues 
may be under involuntary control as predicted by Frank’s 
(1988) theory of altruism signaling (Brown et al., 2003). 
These findings show that components of the Duchenne 
smile (orbicularis oculi activity, smile duration and 
symmetry) are a form of altruism signaling.  

While investigating whether a link can be drawn 
between Duchenne smiling and the five major personality 
dimensions, Mehu et al. (2007) found Duchenne smiles 
produced a much greater impact on generosity ratings than 
non-Duchenne smiles. This finding is believed to support 
the assertion that the Duchenne marker is involved in the 
detection of altruism (Brown et al., 2003; Mehu et al., 
2007). Fifty individuals were photographed and their 
pictures were used as stimuli in a face perception 
experiment. Two pictures were taken for each individual: a 
picture showing a neutral face and a picture showing a 
smiling face. Each smiling face was coded by two certified 
Facial Action Coding System (FACS; Ekman, Freisen, & 
Hager, 2002) coders and smiles were classified into 
Duchenne and non-Duchenne. Participants were asked to 
rate neutral (control condition) and smiling (experimental 
condition) stimulus faces on ten attributes: attractiveness, 
generosity, trustworthiness, competitiveness, health, 
agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, neuroticism, 
and openness to experience. Results showed differences 
between neutral and smiling faces were larger when 
stimulus faces displayed a Duchenne rather than a non-
Duchenne smile, with the strongest impact ratings on 
generosity and extroversion. The effect of smile type on 
attributions of generosity appeared to be restricted to male 
faces though (Mehu et al., 2007). A principal component 
analysis indicated that the effect of Duchenne smiles does 

not necessarily generalize to a range of positive attributes 
(e.g., attractiveness, agreeableness, etc.), but could be 
specific to sociability (extroversion) and altruism 
(generosity). Mehu et al. (2007) suggest that these findings 
emphasize the importance of the Duchenne smile in the 
evaluation of sociability and altruism.  

The association between generosity and altruism draws 
from Robert’s (1998, as cited in Mehu et al., 2007, p. 143) 
study in which he found positive judgments of generosity 
by receivers could lead them to invest resources in a 
coalition. Mehu et al.’s (2007) finding that the Duchenne 
smile had a strong impact on attributions of generosity 
suggests that Duchenne smiling could provide an important 
advantage in cooperative interactions. The association 
between Duchenne smiles and generosity received support 
in Mehu et al.’s (2007) study showing a connection between 
self-reported altruism toward a friend and the frequency of 
Duchenne smiles during an interaction involving the sharing 
of material resources with that friend. Similar findings have 
been found, but also show that smiling is not the only 
nonverbal cue for helping or altruism. For example, Dooley 
(1978) found that independent judgments of what he 
referred to as empathic helping skills were moderately 
associated with several nonverbal behaviors, including head 
nodding, facial expressivity, smiling, and hand and arm 
movements.  

These findings are related to D’Augelli’s (1974) results 
with the Group Assessment of Interpersonal Traits (GAIT). 
The GAIT was a group activity which entailed asking 
participants to individually present a meaningful personal 
concern to the group. Another group member was then 
expected to engage the subject in a four-minute helping 
interaction. Each subject was required to engage in both 
disclosing and understanding. During the GAIT, two trained 
observers recorded the frequency of nonverbal behaviors of 
the helper. These subject interactions were the basis of 
evaluations of the helper's nonverbal behavior and his 
helping. D’Augelli (1974) found that nodding and smiling 
frequencies were positively related to peer and observer 
ratings of empathy and warmth. Product-moment 
correlations were calculated between nonverbal behaviors 
and ratings of the helper made by the observers, by other 
participants, and by the person receiving help. However, no 
more than 10% of the common variance was accounted for 
in any of the obtained correlations; therefore, the impact of 
nonverbal behavior is questionable (D’Augelli, 1974). 
Dooley (1978) found larger empathic helping skills variance 
accounted for by nonverbal variables, and thus attributed a 
somewhat more important contribution of nonverbal 
behaviors to empathy ratings than D’Augelli (1974). Brown 
et al. (2003) also found head nodding to be unexpectedly 
correlated with altruism level, but suggested a possible 
Type I error. 

The D’Augelli (1974) and Dooley (1978) studies make 
suggestions for future research, which is addressed in the 
current study. Specifically, D’Augelli (1974) suggested that 
more research needs to be conducted on extended 



DUFFIELD 
 

 22 

interactions of actual counselors and clients and focus on 
the impact of nonverbal behaviors on clients. In addition, 
Dooley (1978) questioned if his findings could generalize to 
counselors in professional and paraprofessional roles. He 
also suggested further research to find discrepancies, 
particularly in language, between his study and D’Augelli’s 
(1974). To the knowledge of this researcher, the Duchenne 
smile has not been researched in a counseling context. The 
present study investigates the Duchenne smile as an 
altruism signaler in a profession designed to help 
individuals.  

The hypothesis is that Duchenne activity by two 
counselors (one male, one female) will affect perceived 
altruistic levels of counselors by perceivers. It is also 
predicted that the female counselor will have higher ratings 
of altruism levels in the Duchenne and non-Duchenne 
smiling conditions. Females are known to be more 
expressive of their feelings (Elkin, 1979) and are quicker to 
relate interpersonally (Feldman, Crouch, & Rodriquez, 
1994), on average, relative to men. Women are also 
generally better at sending and interpreting nonverbal cues 
(Mayo & Henley, 1981; Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979). The 
independent variables were form of smiling, including 
Duchenne and non-Duchenne smiles, and the counselor’s 
gender. The dependent variables were perceivers’ ratings of 
altruism in the counselor as measured by the Counselor 
Effectiveness Rating Scale (CERS) and the Counselor 
Effectiveness Rating Scale, Revised (CERSR). Both scales 
were used because the CERS used language appropriate to 
altruism assessment, but lacked psychometric estimates, 
whereas the CERSR has available reliability and validity 
estimates. 

 
Method 

 
Participants 

 
Seventy introductory psychology students comprised 

this study’s perceivers. Eighteen males and fifty-two 
females participated. Participants enrolled in this study to 
fulfill activity points as required by the introductory 
psychology course at Colorado State University. Fifteen 
participants viewed the video clip from the “male 
counselor/Duchenne smile” condition. Twenty-one 
participants viewed the video clip from the “male 
counselor/non-Duchenne” condition. Sixteen participants 
viewed the video clip from the “female 
counselor/Duchenne” condition. Eighteen participants 
viewed the video clip from the “female counselor/non-
Duchenne” condition. All four conditions were conducted 
in succession in one evening. Participants enrolled in the 
study through the online portion of their introductory 
psychology course for one of four available study time 
slots.  

 
 
 

Stimulus Materials 
 

Two doctoral students (one male, one female) in 
Counseling Psychology served as counselors, under their 
program’s Psychological Services Center, and were filmed 
during simulated counseling sessions. Film was obtained 
from one female counselor for a Duchenne condition and 
non-Duchenne condition. Film was also obtained from one 
male counselor for a Duchenne condition and non-
Duchenne condition. Both sexes were used to assess 
potential gender interactions.  

Webcams already installed in the counseling rooms in 
the Psychology Department were used to obtain video clips. 
Two simulated counseling sessions were filmed of each 
counselor. Filming of the counseling sessions occurred in 
the Psychological Services Center’s counseling rooms using 
a volunteer for the client, not the counselors’ actual clients. 
Counselors were simply asked to conduct themselves during 
the simulated counseling session as is protocol during their 
actual counseling. The simulated counseling sessions 
involved the volunteer client telling a comical anecdote to 
elicit smiling from the counselor. Duchenne and non-
Duchenne activity were attained from each counselor during 
filming. The film was edited into four video clips 
approximately a minute long each in duration. Each video 
clip contained a single level of each of the two factors 
(Male/Female counselor and non-Duchenne/Duchenne 
smile) per condition for a total of four conditions. Video 
clips were solely of the counselors from the waist up and 
did not contain the audio portion. Video clips were edited so 
head nodding and arm movements were minimal to control 
for other nonverbal cues of altruism. Thus, efforts to control 
for a single, nonverbal altruistic behavior were 
implemented. These extraneous variables were all 
controlled for except occasional head nodding in the 
“female counselor/ non-Duchenne” condition. Head 
nodding in this condition could not be controlled for due to 
concurrent occurrence with posed smiles throughout the 
video clip. Aside from dialogue not being of interest, silent 
video clips also controlled for dialogue as a possible 
confound to nonverbal altruism ratings by using the “zero-
acquaintance video presentation paradigm”(Brown et al., 
2003), which is described below.  
 

Procedure 
 

Study participants engaged in the “zero-acquaintance 
video presentation paradigm.” The “zero-acquaintance 
video presentation paradigm” in nonverbal behavior 
experiments (see Ekman, 1985) entails presenting 
participants with video clips depicting target individuals 
performing a particular task. Participants then assess the 
videotaped individuals (Brown et al., 2003).  

A 2 (Counselor gender: male or female) X 2 (Type of 
smile: Duchenne or non-Duchenne) between-subjects 
research design was used. Participants were randomly 
assigned to one of the four conditions. Participants entered a 



EFFECTS OF COUNSELOR SMILING 
 

  23

seminar room with a twenty-five person capacity, 
containing a 48-inch flat screen television and viewed the 
video clip with the researcher present. Participants were 
made aware before viewing that the person on the video clip 
was an actual counselor during a counseling session. 
Participants in each condition viewed their condition’s 
video clip and then were administered the Counselor 
Effectiveness Rating Scale, Revised (CERSR) and the 
Counselor Effectiveness Rating Scale (CERS). 
 
 
Instrument 
 

The original CERS was developed by Atkinson and 
Carskaddon (1975) to assess perceived counselor credibility 
as a composite of several concepts. The scale consisted of 
five concepts; each rated on three, seven-point bipolar, 
semantic differential scales (Atkinson & Carskaddon, 
1975). The three scales consisted of: good-bad, valuable-
worthless, meaningful-meaningless (Atkinson & 
Carskaddon, 1975). The five concepts included in the scale 
were (a) the counselor's knowledge of psychology, (b) the 
counselor's ability to help the client, (c) the counselor's 
willingness to help the client, (d) the counselor's 
comprehension of the client's problem, and (e) the 
counselor on the videotape as someone I would go to see if 
I had a problem to discuss (Atkinson & Carskaddon, 1975). 
The first revision to the CERS was conducted by Furlong, 
Atkinson, and Casas (1979), whose modifications included 
adjectives related to counselor attractiveness (Ponterotto & 
Furlong, 1985). Participants in this study rated a counselor 
in a condition corresponding to the condition of Atkinson 
and Carskaddon (1975) on the concepts of expertness, 
trustworthiness, understanding, sincerity, and utility (e.g., 
the counselor on the videotape as someone I would go to 
see) (Ponterotto & Furlong, 1985). The next revision 
(CERSR) and first reliability and validity estimates (prior 
CERS use was presumably based off face validity) were 
conducted by Atkinson and Wampold (1982), who 
developed three semantic differential items for the 
expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness dimensions, 
plus one semantic differential item for counselor utility 
(someone I would see for counseling). All concepts were 
subsequently rated on a single, 7-point bipolar scale (1 = 
bad, 7 =good) (Ponterotto & Furlong, 1985).  

Internal consistency reliability coefficients (coefficient 
alpha) across the expertness, attractiveness, trustworthiness, 
and total score dimensions were .88, .78, .75, and .90, 
respectively, and intercorrelations among subscales ranged 
from .54 to .76 (Ponterotto & Furlong, 1985). The CERS 
scores were also correlated with Counselor Rating Form 

(CRF) ratings, yielding a concurrent validity coefficient of 
.80 for the CERS (Ponterotto & Furlong, 1985).  

In the current study, CERS and CERSR items were 
analyzed independently and as a global measure of altruism.  
An inter-item analysis of reliability yielded a Cronbach’s 
alpha of .91 of the eight CERS and CERSR items used.  

 
 

Results 
 

A 2 (Counselor Gender) X 2 (Smile) MANOVA on 
perceived altruism levels of counselors revealed a 
significant main effect for smiling condition, F(8, 58) = 
3.083, p < .05 (see Table 1). The main effect for counselor 
gender was not significant, F (8, 58) = 1.933, p > .05, nor 
was the effect for the interaction of gender and smiling 
condition, F (8, 58) = 1.044, p > .05. Therefore, the 
hypotheses that male and female counselors would differ in 
perceived altruism ratings, and that female counselors 
would have higher ratings of altruism levels in both smiling 
conditions were not supported. However, as hypothesized, 
genuine smiling counselors were rated significantly higher 
on altruism ratings than non-genuine smiling counselors. 
Refer to Table 2 for means and standard deviations of the 
ratings.  

Univariate ANOVAs assessing the effect of each of the 
eight altruism dependent variables revealed significant 
effects for every item (p < .05) except for item 4 
(counselor’s sincerity), F (1, 65) = 1.733, p > .05 (see Table 
1). A genuine smiling counselor’s ability to help the client 
and willingness to help the client were rated significantly 
better, more valuable, and more meaningful, as compared to 
that of a non-genuine smiling counselor. Participants also 
rated genuine smiling counselors higher on the item, 
“counselor as someone I would see for counseling, than 
non-genuine smiling counselors. No significant difference 
was found in ratings of the counselor’s sincerity between 
genuine and non-genuine smiling counselors.  

The items from the CERS and CERSR were then 
combined into a single, global altruistic variable, and a 
Univariate ANOVA was performed, resulting in a 
significant main effect of smiling condition on altruism, F 
(1, 65) = 11.994, p < .05. Genuine smiling counselors were 
rated higher on altruism than were non-genuine smiling 
counselors. These results contribute to an overall, more 
robust measure of the significant effect of smiling condition 
on ratings of altruism.  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 



DUFFIELD 
 

 24 

Table 1 
Multivariate Effects by Gender and Smiling Condition and Univariate Effects by Smiling Condition on Altruism Items (CERS) 

Multivariate Tests F df η² Univariate Tests 
(dependent measures) 

F df η² 

Gender 1.93 8, 58 .21 CERS2A 12.53* 1, 65 .16 

Smiling Condition 3.08* 8, 58 .30 CERS2B 10.03* 1, 65 .13 

Gender X Smiling 1.04 8, 58 .13 CERS2C 4.73* 1, 65 .07 

    CERS3A 10.87* 1, 65 .14 

    CERS3B 4.22* 1, 65 .06 

    CERS3C 8.71* 1, 65 .12 

    CERS4 1.73 1, 65 .03 

    CERS10 9.04* 1, 65 .12 

Note. CERS2A = Gender Counselor’s Ability to Help Client, Good/Bad. CERS2B = Counselor’s Ability to Help Client, Valuable/Worthless. CERS2C = 
Counselor’s Ability to Help Client, Meaningful/Meaningless. CERS3A = Counselor’s Willingness to Help Client, Good/Bad. CERS3B = Counselor’s 
Willingness to Help Client, Valuable/Worthless. CERS3C = Counselor’s Willingness to Help Client, Meaningful/Meaningless. CERSR4 = Counselor’s Sincerity. 
CERSR10 = Counselor as Someone I would See for Counseling. 
*p < .05. 

 
 
Table 2 
Means and Standard Deviations for Altruism Ratings of Counselors 

Measure   Condition 

 Male Female

 Non-Duchenne Duchenne Non-Duchenne Duchenne

 M SD M SD M SD M SD 

CERS2A 4.86 1.46 5.57 1.22 3.61 1.61 5.31 1.20 

CERS2B 5.00 1.45 5.43 1.22 3.78 1.80 5.13 .885 

CERS2C 4.90 1.26 5.00 1.30 3.78 1.80 5.13 .885 

CERS3A 4.57 1.57 5.71 1.44 4.66 1.75 5.94 1.12 

CERS3B 4.95 1.40 5.50 1.40 4.56 1.50 5.44 1.41 

CERS3C 4.71 1.42 5.50 1.51 4.28 1.71 5.63 1.26 

CERS4 4.67 1.71 4.43 2.03 3.83 1.25 5.19 1.97 

CERS10 4.09 1.79 5.14 1.99 2.94 1.39 4.38 1.59 

Note. CERS2A = Gender Counselor’s Ability to Help Client, Good/Bad. CERS2B = Counselor’s Ability to Help Client, Valuable/Worthless. CERS2C = 
Counselor’s Ability to Help Client, Meaningful/Meaningless. CERS3A = Counselor’s Willingness to Help Client, Good/Bad. CERS3B = Counselor’s Willingness to 
Help Client, Valuable/Worthless. CERS3C = Counselor’s Willingness to Help Client, Meaningful/Meaningless. CERSR4 = Counselor’s Sincerity. CERSR10 = 
Counselor as Someone I would See for Counseling.

 
 

 
 



EFFECTS OF COUNSELOR SMILING 
 

  25

Discussion 
 

Counselors displaying Duchenne (genuine) smiles were 
rated significantly higher on altruism ratings than Non-
Duchenne (posed) smiling counselors. These results emulate 
Brown et al.’s (2003) findings that suggest that the 
likelihood to cooperate is signaled nonverbally. This finding 
also is congruent with Brown et al.’s (2003) evidence, 
suggesting that the Duchenne smile contains the involuntary 
components to be a form of altruism signaling. Results are in 
accordance with Mehu et al.’s (2007) findings that the 
Duchenne smile could have specificity to judgments of 
altruism as well. This study used the utility question of the 
CERSR (Counselor as Someone I would See for 
Counseling) to exemplify the Duchenne smile as an altruism 
signaler. Participants indicated that these counselors were 
someone they would see for counseling; ratings of genuine 
smiling counselors were higher than non-genuine smiling 
counselors. 

Slightly larger levels of altruism were expected in the 
female counselor condition, based on studies addressing 
interpersonal aspects across gender (Elkin, 1979; Feldman, 
Crouch, & Rodriquez, 1994; Mayo & Henley, 1981; 
Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979). Gender was used as a factor to 
increase internal and external validity, and also to eliminate 
a possible confound of participants perceiving the counselors 
differently based on gender. However, in this study, 
counselor gender was not found to differentially influence 
participants’ ratings of the counselors’ altruism. 

These findings contradict Dooley’s (1978) belief that his 
findings would not generalize to counselors in professional 
and paraprofessional roles. Although not sufficient evidence 
to disprove Dooley (1978), findings would suggest that the 
nonverbal behavior of smiling would generalize to a 
counseling setting. This study addressed D’Augelli’s (1974) 
suggestions to focus on the impact of nonverbal behaviors 
on clients. Although not clients, participants’ ratings suggest 
that the nonverbal behavior of Duchenne smiling may 
impact actual client’s perception of whether the counselor 
wants to help him or her.  

The results have implications for the client-counselor 
relationship. Therapeutic intervention would likely be more 
effective, or improved, if a counselor nonverbally displayed 
altruistic intentions dually with counseling protocol and 
techniques. It would possibly increase the counselor’s value 
as a social partner by enhancing the client’s judgment of 
altruistic intent in the counselor (Mehu et al., 2007). 
Logically, a counselor who nonverbally communicates 
altruistic intent throughout therapy will have a better 
relationship with his or her client, and could possibly 
increase the likelihood of positive outcome. The difficulty of 
these findings is that counselors cannot be trained to 
incorporate into their counseling a behavior that is a 
spontaneous emotional expression (Ekman & Freisen, 1982; 
Gazzaniga & Smylie, 1990). Counseling programs, however, 
can begin to consider incorporating genuine smiling, an 

advantageous nonverbal expression, into their counseling 
techniques.  

Furthermore, this study provides evidence that a 
Duchenne smile functions as an altruism signaler in a 
context not yet investigated, a simulated counseling setting. 
Additionally, this research suggests this function might have 
possible implications for improving therapeutic intervention. 
A limitation of this study was that the distinction between 
Duchenne/non-Duchenne smiles was not assessed by an 
expert; rather, it was differentiated by the author. Also, this 
study was only a reflection of the effects of a counselor 
smiling on clients as rated by non-client perceivers. It cannot 
be assumed that a client in the counseling dyad will react in 
the same way that an outside perceiver viewing a simulated 
counseling session would to a genuine smiling counselor. 
Clients are in a different context, have a relationship with the 
counselor, and are presumably in counseling because they 
are experiencing some level of distress. Thus, attempts to 
generalize to an actual counseling context must be tentative. 
However, these significant results do warrant further 
investigation. A more in depth technique is needed to 
investigate these findings in an actual counseling dyad. A 
longitudinal study examining a longer duration of therapy 
would also be an appropriate next step.  

 
Acknowledgments 

 
The author would like to thank his advisor Dr. Bryan Dik for 
his assistance and guidance throughout this research. The 
author would also like to thank Dr. Randall Swaim for his 
revision suggestions. The author would like to thank the 
graduate students who volunteered for the video taping and 
Brandy Eldridge for her invaluable help with CSU’s 
Psychological services as well. Finally, the author would 
like to thank Definite Productions and Brad Scott for editing 
the video clips.  
 

References 
 

Altruism. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the 
English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved March 25, 
2009,from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ 
altruism 

Atkinson, D. R., & Carskaddon, G. (1975). A prestigious 
introduction, psychological jargon, and perceived 
counselor credibility. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 
22, 180-186. 

Atkinson, D. R., & Wampold, B. E. (1982). A comparison of 
the Counselor Rating Form and Counselor Effectiveness 
Rating Scale. Counselor Education and Supervision, 22, 
25-36. 

Brown, M., Palameta, B., & Moore, C. (2003). Are there 
nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study 
using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm. 
Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 42-69.  



DUFFIELD 
 

 26 

Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (1997). Perceptual asymmetries 
in judgments of facial attractiveness, age, gender, speech 
and expression. Neuropsychologia, 35, 685-693. 

D’Augelli, R. A. (1974). Nonverbal behavior of helpers in 
initial helping interactions. Journal of Counseling 
Psychology, 21, 360-363.  

Dooley, D. (1978). Preliminary validation of a nonverbal 
description form for help intended interactions. 
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 140-
144.  

Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1985). 
Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among 
emotions. Science, 221, 208-210. 

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1982). Felt, false, and 
miserable smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 238-
253 

Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V., and Hager, J. C. (2002) Facial 
Action Coding System. Salt Lake City, UT: Research 
Nexus eBook. 

Eldakar, O. T., Wilson, D. S., & O'Gorman, R. (2006). 
Emotions and actions associated with altruistic helping 
and punishment. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 274-286. 

Elkin, L. (1979). The effect of gender on affective 
expression. Journal of Female Studies, 8, 82-93. 

Feldman, N., Crouch, K., & Rodriguez, J. (1994). 
Interpersonal style as a function of gender and ethnicity. 
American Journal of Ethnography, 8, 17-24. 

Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic 
role of the emotions. NY, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.  

Gazzaniga, M. S., & Smylie, C. S. (1990). Hemispheric 
mechanisms controlling voluntary and spontaneous 
smiling. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 239- 245. 

Giudice, M. D., & Colle, L. (2007). Differences between 
children and adults in the recognition of enjoyment  
smiles. Developmental Psychology, 43, 796-803. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hill, C. E., & Nakayama, E. Y. (2000). Client-centered 
therapy: Where has it been and where is it going? A  
comment on Hathaway. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 
56, 861-875. 

Mayo, C., & Henley, N. M. (1981). Gender and non-verbal 
behavior. Seacaucaus, NJ: Springer-Verlag. 

Mehu, M., Grammer, K., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007). Smile 
when sharing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 415-
422. 

Mehu, M., Little, A. C., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007).  
Duchenne smiles and the perception of generosity and 
sociability in faces. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 
5, 183-196. 

Ponterotto, J. G., Furlong, M. J. (1985). Evaluating 
counselor effectivness: A critical review of rating scale 
instruments. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 597-
616.  

Roberts, G. (1998): Competitive altruism: from reciprocity 
to the handicap principle.Proceedings of the Royal Society 
of London (series B), 265, 427–31. 

Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in 
accommodation in nonverbal communication. In R. 
Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication: 
Individual differences (pp. 68-103). Cambridge, MA: 
Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.  

Trivers, R. L. (1971): The evolution of reciprocal altruism. 
The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57. 

Wylie, D. R., & Goodale, M. A. (1988). Left-sided oral 
asymmetries in spontaneous but not posed smiles. 
Neuropsychologia, 26, 823-832. 


