Short Paper smile experiment

Insmileswetrust_Smilinginthecontextofantisocialandborderlinepersonalitypathology.html

Home >Psychology homework help >Short Paper smile experiment

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

PMC

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Search databasePMC All Databases Assembly Biocollections BioProject BioSample BioSystems Books ClinVar Conserved Domains dbGaP dbVar Gene Genome GEO DataSets GEO Profiles GTR HomoloGene Identical Protein Groups MedGen MeSH NCBI Web Site NLM Catalog Nucleotide OMIM PMC PopSet Protein Protein Clusters Protein Family Models PubChem BioAssay PubChem Compound PubChem Substance PubMed SNP SRA Structure Taxonomy ToolKit ToolKitAll ToolKitBookgh Search term Search

PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234574. Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234574 PMCID: PMC7316324 PMID: 32584836

In smiles we trust? Smiling in the context of antisocial and borderline personality pathology

Lawrence Ian Reed, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,#1,2,* Ashley K. Meyer, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing,#3 Sara J. Okun, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing,#1 Cheryl K. Best, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing,#4 and Jill M. Hooley, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing#4

Lawrence Ian Reed

1 Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America

2 Department of Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Massachusetts, United States of America

Find articles by Lawrence Ian Reed

Ashley K. Meyer

3 Department of Psychiatry, Depression Clinical and Research Program (DCRP), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

Find articles by Ashley K. Meyer

Sara J. Okun

1 Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America

Find articles by Sara J. Okun

Cheryl K. Best

4 Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Find articles by Cheryl K. Best

Jill M. Hooley

4 Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Find articles by Jill M. Hooley Robert Didden, Editor Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer 1 Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, United States of America 2 Department of Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Massachusetts, United States of America 3 Department of Psychiatry, Depression Clinical and Research Program (DCRP), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America 4 Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America Radboud University, NETHERLANDS #Contributed equally. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: ude.uyn@311rl Received 2020 Mar 3; Accepted 2020 May 28. Copyright © 2020 Reed et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials: Attachment: Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - 5-11-2020.docx pone.0234574.s001.docx (31K) GUID: 13D8FF0C-1687-4065-BCF6-8F82C6F7C420 Attachment: Submitted filename: Response to reviewers - 5-26-2020.docx pone.0234574.s002.docx (12K) GUID: 23FB7248-8E41-411E-A3FF-68820C06FDFA

Data Availability Statement: Our data are publicly available here: https://osf.io/yzrvs/?view_only=8878cda15a6242599fd3fbde8de40454.

Abstract

Research suggests that people behave more cooperatively towards those who smile and less cooperatively towards those with personality pathology. Here, we integrated these two lines of research to model the combined effects of smiles and personality pathology on trust. In two experiments, participants read vignettes portraying a person with either borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or no personality pathology. These portrayals were paired with a brief video clip that showed a person with either a neutral expression or a smile. Participants then played a Trust game with the “person” presented using each vignette and video clip combination. In Experiment 1, rates of trust were lower in response to the borderline and antisocial personality disorder vignettes compared with the control vignette. Interestingly, the effect of smiles was dependent upon personality. Although participants were more trusting of smiling confederates portrayed as having borderline personality disorder or no pathology, they were less trusting of confederates portrayed as having antisocial personality disorder if they smiled. In Experiment 2, run with a second set of personality vignettes, rates of trust were lower in response to both personality disorder vignettes and higher in response to smiles with no significant interaction. Together, these results suggest that information regarding both the current emotional state as well as the personality traits of a partner are important for creating trust.

In smiles we trust? The effects of antisocial and borderline personality pathology

Many of the most consequential decisions we make involve whom to trust. If a partner is trustworthy, prosocial behavior could result in the benefits inherent in cooperation and/or the division of labor. However, if a partner is not trustworthy, prosocial behavior could result in a damaging loss. As such, any information that would increase our ability to judge trustworthiness would be of value. Independent lines of research on personality pathology and facial expression suggest that both might play a role.

The role of personality pathology has been examined in two recent studies measuring behavioral responses of participants playing economic games with partners portrayed using vignettes describing individuals with DSM-5 personality disorders. Studying cooperation, Reed, Best, and Hooley [1] had participants play cooperative games (either a one-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma or Chicken game) with a confederate portrayed using one of eight personality disorder vignettes (antisocial, avoidant, borderline, dependent, histrionic, narcissistic, schizoid or schizotypal) or a control vignette. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, participants were less likely to cooperate with confederates portrayed using each of the personality disorder vignettes in comparison to the control vignette. Similar results were found in the less competitive Chicken game, where participants were less likely to cooperate with confederates portrayed using all but one of the personality disorder vignettes (schizoid personality disorder) in comparison to the control vignette.

In a follow-up study on bargaining, participants played an Ultimatum game (as the proposer) or a Dictator game (as the allocator) with confederates portrayed using the same set of vignettes [2]. In the Ultimatum game, participants offered less money to confederates portrayed through the antisocial, avoidant, dependent, histrionic, narcissistic, and schizotypal vignettes in comparison to the control vignette. In the Dictator game, participants allocated less money to confederates portrayed using the antisocial, borderline, dependent, histrionic, narcissistic, and schizoid vignettes in comparison to the control vignette. Taken together, results from these studies suggest people are less cooperative, make more competitive bargains, and are less giving towards individuals with personality pathology.

Results from several studies examining the behaviors of individuals with personality pathology suggest that such interactive approaches may not be entirely unwarranted. When participants with borderline personality disorder are asked to play the role of the investor they give smaller investments in a one-shot Trust game [3] and are less able to maintain and repair cooperation in an iterated Trust game [4] in comparison to controls. Similar results have been found among those with psychopathy in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Rilling and colleagues [5] found that participants scoring higher in psychopathy were more likely to defect over time in an iterated game. In addition, Mokros and colleagues [6] found that criminal psychopaths were 7 times less likely to cooperate in comparison to adults from the general population.

Whereas knowledge of a partner’s personality pathology inhibits prosocial behavior, studies of facial expression show that smiles promote prosocial behavior. Those who smile are judged to be more altruistic and sociable than those who do not [7]. Furthermore, these judgements seem to affect behavior when people interact with those who smile. Smiles have been shown to elicit greater allocations in a Dictator game [8], greater investments in a Trust game [9], greater rates of cooperation in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game [10], and more credibility in a credibility assessment task [11]. Like the judgements others make of those with personality pathology described above, the judgements made of those who smile are often accurate. Smiling individuals have been found to score higher on an altruism scale in comparison to those who do not [12–14]. Finally, smiling participants are more likely to share [12] and more likely to cooperate in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game [10] than those who do not.

Integrating these two lines of research, the current study investigates the combined effects of personality pathology and smiles on trust. We aimed to examine trust to further extend our previous research on personality pathology, facial expression, cooperation, and bargaining. Previous work has demonstrated that smiles increase prosocial behavior [10]. The presence of borderline and antisocial personality pathology also influences cooperation and bargaining behavior in those who play economic games with them [1, 2]. Here, we examined participants’ behavior in a one-shot Trust game towards confederates who varied in both personality pathology (using vignettes describing borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or no pathology) and facial expression (displaying either a neutral expression or a smile). We chose the one-shot trust game [15] as it has been found to be a valid measure of trust [16, 17].

Both borderline and antisocial personality disorders are defined polythetically (i.e. a person must meet a minimum number of diagnostic criteria to warrant a diagnosis) [18]. As such, there exists a great deal of potential heterogeneity among individuals who are diagnosed with either form of personality disorder. To examine the potential effects of varying the presentation of personality pathology, we modified the personality disorder vignettes in a second experiment to portray another phenotype with several defining features of each personality disorder functioning in a community setting.

Based on previous research, we hypothesized that confederate trustees whose descriptions contained features of either borderline or antisocial personality disorder would be judged as less trustworthy and given smaller investments from participant investors in comparison to those described as having no pathology. We also hypothesized that confederates who smiled, regardless of the presence or absence of a personality disorder, would be judged as more trustworthy and given larger investments in comparison to those who displayed a neutral expression. Finally, we examined the combined effects of personality and smiles to explore potential interactions.

Experiment 1

Materials and methods

Participants

Two hundred and sixty-two participants (109 male, 152 female, and 1 identifying as other) were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing web service that coordinates the supply and demand of human interaction tasks (HITS). Sample size was determined before any data analyses. MTurk has been used in previous research in psychology and provides a supportive infrastructure for participant recruitment, screening, payment, and cultural diversity [19, 20]. Participants’ self-reported age ranges were between: 18–24 (13.0%), 25–34 (36.6%), 35–44 (23.7%), 45–54 (15.3%), 55–64 (7.3%), and 65–74 (4.2%). Participant’s self-reported races were Caucasian (75.6%), African-American (9.2%), Asian (8.4%), and other (6.9%).

Trust game

Participants played the role of the investor playing with a confederate trustee in a variant of the Trust game [15, 21]. In this game, the investor begins with a sum of money (say 50 cents). This can either be kept or invested in the trustee. If the investor keeps the money, the game ends with the investor earning 50 cents and the trustee earning nothing. The game continues if the investor invests in the trustee. In this case, the money invested is tripled and the trustee then chooses to either retain or split the money with the investor. If the trustee retains the money, the trustee keeps it and the investor earns nothing. If the trustee splits the money, both players earn half of the invested amount.

In the Trust game, trust is defined as a wager that the trustee will behave reciprocally and split the tripled sum. Trustworthiness is defined as a split of the tripled sum. Trust is risky because a selfish trustee would be expected to keep the entire investment for themselves. As such, an investor anticipating a selfish trustee might invest less (or nothing at all) whereas an investor anticipating a cooperative trustee might invest more.

The game was described to participants as follows:

In this study, you and another person have the opportunity to make money by playing a simple game. In this game, you will choose how much money to share with a partner. The amount of money that you choose to share will triple, and then your partner will either a) share what they have received with you or b) keep all of it. Based on your and your partner's decisions, the money will be distributed accordingly.

We have met with your partner, interviewed them, and asked them to make a decision about whether they would share or keep the money in this situation. Specifically, they were told that you had the option to share a sum of money with them, but that you could also choose to share none of it, and keep it entirely for yourself, leaving them with no money.

They were made aware that the more you shared with them, the more both of you could make, but they also knew that they could of course keep all the money you sent them, returning none of it to you.

They were then given the choice to either share with you whatever tripled amount they received or keep the entire tripled amount for themselves. We collected their decision and they will be your partner today in this interaction.

To give you a better sense of whom you're interacting with, you'll be asked to read a brief description of them and view a brief video clip of them before you make your decision.

Game instructions

You will decide how much money you would like to share with your partner. You can choose to share up to 50 cents with your partner. The money that you decide to share will be tripled. For example, if you choose to share 10 cents, it will turn into 30 cents. If you choose to share 40 cents, it will turn into 120 cents.

At that point, based on what your partner told us earlier when we collected their response, they will either share that money with you (allowing you to make more money than you would have if you had kept it all), or they will keep whatever money you sent.

After reading the instructions, participants were required to correctly answer three comprehension questions before continuing with the experiment (e.g., “If you share nothing with your partner, how much money will each player have (in cents)?” and “If you share 10 cents with your partner and they decided not to share with you, how much money will each player have (in cents)?”). Each comprehension question had two required responses, one for the participant and the other for the confederate trustee. Participants were given as many opportunities as necessary to correctly answer these questions.

Vignettes

Participants were then randomly presented with a single vignette purportedly describing the trustee paired with a video clip displaying their facial expression. The use of the personality disorder vignettes was similar to that in Reed, Best and Hooley [1] and Reed, Best, Harrison, and Hooley [2]. Briefly, participants were told they would be partnered with a real person who had been interviewed and was being portrayed by each vignette. The antisocial vignette, adapted from Race and Furnham [22] and the borderline vignette, adapted from Millon, Millon, Meagher, Grossman, and Ramnath [23] were intended to portray an individual with several defining features of that personality disorder functioning outside of a hospital setting. The vignette portraying borderline personality disorder read as follows:

Most people think that Kaci, who is 24 years old, lives a life analogous to a soap opera. She is often wrought with emotional ups and downs and is known to be unstable and frequently angry. What fuels the chaos are intense interpersonal needs and sudden shifts of opinion about others, who may be regarded as loving, sensitive, and intelligent one minute and accused of neglect and betrayal the next. When she is alone, even for a short time, Kaci feels intolerably lonely and empty. Her past relationships have typically been stormy and intense and she spends a lot of her time either making up or breaking up. Kaci often makes frantic attempts to avoid feeling abandoned; on several occasions she has made superficial cuts to her wrists. Kaci lacks a mature sense of self-identity. She often flip-flops on goals and values, suddenly changing jobs on impulse and reversing previous opinions with indifference.

The vignette portraying antisocial personality disorder read as follows:

Tammy is 19 years old and lives with her single mother. Her parents have been divorced for 15 years and her mother finds disciplining her without a father figure quite difficult. She is disobedient and resentful of authority. She is also unwilling to take part in family activities and is violently argumentative when confronted by her mother about her all-night partying. She has been arrested twice for shoplifting and once for driving while intoxicated. Her mother believes that she is doing fairly well at school and is the star player of her basketball team, but she has been lying to her—she never completed high school and was never on the basketball team. Her lying began when she was 12 years old. She was frequently truanting from school and would spend her time loitering in pool clubs smoking cigarettes or in the outskirts of town setting fire to people's property.

We created the control vignette, which was intended to portray an individual without features of any DSM-5 disorder and read as follows:

Jen is 25 and has been married to her husband John for 2 years. They have two children together, Luke who is 2 years old and Penny who is 1 years old. They live in a suburb right outside of town fairly close to where they both grew up. Jen went to a small liberal arts college and majored in psychology. She works as a retail salesperson. In her free time, she likes to play tennis and golf. She played both in high school, but never tried out for the teams while she was in college. She's always had an interest in photography and likes to spend time with her friends hiking, biking, and playing tennis.

Facial expression stimuli

The facial expression stimuli were presented directly above the personality vignette. The use of these stimuli was similar to that in Reed, Stratton and Rambeas [11]. Briefly, each clip was 6 s in length and was recorded at 30 frames per second in full color at a resolution of 1260 x 1080 pixels. For each expression clip, we instructed the actress to use facial actions described in the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) [24]. The FACS is a comprehensive, anatomically based system for describing and measuring facial movement. The FACS allows for the creation and coding of facial muscle configurations as combinations of individual Action Units (AUs) [25, 26], providing an objective and reliable description of facial behavior. In the neutral clip, the actress did not produce any expression. The smile clip consisted of the simultaneous action of AU6, cheek raiser; AU12, lip corner puller; and AU25, lips part. Individual AUs were coded independently by a certified FACS coder (L.I.R.). Comparison codes of another FACS coder were used to quantify κ, which corrects for chance agreement [27]. Agreement between the two coders was high (κ = .92).

After reading the vignette and viewing the facial expression stimuli, participants were required to correctly answer a single, multiple-choice comprehension question to ensure that participants paid close attention to the vignettes. Participants then specified the amount they chose to share with the confederate trustee (between 0 and 50 cents). Although participants were told they would be paired with a real person (portrayed using the vignette and video clip), they were never actually paired with anyone. Each participant was paid the highest amount given their decision in response to the vignette. After sharing with the confederate trustee, participants were shown the clip and vignette again and asked to give ratings of the confederate’s happiness using a 1–7 Likert-type scale. All participants then answered demographic questions regarding sex, age, and race. Finally, all participants viewed a debriefing statement explaining the interaction, the need for deception, and use of personality disorder vignettes. Participants were paid $2.00 for completing the study. Importantly, participants were told that the monetary payoffs they earned in the game would be paid to them (via MTurk bonus payments) before engaging in the task. Participants completed the task in approximately 7 to 10 min. All procedures were approved by the New York University IRB.

Results

Preliminary results

As a manipulation check, we first conducted a 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effects on participants’ ratings of the confederate’s perceived happiness. There was a significant main effect for personality, F(2, 256) = 4.34, p = .014, η2 = .033. Post hoc LSD tests revealed no significant difference between participants who read the control vignette and those who read the borderline vignette, mean difference = .25 (SE = .21), p = .223, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [-.15, .66]. However, participants who read the antisocial vignette rated the person depicted in the vignette as significantly less happy than participants who read the control vignette (mean difference = .59; SE = .21; p = .005, 95% CI = [.18, .99)]. Ratings of perceived happiness did not differ significantly between participants who read the borderline vignette and those who read the antisocial vignette, mean difference = .33 (SE = .21), p = .109, 95% CI = [-.07, .74].

There was also a significant main effect for expression, F(1, 256) = 386.41, p < .001, η2 = .601. Averaged across personality vignettes, perceived happiness ratings were higher among those who viewed the smile (M = 5.41, SD = 1.45) compared to those who viewed the neutral expression (M = 2.09, SE = 1.30). There was no significant personality by expression interaction, F(1, 256) = .0.28, p = .755, η2 = .002.

Primary results

A 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of personality and facial expression on participants’ investments. There was a significant main effect of personality, F(2, 256) = 11.67, p < .001, η2 = .084, but no significant main effect of expression, F(1, 256) = 0.73, p = .394, η2 = .003. These main effects were also qualified by a significant interaction, F(2, 256) = 3.82, p = .023, η2 = .029.

The significant personality by expression interaction effect was analyzed using a simple main effects analysis. Among participants who viewed the neutral expression, investments did not significantly differ across personality vignettes F(2, 256) = 2.843, p = .060, η2 = .022, although investments in partners depicted with features of borderline or antisocial personality were lower (21.44 cents; SD = 17.66 and 23.66 cents; SD = 21.37 respectively) than they were for the control vignette (30.47 cents; SD = 18.65). However, if participants viewed the smile, investments differed significantly across the personality vignettes, F(2, 256) = 12.967, p < .001, η2 = .092. Post-hoc LSD tests revealed that, after having viewed a smile, participants who read the control vignette invested more (36.39 cents; SD = 16.7) than participants who read the borderline vignette (28.30 cents; SD = 16.35), mean difference = 7.99, SE = 3.87; p = .040, 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference = [0.37, 15.62]. They also invested significantly more (mean difference = 19.51; SE = 3.85; p < .001, 95% CI for the mean difference = [11.93, 27.30]) after reading the control vignette than they did after reading the antisocial vignette where the mean investment was only 16.78 cents (SD = 19.07). There was also a significant mean difference of 11.52 (SE = 3.87) between the investments made by participants who read the borderline vignette in comparison to those who read the antisocial vignette, p = .003, 95% (CI) for the mean difference = [3.89, 19.15]. After having viewed a smile, participants gave less money to the person depicted in the antisocial vignette compared to the person depicted in the borderline vignette. The data of interest are presented in Fig 1.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is pone.0234574.g001.jpg

Open in a separate window Fig 1 Money invested (in cents) by vignette and facial expression, Experiment 1.

BPD = borderline personality disorder. ASPD = antisocial personality disorder.

Results from Experiment 1 suggest that both knowledge of a partner’s personality pathology and facial expression affect trust. This is consistent with previous behavioral work examining personality pathology [1, 2] and smiles [7–10] in economic games. In response to the borderline personality disorder vignette, these effects were independent. However, in response to the antisocial personality disorder vignette, the effects combined to create an antagonistic interaction.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2, we modified the personality disorder vignettes to portray another phenotype with several defining features of each personality disorder functioning in a community (non-hospital) setting. As in Experiment 1, we hypothesized that confederate trustees described as having personality pathology would be judged to be less trustworthy and given smaller investments from participant investors in comparison to those described as having no pathology. We also hypothesized that confederates who smiled would be judged as more trustworthy and given larger investments in comparison to those who displayed a neutral expression. Also, as in Experiment 1, we examined the combined effects of personality and smiles to explore potential interactions.

Materials and methods

Participants

An additional two hundred and eighty-three participants (167 male, 114 female and 2 identifying as other) were recruited using MTurk. Participants’ self-reported age ranges were between: 18–24 (7.8%), 25–34 (49.5%), 35–44 (26.1%), 45–54 (10.2%), 55–64 (4.6%), and 65–74 (1.8%). Participant’s self-reported races were Caucasian (79.9%), African-American (10.2%), Asian (6.7%), and other (3.2%).

Trust game

Participants in Experiment 2 followed the same procedure as those in Experiment 1. Only the personality vignettes differed (see below).

Vignettes

As in Experiment 1, participants were randomly presented with a single vignette purportedly describing the trustee paired with a video clip displaying their facial expression. These modified vignettes aimed to represent a qualitatively different phenotype with a level of severity and psychosocial functioning comparable to those used in Experiment 1. The vignette portraying borderline personality disorder read as follows:

Kaci is a 25-year-old woman who has had several intense and stormy relationships within the past year. They all seem to follow the same pattern. Kaci shifts between thinking that her partner is the best person in the world to quickly hating everything about him. During these relationships, she often becomes intensely angry and has even gotten into physical fights with her partner. These episodes are followed by a strong fear that the person will leave without warning, never to return. After the relationships end, Kaci often feels profoundly empty and lonely. And, as a result, doesn’t have a strong sense of who she is when she’s not with someone. When things are most difficult, she often seems “vacant” to others. She also has superficial cuts along her forearms and wrists.

The vignette portraying antisocial personality disorder read as follows:

Tammy is a 25-year-old woman who has a long-standing pattern of disregard for the rights of others. She was recently arrested for attempting to con an acquaintance out of several hundred dollars, by pretending to be a debt collector. When she was put on probation for the crime, she rationalized her behavior by stating that her acquaintance deserved it for being so gullible. She showed no remorse. This is not the first time that Tammy has been in trouble with the law. She has been arrested in the past for physical assault and theft. Much of the time these are the result of her impulsive and reckless behaviors. Tammy has not shown a consistent ability to sustain work and has several unpaid bills and debts to her name.

The control vignette was identical to that used in Experiment 1.

Results

Preliminary results

As a manipulation check, we first conducted a 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effects on participants’ ratings of the confederate’s perceived happiness. There was a significant main effect for personality, F(2, 277) = 3.91, p = .021, η2 = .027. Post hoc LSD tests revealed that participants who read the control vignette rated the person depicted in the vignette as significantly more happy than participants who read the borderline vignette, mean difference = .57 (SE = .20); p = .006, 95% CI = [.17, .97]. Participants who read the control vignette also rated the person depicted in the vignette as significantly more happy than participants who read the antisocial vignettes, mean difference = .43 (SE = .20); p = .035, 95% CI = [.03, .84]. However, there was no significant different between participants who read the borderline vignette and those who read the antisocial vignette, mean difference = -.13 (SE = .21), p = .516, 95% CI = [-.54, .27].

There was also a significant main effect for facial expression, F(1, 277) = 430.38, p < .001, η2 = .608. Averaged across personality vignettes, perceived happiness ratings were higher among those who viewed the smile (M = 5.42, SD = 1.40), compared to those who viewed the neutral expression (M = 1.95, SD = 1.43). There was no significant personality by expression interaction, F(2, 277) = 0.192, p = .825, η2 = .001.

Primary results

The data of interest are shown in Fig 2. A 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects on participants’ investments. There was a significant main effect of personality, F(2, 277) = 17.15, p < .001, η2 = .110. Post hoc LSD tests revealed that participants who read the control vignette invested significantly more (32.57 cents, SD = 17.94) than participants who read the borderline vignette (26.71 cents, SD = 20.31), mean difference = 5.87; SE = 2.76; p = .034, 95% CI for the mean difference = [0.44, 11.29]). They also invested significantly more (mean difference = 16.15; SE = 2.78; p < .001, 95% CI for the mean difference = [10.68, 21.62]) after reading the control vignette than they did after reading the antisocial vignette where the mean investment was only 16.42 cents (SD = 19.37). There was also a significant mean difference of 10.28 (SE = 2.79) between the investments made by participants who read the borderline vignette in comparison to those who read the antisocial vignette, p < .001, 95% (CI) for the mean difference = [4.80, 15.76].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is pone.0234574.g002.jpg

Open in a separate window Fig 2 Money invested (in cents) by vignette and facial expression, Experiment 2.

BPD = borderline personality disorder. ASPD = antisocial personality disorder.

There was also a significant main effect of expression, F(1, 277) = 8.06, p = .005, η2 = .028. Averaged across personality vignettes, investments were higher among those who viewed the smile (M = 28.67, SD = 19.59) compared to those who viewed the neutral expression (M = 22.10, SD = 20.49). There was no significant personality by facial expression interaction, F(2, 277) = 0.167, p = .846, η2 = .001.

General discussion

In two experiments, we examined the effects of information about a partners’ personality and facial expression on prosocial behavior in a trust game. Results of both experiments supported our hypotheses when comparing participants’ behavior in response to the control and borderline vignettes. When displaying either a neutral expression or a smile, participants made smaller investments towards those described as having borderline personality disorder in comparison to those described as having no personality pathology. In addition, if the person they believed they were interacting with was described as having either borderline personality pathology or no personality pathology, participants made larger investments to confederates displaying a smile versus a neutral expression. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that knowledge of a partner’s borderline pathology decreases prosocial behavior [1, 2] whereas the presence of smiles increases prosocial behavior [8–10].

Interestingly, results were not entirely consistent with our hypotheses when comparing participants’ behavior in response to the control and antisocial vignettes. In Experiment 1, we found that the effects of facial expression varied depending on whether or not the vignette described antisocial personality traits. More specifically, if their partner was described as having antisocial traits, the presence of a smile decreased how much participants were willing to invest. In contrast, if the partner was described as having no antisocial traits, a smile increased participant’s investments. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that knowledge of a partner’s antisocial personality pathology decreases prosocial behavior [1, 2]. However, it specifies a caveat to previous research demonstrating that smiles increase prosocial behavior. These results suggest that this may only be the case when specific information regarding personality pathology does not explicitly counter judgements of trustworthiness. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical evidence demonstrating such an effect of felt smiles.

This effect, however, was not replicated in Experiment 2. Here, the results showed only main effects for personality and facial expression. That is, participants made smaller investments towards those described as having antisocial personality disorder in comparison to those described as having no pathology across facial expressions. Furthermore, participants made larger investments towards those displaying a smile in comparison to a neutral expression across personality vignettes. It is possible that the decrease in trust associated with smiling in the context of antisocial traits in Experiment 1 represents a Type 1 error. Another possibility is that differences in the findings from Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 are a result of differences in the features of antisocial personality disorder that are described in the two vignettes. In other words, heterogeneity in antisocial pathology may play a key role in determining whether smiling facilitates or diminishes trust. Antisocial phenotypes containing information about conning others (as was the case in Experiment 1) may not only diminish trust but also make people inclined to view smiling in this context with some degree of suspicion. In such contexts, the degree of suspicion can result in a decrease in prosocial behavior above and beyond those seen in borderline pathology. Future research should explore this possibility by systematically varying the specific diagnostic features present in personality vignettes.

These effects may impact the interpersonal functioning of individuals with personality pathology. Smiling may be an important component for individuals with borderline pathology who aim to be perceived as trustworthy and elicit prosocial behavior. Within the context of borderline pathology, a smile is perceived as a signal of increased trustworthiness. However, this same component could have either positive or negative effects on psychosocial functioning for individuals with antisocial pathology. Within the context of antisocial pathology, a smile can be perceived as a signal of increased trustworthiness or an intent to behave dishonestly. Taken together, these findings speak to the importance of both expressive characteristics and specific diagnostic features in the study of interpersonal functioning in personality pathology. Each plays an important role in affecting social interactions that may nuance future research studies and psychosocial interventions.

These results must be interpreted within the context of limitations. Although we believe our vignettes were successful in conveying personality pathology, they may not reflect real-world encounters characterized by incomplete information and where individuals may have the opportunity to actively manage impressions. That is, it is possible that individuals with borderline and/or antisocial personality pathology would present themselves in ways that elicit behavioral responses that differ from those in our findings. Similarly, we examined behavior in a one-shot, as opposed to an iterated, game. As such, it remains to be seen how these behaviors might change over time in the context of more frequent interactions and experiences with a partner. Additionally, we did not collect any information on the personality pathology of the participants themselves. This would allow for the examination of the ways that individuals with specific personality pathology behave towards others with specific personality pathology. Finally, although we have no reason to believe otherwise, we did not confirm whether participants believed they were participating with a real person.

Our findings speak not only to the combined effects of knowledge regarding personality pathology and facial expression on prosocial behavior, but also demonstrate the promise held in integrating research in behavioral economics and psychological science. Future research integrating findings from each field can shed further light on the independent and combined effects of personality, emotion, signaling, and judgment on prosocial behavior. They might also lead to innovations within each field that yield further novel research findings.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

Our data are publicly available here: https://osf.io/yzrvs/?view_only=8878cda15a6242599fd3fbde8de40454.

References

1. Reed LI, Best CK, Hooley JM. Cooperation with characters: How a partner's personality disorder decreases cooperation in two economic games. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018. May 1;126:33–7. [Google Scholar] 2. Reed LI, Harrison EG, Best CK, Hooley JM. Bargaining with characters: How personality pathology affects behavior in the ultimatum and dictator games. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019. April 1;140:65–9. [Google Scholar] 3. Unoka Z, Seres I, Aspan N, Bódi N, Kéri S. Trust game reveals restricted interpersonal transactions in patients with borderline personality disorder. Journal of personality disorders. 2009. August;23(4):399–409. 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.399 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 4. King-Casas B, Sharp C, Lomax-Bream L, Lohrenz T, Fonagy P, Montague PR. The rupture and repair of cooperation in borderline personality disorder. science. 2008. August 8;321(5890):806–10. 10.1126/science.1156902 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 5. Rilling JK, Glenn AL, Jairam MR, Pagnoni G, Goldsmith DR, Elfenbein HA, et al. Neural correlates of social cooperation and non-cooperation as a function of psychopathy. Biological psychiatry. 2007. June 1;61(11):1260–71. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.07.021 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 6. Mokros A, Menner B, Eisenbarth H, Alpers GW, Lange KW, Osterheider M. Diminished cooperativeness of psychopaths in a prisoner's dilemma game yields higher rewards. Journal of abnormal psychology. 2008. May;117(2):406 10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.406 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 7. Mehu M, Little AC, Dunbar RI. Duchenne smiles and the perception of generosity and sociability in faces. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology. 2007. March 1;5(1):183–96. [Google Scholar] 8. Brown WM, Moore C. Smile asymmetries and reputation as reliable indicators of likelihood to cooperate: An evolutionary analysis In11; 3 2002. Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar] 9. Scharlemann JP, Eckel CC, Kacelnik A, Wilson RK. The value of a smile: Game theory with a human face. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2001. October 1;22(5):617–40. [Google Scholar] 10. Reed LI, Zeglen KN, Schmidt KL. Facial expressions as honest signals of cooperative intent in a one-shot anonymous Prisoner's Dilemma game. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2012. May 1;33(3):200–9. [Google Scholar] 11. Reed LI, Stratton R, Rambeas JD. Face value and cheap talk: How smiles can increase or decrease the credibility of our words. Evolutionary Psychology. 2018. November 28;16(4):1474704918814400 10.1177/1474704918814400 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 12. Mehu M, Grammer K, Dunbar RI. Smiles when sharing. Evolution and Human behavior. 2007. November 1;28(6):415–22. [Google Scholar] 13. Brown WM, Palameta B, Moore C. Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm. Evolutionary Psychology. 2003. January 1;1(1):147470490300100104. [Google Scholar] 14. Oda R, Yamagata N, Yabiku Y, Matsumoto-Oda A. Altruism can be assessed correctly based on impression. Human Nature. 2009. September 1;20(3):331–41. [Google Scholar] 15. Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and economic behavior. 1995. July 1;10(1):122–42. [Google Scholar] 16. Brülhart M. and Usunier J.C., 2012. Does the trust game measure trust?. Economics Letters, 115(1), pp.20–23. [Google Scholar] 17. Cox J.C., 2004. How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and economic behavior, 46(2), pp.260–281. [Google Scholar] 18. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. [Google Scholar] 19. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?. 2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 20. Horton JJ, Rand DG, Zeckhauser RJ. The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental economics. 2011. September 1;14(3):399–425. [Google Scholar] 21. Camerer C, Weigelt K. Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 1988. January 1:1–36. [Google Scholar] 22. Race M, Furnham A. Mental Illness at Work: A manager’s guide to identifying, managing and preventing psychological problems in the workplace Springer; 2014. June 29. [Google Scholar] 23. Millon T, Millon CM, Meagher SE, Grossman SD, Ramnath R. Personality disorders in modern life. John Wiley & Sons; 2012. June 12. [Google Scholar] 24. Cohn JF, Ekman P. Measuring facial action. The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research. 2005:9–64. [Google Scholar] 25. Ekman P, Friesen WV. Facial action coding systems. Consulting Psychologists Press; 1978. [Google Scholar] 26. Ekman P, Friesen WV, Hager JC. Facial action coding system: The manual on CD ROM. A Human Face, Salt Lake City. 2002:77–254. [Google Scholar] 27. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics. 1977. March 1:159–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234574.

Decision Letter 0

2020; 15(6): e0234574. Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234574.r001

Decision Letter 0

Robert Didden, Academic Editor Copyright and License information Disclaimer Copyright © 2020 Robert Didden This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

2 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-06257

In Smiles We Trust? Smiling in the Context of Antisocial and Borderline Personality Pathology

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reed,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In the revision, attention should be given to lack of study rationale and hypothesis and relevant analyses, for example, Reviewer 1 suggested to use one 2x3 Anova. Please also clarify issues regarding the vignettes and how these were altered in Exp 2. Also consider comparing BPD to APD as suggested by Reviewer 2. Both reviewers provide suggestions of topics that should be addressed in the Discussion section.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 17 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Didden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors conduct two experimental studies, using MTurk samples, of how much trust individuals have in others who display traits of borderline or antisocial PD vs. ostensibly non-impaired control others. They find main effects of personality pathology and of whether the ostensible targets are smiling, and in one case an interaction with theoretically interesting implications (although this does not replicate). Strengths of the manuscript include a straightforward design and an attempt to conceptually replicate an initial finding. I did have a few concerns to note:

1. The authors had seemingly no a priori hypotheses about the interaction of personality pathology and smiling on perceived trustworthiness. This is a puzzle, because they naturally test this interaction as a part of their analyses (and indeed interaction effects are one of the motivations for conducting a two-way ANOVA in the first place, as opposed to separate t-tests). I do not suggest that they invent a hypothesis now on a post hoc basis, just that it would have been preferable if they had considered this.

2. It would help to have more detail about how the borderline and antisocial vignettes were altered for experiment 2. The authors say only that each vignette “portray[s] another phenotype with several defining features of that personality disorder functioning outside of a hospital setting,” but the nature of the changes is not clear. Are fewer features of the disorder described? A lower severity? A qualitatively different phenotype? These details are important to help the reader interpret differences in results between the two experiments.

3. I would prefer it if the authors did one 2 x 3 ANOVA for each experiment rather than two 2 x 2 ANOVAs. Not only will this help the inferential statistics line up with the Figures, but this will also help them manage Type I error as well as permit a direct comparison of BPD and ASPD conditions.

4. A limitation of the study not noted by the authors was that the trust game was a one-shot proposition and not iterated. Thus, we don’t know how these interactions might play out in the long term.

5. Do the authors have any idea whether the deception that the targets were real individuals was credible to the participants? This would seem to be an important thing to check for, perhaps during debriefing. If they know this, they should report it. If they don’t, this is a major limitation of the study.

6. Error bars should be added to each figure.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “In smiles we trust? Smiling in the context of antisocial and borderline personality pathology” examined the extent to which smiles and personality pathology individually and concurrently contribute to trust in the trust game. The study benefitted from a number of strengths including two large samples with similar but slightly different experimental designs. Below I will address my concerns.

Introduction

-I suggest the authors provide a concrete rationale for the examination of borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Given that the studies mentioned by Reed and colleagues (2018) suggest that behavior changes across a number of personality disorders, could the authors more concretely state the reasons behind the examination of borderline and antisocial alone.

- I wonder if the authors could flesh out why examining the associations between personality pathology, smiling, and trust is an important area of inquiry. I think the introduction nicely lays out why there is theoretical reason to believe that there may be a discrepancy between personality pathology and trust, but could the authors also address how this will impact the study of personality disorders? For example, what impact will this have on how we think about social interactions for personality disorders? Diagnostic features? Etc.

-Perhaps components of the paragraphs between experiment 1 and experiment 2 should be moved to the introduction.

-did the authors have any hypotheses regarding whether smiling + personality pathology versus smiling + no personality pathology would lead to differences in trustworthiness? Or was this part of the study exploratory? Either way, this should be stated.

-do the authors have a rationale for why they chose the trust game as opposed to another gaming paradigm? Could they emphasize why they made this choice? Does it capture a specific social preference beyond other gaming paradigms? Has it been shown to more strongly relate to trustworthiness than others?

Method

-were participants led to believe their take-home pay was impacted by offer exchanges? Or were they told ahead of time that it would have no impact on their pay for the experiment?

Results

-All results include comparison of borderline personality disorder to no personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder to no personality disorder. Results comparing borderline personality disorder to antisocial personality disorder should also be conducted. This would have important implications for diagnosis, as the authors suggest in the discussion.

Discussion

-Given that a main component of the study was to examine the effect of smiling with and without a believed personality disorder, the authors should address what it means to smile in the context of personality disorders. For example, if individuals with borderline personality pathology strive to be viewed as more trustworthy, smiling may be an important component. The same might not be true for individuals with antisocial personality pathology.

-the point of heterogeneity within personality disorder diagnosis is an important one and should be fleshed out. This point would also be stronger if the authors could claim that the antisocial traits in experiment one contribute to a lack of trustworthiness above and beyond the borderline personality disorder features.

-in a similar vein, including this comparison would allow the researchers to discern whether the instability (as described in borderline personality disorder vignette) is viewed as entirely different than deceiving others (as described in the antisocial vignette) and what this means about trust.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: William D Ellison

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234574.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

2020; 15(6): e0234574. Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234574.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 May 2020

May 11, 2020

Dr. Robert Didden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Didden,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, “In Smiles We Trust? Smiling in the context of antisocial and borderline personality pathology” (PONE-D-20-06257). Both reviewers have raised important points. We are grateful for their thoughtful feedback.

We have revised the manuscript incorporating the suggestions of both reviewers to the best of our ability. We believe the manuscript is now considerably improved as a result. Specific details of the revisions are detailed below.

We thank you again for your helpful comments and suggestions. We hope the changes that have been made meet with your approval. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Lawrence Ian Reed, Ph.D.

Ashley K. Meyer

Sara J. Okun

Cheryl K. Best

Jill M. Hooley

Reviewer #1

Our examination of the combined effects of personality and expression were exploratory. We have now explicitly stated this.

New text (p. 6):

“Finally, we examined the combined effects of personality and smiles to explore potential interactions.”

New text (p. 14):

“Also, as in Experiment 1, we examined the combined effects of personality and smiles to explore potential interactions.”

We agree that these differences are critical in the motivation and results for Experiment 2. In response, we have added prose describing the aim of these vignettes.

New text (p. 15):

“These modified vignettes aimed to represent a qualitatively different phenotype with a level of severity and psychosocial functioning comparable to those used in Experiment 1.”

We agree with Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2 (see Reviewer #2’s 7th point below) regarding the analyses. In response, we have now conducted a 3 (personality) by 2 (expression) ANOVA as the primary analyses in Experiments 1 and 2. This is now more consistent with the figures and allows for the comparison of investments among those who read the borderline and antisocial vignettes.

Old text:

“A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing those who read the neutral and borderline vignettes revealed a significant main effect for personality disorder F(1, 171) = 10.66, p = .001, η2 = .059, indicating that participants transferred less money to the confederate after reading the borderline vignette compared to the control vignette. There was also a significant main effect for facial expression F(1, 171) = 3.21, p = .016, η2 = .033 indicating that participants gave more money after viewing the smiling clip than they did after viewing the neutral expression clip. There was no significant interaction, F(1, 171) = 0.04, p = .843, η2 < .001.

Among those who read the antisocial personality disorder vignette, participants shared an average of 23.67 (SD = 21.37) if they viewed the neutral clip and 16.78 (SD = 19.07) if they viewed the smiling clip. A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA comparing those who read the neutral and antisocial vignettes revealed a significant main effect for personality disorder F(1, 171) = 21.25, p < .001, η2 = .111 indicating that participants gave less to the confederate after reading the antisocial vignette in comparison to the control vignette. There was no significant main effect for facial expression F(1, 171) = 0.04, p = .852, η2 < .001. However, these results were qualified by a significant interaction, F(1, 171) = 4.96, p = .027, η2 = .028, indicating that the effects of expression were dependent upon which vignette the participant read. More specifically, participants who viewed the smiling clip offered more money if they read the control vignette but offered less money if they read the antisocial vignette.”

New text (p. 12/13):

“A 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of personality and facial expression on participants’ investments. There was a significant main effect of personality, F(2, 256) = 11.67, p < .001, η2 = .084, but no significant main effect of expression, F(1, 256) = 0.73, p = .394, η2 = .003. These main effects were also qualified by a significant interaction, F(2, 256) = 3.82, p = .023, η2 = .029.

The significant personality by expression interaction effect was analyzed using a simple main effects analysis. Among participants who viewed the neutral expression, investments did not significantly differ across personality vignettes F(2, 256) = 2.843, p = .060, η2 = .022, although investments in partners depicted with features of borderline or antisocial personality were lower (21.44 cents; SD=17.66 and 23.66 cents; SD = 21.37 respectively) than they were for the control vignette (30.47 cents; SD= 18.65). However, if participants viewed the smile, investments differed significantly across the personality vignettes, F(2, 256) = 12.967, p < .001, η2 = .092. Post-hoc LSD tests revealed that, after having viewed a smile, participants who read the control vignette invested more (36.39 cents; SD=16.7) than participants who read the borderline vignette (28.30 cents; SD= 16.35), mean difference = 7.99, SE = 3.87; p = .040, 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference = [0.37, 15.62]. They also invested significantly more (mean difference = 19.51; SE = 3.85; p < .001, 95% CI for the mean difference = [11.93, 27.30]) after reading the control vignette than they did after reading the antisocial vignette where the mean investment was only 16.78 cents (SD=19.07). There was also a significant mean difference of 11.52 (SE = 3.87) between the investments made by participants who read the borderline vignette in comparison to those who read the antisocial vignette, p = .003, 95% (CI) for the mean difference = [3.89, 19.15]. After having viewed a smile, participants gave less money to the person depicted in the antisocial vignette compared to the person depicted in the borderline vignette. The data of interest are presented in Figure 1.

Results from Experiment 1 suggest that both knowledge of a partner’s personality pathology and facial expression affect trust. This is consistent with previous behavioral work examining personality pathology (Reed, et al., 2018; Reed, et al., 2018) and smiles (Brown & Moore, 2002; Mehu, et al., 2007; Reed, et al., 2012; Scharlemann, et al., 2001) in economic games. In response to the borderline personality disorder vignette, these effects were independent. However, in response to the antisocial personality disorder vignette, the effects combined to create an antagonistic interaction.”

Old text:

“A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA comparing those who read the neutral and borderline vignettes revealed a significant main effect for personality disorder F(1, 191) = 5.55, p = .034, η2 = .024, indicating that participants shared less with the confederate after reading the borderline vignette in comparison to reading the control vignette. There was also a significant main effect for facial expression F(1, 191) = 7.07, p = .009, η2 = .036 indicating that participants shared more after viewing the smiling clip than they did after viewing the neutral expression. There was no significant interaction, F(1, 191) = .059, p = .808, η2 < .001.

A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA comparing those who read the neutral and antisocial vignettes revealed a significant main effect for personality disorder F(1, 188) = 35.73, p < .001, η2 = .163, indicating that participants shared less with the confederate after reading the antisocial vignette in comparison to reading the control vignette. There was also a significant main effect for facial expression F(1, 188) = 5.54, p = .020, η2 = .029 indicating that participants shared more after viewing the smiling clip in comparison to viewing the neutral expression. There was no significant interaction, F(1, 188) = .353, p = .553, η2 = .002.”

“The data of interest are shown in Figure 2. A 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects on participants’ investments. There was a significant main effect of personality, F(2, 277) = 17.15, p < .001, η2 = .110. Post hoc LSD tests revealed that participants who read the control vignette invested significantly more (32.57 cents, SD = 17.94) than participants who read the borderline vignette (26.71 cents, SD = 20.31), mean difference = 5.87; SE = 2.76; p = .034, 95% CI for the mean difference = [0.44, 11.29]). They also invested significantly more (mean difference = 16.15; SE = 2.78; p < .001, 95% CI for the mean difference = [10.68, 21.62]) after reading the control vignette than they did after reading the antisocial vignette where the mean investment was only 16.42 cents (SD = 19.37). There was also a significant mean difference of 10.28 (SE = 2.79) between the investments made by participants who read the borderline vignette in comparison to those who read the antisocial vignette, p < .001, 95% (CI) for the mean difference = [4.80, 15.76].

Figure 2. Money invested (in cents) by vignette and facial expression, Experiment 2. BPD = borderline personality disorder. ASPD = antisocial personality disorder.

Considering the changes to our primary analyses in Experiments 1 and 2, we have also changed our preliminary analyses. Previously, and as we had for our primary analyses, we conducted separate 2 (expression) by 2 (personality) ANOVAs. One comparing those who read the control vignette with those who read the borderline vignette and a second comparing those who read the control vignette with those who read the antisocial vignette. Here, we have conducted a single 2 (expression) by 3 (personality) ANOVA in each experiment. We hope that you and the reviewers are amendable to this change.

Old text:

“As a manipulation check, we first compared participants’ ratings of the confederate trustee’s happiness between those who read the control vignette and those who read the borderline vignette. Among those who read the control vignette, participants’ happiness ratings were an average of 2.41 (SD = 1.31) if they viewed the neutral clip and 5.64 (SD = 1.17) if they viewed the smiling clip. Among those who read the borderline vignette, participants’ happiness ratings were an average of 2.05 (SD = 1.45) if they viewed the neutral clip and 5.55 (SD = 1.37) if they viewed the smiling clip. A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) analysis of variance ANOVA comparing those who read the neutral and borderline vignettes revealed no significant main effect for personality disorder, F(1, 171) = 1.38, p = .242. However, there was a significant main effect for expression, F(1, 171) = 280.35, p < .001, such that participants rated the smiling person as being happier. Personality did not significantly interact with expression, F(1, 171) = 0.46, p = .497.

We then compared participants’ ratings of the confederate trustee’s happiness between those who read the control vignette and those who read the antisocial vignette. For those who read the antisocial vignette, participants’ happiness ratings averaged 1.81 (SD = 1.06) if they viewed the neutral clip and 5.04 (SD = 1.72) if they viewed the smiling clip. A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) analysis of variance ANOVA comparing those who read the control and antisocial vignettes revealed significant main effects for personality disorder, F(1, 171) = 8.84, p = .003, and expression, F(1, 171) = 252.30, p < .001; the person depicted in the control vignette was rated as being happier than the person in the antisocial vignette and the smiling person was rated as being happier than the person with a neutral expression. Personality did not significantly interact with expression, F(1, 171) < 0.01, p = .982.”

New text (p. 11/12):

“As a manipulation check, we first conducted a 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effects on participants’ ratings of the confederate’s perceived happiness. There was a significant main effect for personality, F(2, 256) = 4.34, p = .014, η2 = .033. Post hoc LSD tests revealed no significant difference between participants who read the control vignette and those who read the borderline vignette, mean difference = .25 (SE = .21), p = .223, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [-.15, .66]. However, participants who read the antisocial vignette rated the person depicted in the vignette as significantly less happy than participants who read the control vignette (mean difference = .59; SE = .21; p = .005, 95% CI = [.18, .99)]. Ratings of perceived happiness did not differ significantly between participants who read the borderline vignette and those who read the antisocial vignette, mean difference = .33 (SE = .21), p = .109, 95% CI = [-.07, .74].

Old text:

“As a manipulation check, we first compared participants’ ratings of the confederate trustee’s happiness when they were exposed to the control vignette and the borderline vignette. Among those who read the control vignette, participants’ happiness ratings were an average of 2.21 (SD = 1.38) if they viewed the neutral clip and 5.79 (SD = 1.29) if they viewed the smiling clip. Among those who read the borderline vignette, participants’ happiness ratings were an average of 1.71 (SD = 1.09) if they viewed the neutral clip and 5.19 (SD = 1.42) if they viewed the smiling clip. A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA comparing those who read the neutral and borderline vignettes revealed a significant main effect for personality disorder, F(1, 191) = 8.522, p = .004. There was also a significant main effect for expression, F(1, 191) = 351.585, p < .001, such that participants rated the smiling person as being happier. Personality did not significantly interact with expression, F(1, 191) = .071, p = .791 in the prediction of confederate happiness.

We then compared participants’ ratings of the confederate trustee’s happiness between those who read the control vignette and those who read the antisocial vignette. For those who read the antisocial vignette, participants’ happiness ratings averaged 1.94 (SD = 1.72) if they viewed the neutral clip and 5.27 (SD = 1.45) if they viewed the smiling clip. A 2 (personality) x 2 (expression) ANOVA comparing those who read the control and antisocial vignettes revealed no significant main effect for personality disorder, F(1, 188) = 3.45, p = .065. However, there was a significant main effect for expression, F(1, 188) = 259.85, p < .001; the person depicted in the control vignette was rated as being happier than the person in the antisocial vignette and the smiling person was rated as being happier than the person with a neutral expression. Personality did not significantly interact with expression, F(1, 188) = .348, p = .556.”

New text (p. 15/16):

“As a manipulation check, we first conducted a 3 (personality) x 2 (expression) analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effects on participants’ ratings of the confederate’s perceived happiness. There was a significant main effect for personality, F(2, 277) = 3.91, p = .021, η2 = .027. Post hoc LSD tests revealed that participants who read the control vignette rated the person depicted in the vignette as significantly more happy than participants who read the borderline vignette, mean difference = .57 (SE = .20); p = .006, 95% CI = [.17, .97]. Participants who read the control vignette also rated the person depicted in the vignette as significantly more happy than participants who read the antisocial vignettes, mean difference = .43 (SE = .20); p = .035, 95% CI = [.03, .84]. However, there was no significant different between participants who read the borderline vignette and those who read the antisocial vignette, mean difference = -.13 (SE = .21), p = .516, 95% CI = [-.54, .27].

We agree with the reviewers point and have added this limitation to our discussion.

New text (p. 19):

“Similarly, we examined behavior in a one-shot, as opposed to an iterated game. As such, it remains to be seen how these behaviors might change over time.”

We asked participants for feedback after the debriefing and did not receive any comments that suggested they were doubtful they were participating with a real person. However, we did not confirm this and have thus listed it as a limitation in the discussion section.

New text (p. 19):

“Finally, otherwise we have no reason to believe they did not, we did not confirm whether participants believed they were participating with a real person.”

6. Error bars should be added to each figure.

We apologize for the oversight. We thank the reviewer for this comment and have added error bars to the revised figures.

Reviewer #2

1. I suggest the authors provide a concrete rationale for the examination of borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Given that the studies mentioned by Reed and colleagues (2018) suggest that behavior changes across a number of personality disorders, could the authors more concretely state the reasons behind the examination of borderline and antisocial alone.

We chose to investigate borderline and antisocial personality pathology because they have shown among the strongest effects in our previous studies on cooperation and bargaining. We have added prose to specify this.

New text (p. 5):

“The presence of borderline and antisocial personality pathology have among the strongest effects on cooperation and bargaining (Reed, et al., 2018; Reed, et al., 2018).”

2. I wonder if the authors could flesh out why examining the associations between personality pathology, smiling, and trust is an important area of inquiry. I think the introduction nicely lays out why there is theoretical reason to believe that there may be a discrepancy between personality pathology and trust, but could the authors also address how this will impact the study of personality disorders? For example, what impact will this have on how we think about social interactions for personality disorders? Diagnostic features? Etc.

In response, we have added prose to the discussion further highlighting the effects of specific diagnostic features and expressive characteristics in future studies and psychosocial interventions.

New text (p. 19):

“Taken together, these findings speak to the importance of both expressive characteristics and specific diagnostic features in the study of interpersonal functioning in personality pathology. Each plays an important role in affecting social interactions that may nuance future research studies and psychosocial interventions.”

3. Perhaps components of the paragraphs between experiment 1 and experiment 2 should be moved to the introduction.

In response, we have moved the following paragraph (previously located between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2) to the final paragraph in the introduction.

Moved text (p. 5):

“Both borderline and antisocial personality disorders are defined polythetically (i.e. a person must meet a minimum number of diagnostic criteria to warrant a diagnosis) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). As such, there exists a great deal of potential heterogeneity among individuals who are diagnosed with either form of personality disorder. To examine the potential effects of varying the presentation of personality pathology, we modified the personality disorder vignettes in a second experiment to portray another phenotype with several defining features of each personality disorder functioning in a community setting.

We have also moved the following paragraph (previously in the beginning of Experiment 2) to the end of Experiment 1.

Moved text (p. 13):

“Results from Experiment 1 suggest that both knowledge of a partner’s personality pathology and facial expression affect trust. This is consistent with previous behavioral work examining personality pathology (Reed, et al., 2018; Reed, et al., 2018) and smiles (Brown & Moore, 2002; Mehu, et al., 2007; Reed, et al., 2012; Scharlemann, et al., 2001) in economic games. In response to the borderline personality disorder vignette, these effects were independent. However, in response to the antisocial personality disorder vignette, the effects combined to create an antagonistic interaction.”

4. Did the authors have any hypotheses regarding whether smiling + personality pathology versus smiling + no personality pathology would lead to differences in trustworthiness? Or was this part of the study exploratory? Either way, this should be stated.

Please see the above response to Reviewer #1’s first comment above.

5. Do the authors have a rationale for why they chose the trust game as opposed to another gaming paradigm? Could they emphasize why they made this choice? Does it capture a specific social preference beyond other gaming paradigms? Has it been shown to more strongly relate to trustworthiness than others?

In response, we have added prose stating that we chose the trust game because it is a valid measure of trust that would yield data that is complementary to our previous works on personality pathology, facial expression, cooperation, and bargaining. We have also added two citations demonstrating that the trust game validly measures trust (as opposed to altruism).

New text (p. 5):

“We aimed to examine trust to further extend our previous research on personality pathology, facial expression, cooperation, and bargaining. Previous work has demonstrated that smiles increase prosocial behavior (Reed, et al., 2012). The presence of borderline and antisocial personality pathology also influences cooperation and bargaining behavior in those who play economic games with them (Reed, et al., 2018; Reed, et al., 2018). Here, we examined participants’ behavior in a one-shot Trust game towards confederates who varied in both personality pathology (using vignettes describing borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or no pathology) and facial expression (displaying either a neutral expression or a smile). We chose the one-shot trust game (Berg, et al., 1995) as it has been found to be a valid measure of trust (Brulhart & Usunier, 2012; Cox, 2004).”

6. Were participants led to believe their take-home pay was impacted by offer exchanges? Or were they told ahead of time that it would have no impact on their pay for the experiment?

Participants were told that the monetary payoffs they earned in the game would be paid to them in MTurk bonus payments before engaging in the task. We have now clarified the prose to reflect this.

Old text:

“Participants were paid $2.00 for completing the study. Importantly, participants were told that the monetary payoffs they earned in the game would be paid to them (via MTurk bonus payments).”

New text (p. 11):

“Participants were paid $2.00 for completing the study. Importantly, participants were told that the monetary payoffs they earned in the game would be paid to them (via MTurk bonus payments) before engaging in the task.”

7. All results include comparison of borderline personality disorder to no personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder to no personality disorder. Results comparing borderline personality disorder to antisocial personality disorder should also be conducted. This would have important implications for diagnosis, as the authors suggest in the discussion.

Please see the response to Reviewer #1’s 3rd point above.

8. Given that a main component of the study was to examine the effect of smiling with and without a believed personality disorder, the authors should address what it means to smile in the context of personality disorders. For example, if individuals with borderline personality pathology strive to be viewed as more trustworthy, smiling may be an important component. The same might not be true for individuals with antisocial personality pathology.

We agree. In response, we have added the following prose to the discussion.

New text (p. 18/19):

“These effects may impact the interpersonal functioning of individuals with personality pathology. Smiling may be an important component for individuals with borderline pathology who aim to be perceived as trustworthy and elicit prosocial behavior. Within the context of borderline pathology, a smile is perceived as a signal of increased trustworthiness. However, this same component could have either positive or negative effects on psychosocial functioning for individuals with antisocial pathology. Within the context of antisocial pathology, a smile can be perceived as a signal of increased trustworthiness or an intent to behave dishonestly.”

9. The point of heterogeneity within personality disorder diagnosis is an important one and should be fleshed out. This point would also be stronger if the authors could claim that the antisocial traits in experiment one contribute to a lack of trustworthiness above and beyond the borderline personality disorder features.

We agree that this is a crucial point. We have added a line of prose that expands upon the discussion of heterogeneity and alludes to the new findings from Experiment 1.

New text (p. 18):

“In such contexts, the degree of suspicion can result in a decrease in prosocial behavior above and beyond those seen in borderline pathology.”

10. In a similar vein, including this comparison would allow the researchers to discern whether the instability (as described in borderline personality disorder vignette) is viewed as entirely different than deceiving others (as described in the antisocial vignette) and what this means about trust.

We have included this comparison within the results of Experiment 1. Please see the response to Reviewer #1’s 3rd point above.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - 5-11-2020.docx

Click here for additional data file.(31K, docx)

PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234574.

Decision Letter 1

2020; 15(6): e0234574. Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234574.r003

Decision Letter 1

26 May 2020

PONE-D-20-06257R1

In Smiles We Trust? Smiling in the Context of Antisocial and Borderline Personality Pathology

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reed,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The revision has resulted in a much improved paper. I would be happy to accept your paper pending one very minor correction, that is adding error bars to the figures. In the response letter you responded that you have added error bars, but the reviewer (as well as myself) cannot see them in the uploaded file. See comment 6 from Reviewer #1. I would like to invite you to revise the paper one more time adding bars to the figures and submit.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Didden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded quite thoroughly to my earlier comments and suggestions. It does seem as though some of the edited sections are different between the revised manuscript and the cover letter, but it appears that the manuscript contains the more up-to-date or authoritative revisions (which again are acceptable).

My only remaining critique is that error bars still seem to be missing in the figures supplied with the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: William D Ellison

Reviewer #2: No

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234574.

Author response to Decision Letter 1

2020; 15(6): e0234574. Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234574.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

26 May 2020

May 26, 2020

Dr. Robert Didden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Didden,

We are delighted to hear that the revisions to our manuscript, “In Smiles We Trust? Smiling in the context of antisocial and borderline personality pathology” (PONE-D-20-06257) improved the paper. We have added the revised figures to include error bars to the current revision.

We thank you again for your helpful comments and suggestions and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Lawrence Ian Reed, Ph.D.

Ashley K. Meyer

Sara J. Okun

Cheryl K. Best

Jill M. Hooley

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers - 5-26-2020.docx

Click here for additional data file.(12K, docx)

PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234574.

Decision Letter 2

2020; 15(6): e0234574. Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234574.r005

Decision Letter 2

29 May 2020

In Smiles We Trust? Smiling in the Context of Antisocial and Borderline Personality Pathology

PONE-D-20-06257R2

Dear Dr. Reed,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.

With kind regards,

Robert Didden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: William D Ellison

PLoS One. 2020; 15(6): e0234574.

Acceptance letter

2020; 15(6): e0234574. Published online 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234574.r006

Acceptance letter

15 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-06257R2

In Smiles We Trust? Smiling in the Context of Antisocial and Borderline Personality Pathology

Dear Dr. Reed:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Robert Didden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science

Formats:

Article

PubReader

ePub (beta)

PDF (564K)

Citation

Support Center Support Center External link. Please review our privacy policy. NLM NIH DHHS USA.gov

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA

Policies and Guidelines | Contact statistics

Short Paper smile experiment

PMC

In smiles we trust? Smiling in the context of antisocial and borderline personality pathology

Lawrence Ian Reed

Ashley K. Meyer

Sara J. Okun

Cheryl K. Best

Jill M. Hooley

Associated Data

Abstract

In smiles we trust? The effects of antisocial and borderline personality pathology

Experiment 1

Materials and methods

Participants

Trust game

Game instructions

Vignettes

Facial expression stimuli

Results

Preliminary results

Primary results

Experiment 2

Materials and methods

Participants

Trust game

Vignettes

Results

Preliminary results

Primary results

General discussion

Funding Statement

Data Availability

References

Decision Letter 0

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Attachment

Decision Letter 1

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Attachment

Decision Letter 2

Acceptance letter

Formats:

Share