Smile, You’re on Camera: Investigating the Relationship between Selfie Smiles and Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study examined the relationship between (1) participant smiling in daily “selfie” videos and (2) self-reported distress. Given the extensive use of digital devices for sharing expressions of non-verbal behavior, and some speculation that these expressions may reveal psychological states—including emotional distress—we wanted to understand whether facial expression in these TikTok-like videos were correlated with standardized measures of psychological distress. Based on the work of Paul Ekman and others, which posits that facial expressions are universal reflections of people’s inner states, we predicted that smiling would be inversely related to psychological distress. Method: Twenty-four undergraduate students, aged 18+ years (M = 18.35, SD = 2.75), were prompted to record a two-minute selfie video each evening during two weeks of data collection (i.e., 14 total days). They were instructed to describe various aspects of their day. They also completed self-report questionnaires at the end of each assessment week, including the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Results: A counterintuitive effect was observed whereby smiling intensity during selfie videos was positively correlated with individual differences in anxiety, depression, and stress. Discussion: This study challenges the common view that facial expressions necessarily reflect our inner emotions. It provides preliminary evidence that a mobile sensing app that captures selfies—along with other naturalistic data—may help elucidate the relationship between facial expressions and emotions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".