INSIGHT: When Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t speaking, his face did the talking


Facial expressions and body movements, whether we make them knowingly or not, can persuade people.

As experts in political discourse and facial displays – how scientists often refer to facial expressions – we have analyzed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s five-hour Senate hearing on April 10. We looked at what kinds of questions senators asked and how Zuckerberg answered them.

What matters most in this kind of analysis is determining whether a person’s facial expressions are appropriate for what is being stated and whether their muscular movements reliably reflect their intentions.

COMMENTARY: The dark side of social media is data privacy.

While an individual may be smiling, that expression doesn’t always mean they are happy. They could be expressing sarcasm or politeness, depending on the context.

These facial clues can help viewers figure out whether a speaker – Zuckerberg in this case – is saying what he means. Zuckerberg was reserved but not impenetrable. His facial displays, while slight and subtle, were revealing.

Unenthusiastic frowning

Zuckerberg began his hearing with the senators by indicating he was not excited to be there.

Sen. Chuck Grassley opens questioning at Tuesday’s joint committee hearing in the Senate. NBC

Sen. Chuck Grassley opened the joint session by welcoming the CEO. During Grassley’s statements, Zuckerberg pulled the corners of his lips downward, a muscular movement associated with an encounter with something unpleasant. Even without a verbal response, we can already see Zuckerberg’s displeasure at sitting in front of the committee.

Amused smiling

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, complimented Zuckerberg by calling attention to his success, rhetorically asking if it could happen “only in America.” When Zuckerberg tried to tell the senator that there are successful Chinese tech companies, Sullivan jokingly told Zuckerberg that he is “supposed to answer yes to this question.”

In response, Zuckerberg gave an amused smile and laughed. Sullivan and much of the joint committee and the audience laughed too.

When laughing, the corners of Zuckerberg’s lips were pulled up and at an angle, the muscles around his eyes were contracted, and his jaw dropped.

INSIGHT: Six reasons why some users will never #DeleteFacebook.

The combination of these facial muscular movements show that a person is likely feeling amused. Between the jovial laughter shared between Zuckerberg and Sullivan, and Zuckerberg’s seemingly happy facial expression, he appears glad to be laughing at a comment at his own expense rather than taking hard questioning.

Some of Zuckerberg’s smiles were quite subtle throughout the hearing, but this smile indicated an exchange of humor.

Uncertain lip-pursing

Throughout the hearing, Zuckerberg is seen pursing and pulling his lips into his mouth, particularly when senators posed negatively framed questions.

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, asked about Zuckerberg’s accountability to the 87 million people whose information was breached by Cambridge Analytica, the incident which led to Zuckerberg’s appearance before Congress. The senator began with confrontational statements about Facebook’s “pattern of lax data practices” and asked Zuckerberg why Facebook hadn’t informed users about the breach when it happened.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: Viewpoints delivers the latest perspectives on current events. 

Zuckerberg pushed his lower lip upward and both lips together. This suggests he was feeling vexed about Nelson’s statement that “the recent scandal is frustrating not only because it affected 87 million, but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years.” This indicated a degree of anger – either at the question, the breach or both.

Zuckerberg did not provide a complete reply to Nelson’s question. By not completely answering the question, Zuckerberg’s tells us he doesn’t want to supply Nelson with a straightforward answer. Instead, he described the process Facebook went through to punish the developer who sold users’ personal information to Cambridge Analytica.

This moment revealed how the question of accountability is still a touchy point for him.

Stewart is an associate professor of political science at the University of Arkansas. Russell is an M.A. candidate.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: Educational fraud continues

Earlier this month, the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress, aka The Nation’s Report Card, was released. It’s not a pretty story. Only 37 percent of 12th-graders tested proficient or better in reading, and only 25 percent did so in math. Among black students, only 17 percent tested proficient or better in reading, and just...
Herman: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ignites war of words with N.J. governor
Herman: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ignites war of words with N.J. governor

Once again, a GOP leader, through the use of bellicose rhetoric, has talked us into a war of words with a foreign power with nukes and a hard-to-understand language. Let us hope this does not escalate into a war of weaponry. You’re thinking President Donald Trump vs. North Korea (which has nuclear weapons). I’m writing about Gov. Greg Abbott...
Letters to the editor: April 24, 2018
Letters to the editor: April 24, 2018

Re: April 22 commentary, “Castillo: Why the ‘hyphenated Americanism’ comment triggered outrage.” The creator of the saying “the law is what the judges say it is” might also have agreed that it is what five judges say it is — until five judges change their minds. So it is with history. The struggle to integrate...
Opinion: Remembering Barbara Bush, grieving mother

My mother and Barbara Bush were contemporaries. Despite coming from very different backgrounds — daughter of a Kansas farmer and daughter of a New York City businessman — they had a common experience, a very human link. It’s a sad connection that I suspect also has many a woman feeling fondly toward Bush, who died Tuesday at 92. Both...
Opinion: Paul Ryan is the ultimate party man

The mistake about Paul Ryan, the one that both friends and foes made over the years between his Obama-era ascent and his just-announced departure from the House speakership, was to imagine him as a potential protagonist for our politics, a lead actor in the drama of conservatism, a visionary or a villain poised to put his stamp upon the era. This Ryan-of-the-imagination...
More Stories