The Social Power of a Smile: Casual Greetings and Everyday Trust in Crowded Urban Spaces

Authors

  • Nur Aisyah Hamid Department of Social Work, University of Wollongong Malaysia, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
  • Ahmad Farhan Mohd Kamal Department of Social Work, University of Wollongong Malaysia, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
  • Mariam Mardhiah Mokhtar Department of Social Work, University of Wollongong Malaysia, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
  • Mohd Faizal Daud Department of Social Work, University of Wollongong Malaysia, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
  • Muhammad Arif Abdul Rahman Department of Social Work, University of Wollongong Malaysia, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53273/zxx99n10

Abstract

Urban life requires people to share streets, transit systems, markets, parks, and other public settings with large numbers of strangers. Although urban sociology has long examined the management of anonymity, less attention has been given to the smallest positive signals exchanged within it: a nod, smile, greeting, thank-you, or brief acknowledgment. This conceptual integrative review examines how such micro-interactions may contribute to everyday trust. Drawing on Goffman’s interaction order and civil inattention, Granovetter’s theory of weak ties, social capital theory, symbolic interactionism, and recent research on minimal social interaction, the paper synthesizes evidence from sociology, social psychology, urban studies, and public-space research. The review argues that casual greetings should not be treated as miniature friendships or as direct causes of generalized social trust. Instead, they operate as low-cost relational signals that acknowledge personhood, reduce uncertainty, communicate non-hostility, and create momentary experiences of belonging and safe passage. Repeated across familiar public settings, these signals may accumulate into interpersonal familiarity, perceived predictability, and bridging social capital. The paper also identifies important boundary conditions: cultural norms, gender and safety concerns, status differences, neighborhood design, perceived threat, and digital distraction can all alter whether a greeting is welcomed or avoided. The article proposes a micro-to-macro model in which greeting → recognition → affective safety/belonging → repeated familiarity → everyday trust. It concludes with a research agenda for observational, survey, experimental, and cross-cultural testing.

Keywords:

Casual greetings, stranger interaction, urban trust, public space, civil inattention, social capital, everyday urbanism

References

Aşçıgil, E., Günaydın, G., Selçuk, E., Sandstrom, G. M., & Aydın, E. (2025). Minimal social interactions and life satisfaction: The role of greeting, thanking, and conversing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(2), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231209793

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Bjørnskov, C. (2007). Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison. Public Choice, 130, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9069-1

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton University Press.

Erbaugh, M. S. (2008). China expands its courtesy: Saying “hello” to strangers. The Journal of Asian Studies, 67(3), 869–910.

Gao, T., Lim, S., & Yang, F. (2025). Space appropriation and interaction: How to promote social cohesion in high-density urban environments? Cities, 106338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106338

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Aldine.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Günaydın, G., Öztekin, H., Karabulut, D. H., & Salman-Engin, S. (2021). Minimal social interactions with strangers predict greater subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 1839–1853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00298-6

Hermanowicz, J. C. (2026). The kindness of strangers: On the social significance of evanescent interaction. Theory and Society, 55, Article 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-026-09739-2

Horgan, M. (2020). Urban interaction ritual: Strangership, civil inattention and everyday incivilities in public space. Pragmatics, 30(1), 116–141. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19022.hor

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.

Kang, C.-D., & Kim, H. (2018). Are perceived neighbourhood built environments associated with social capital? Evidence from the 2012 Seoul survey in South Korea. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(5), 893–915.

Kardas, M., Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2022). Overly shallow? Miscalibrated expectations create a barrier to deeper conversation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(10), 1445–1461. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211044285

Kwantes, C. T., Kuo, B. C. H., McMurphy, S., & Livingstone, J. (2025). Predictors of generalized trust: A cross-cultural study of Canada, China, Taiwan, and the US. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 47(6), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2025.2529512

Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546–1551. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546

Li, R.-N., et al. (2025). Explicit signals enhance social engagement between strangers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41531686/

McCaffree, K., & Shults, F. L. (2022). Distributive effervescence and social cohesion. Sociological Theory, 40(3), 220–242.

Mouratidis, K. (2021). Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities, 115, 103229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103229

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place. Paragon House.

Pusztai, V., & Kádár, D. Z. (2023). Civil inattention—On the sources of relational segregation. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1212090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1212090

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014a). Is efficiency overrated? Minimal social interactions lead to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613502990

Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014b). Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529799

Schutz, A. (1944). The stranger: An essay in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 49(6), 499–507.

Wood, L., Frank, L. D., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine, 70(9), 1381–1389.

Wood, L., Shannon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G., & Giles-Corti, B. (2012). Streets apart: Does social capital vary with neighbourhood design? Urban Studies Research, 2012, 507503. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/507503

Downloads

Published

10-09-2026

How to Cite

The Social Power of a Smile: Casual Greetings and Everyday Trust in Crowded Urban Spaces. (2026). Journal of Content Validation, 2(3), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.53273/zxx99n10

Similar Articles

1-10 of 13

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.