Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

The Humintell Blog January 6, 2026

Research: When High Blood Pressure Quietly Dampens the Face

Most of us think of emotional expression as something rooted in psychology—our thoughts, our feelings, our personality. But emerging research continues to remind us that the body and mind are tightly intertwined.

A new study, published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, offers compelling evidence that elevated blood pressure may actually mute our ability to express certain emotions on the face.

This work extends a growing line of research on Cardiovascular Emotional Dampening (CED). Previous studies have shown that individuals with higher blood pressure often struggle to recognize emotions in others.

But recognition is only half of the communication process. The other half—how well we express our own emotions—has received far less attention. Until now.

A First Look at Expression, Not Just Perception

To explore this expressive side of CED, researchers recruited adults across a range of blood pressure levels: normotensive, prehypertensive, and hypertensive.

Participants were asked to deliberately pose six basic emotions—happiness, anger, fear, sadness, disgust, and surprise—while being recorded.

What makes this study especially robust is that the researchers didn’t rely on just one method of evaluation.

Each expression was coded by both trained human raters and an automated facial-analysis system. This dual-approach allowed the team to capture subtle details in facial movement and emotional accuracy.

The results were striking.

High Blood Pressure, Lower Expressive Accuracy

Individuals with higher blood pressure consistently showed reduced accuracy when attempting to portray several negative emotions. Expressions of sadness, fear, and surprise were particularly affected. Their facial movements were often less pronounced, less coordinated, or did not match the emotion they were instructed to express.

Even more interesting, these expressive deficits were correlated with both systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels. In other words, as blood pressure climbed, expressive clarity tended to drop.

But one emotion stood out as the exception: happiness. Smiles, it seems, remained largely intact across blood-pressure groups. Positive facial expressions did not show the same dampening effect.

This asymmetry—preserved positive expressivity alongside muted negative expressivity—matches patterns seen in previous research on perception. People with higher blood pressure tend to have more difficulty recognizing negative emotions too. This new work suggests that the expressive channel may be shaped in a similar way.

Why Blood Pressure Would Affect the Face

At first glance, the idea that blood pressure could influence facial expressions sounds surprising. But the connection makes sense when viewed through the lens of embodiment and autonomic regulation.

Our emotional expressions depend on rapid, flexible coordination between the brain, autonomic nervous system, and facial musculature.

Elevated blood pressure is associated with reduced autonomic flexibility, altered baroreflex functioning, and changes in brain regions tied to emotion.

Together, these physiological shifts may blunt the body’s responsiveness—making expressions less intense or less accurately matched to the intended emotion.

In other words, emotional dampening may reflect a broader bodily pattern, rather than a conscious choice.

Implications for Emotional Communication

For those of us who study or teach nonverbal behavior, these findings highlight an important nuance.

When people express emotions weakly or unclearly, the first impulse may be to attribute meaning: Are they bored? Detached? Concealing something?

But this study suggests a different possibility—some individuals may be genuinely physiologically less expressive in certain emotional domains.

This is especially relevant in high-stakes interpersonal environments:

  • clinical interviews

  • security screenings

  • conflict-resolution settings

  • relationship communication

  • or any context requiring accurate emotional interpretation.

A muted expression of fear or sadness may reflect cardiovascular state, not emotional withholding.

This does not mean that facial expressions are unreliable. Rather, it underscores the role of individual differences—and why accurate emotion reading requires context, pattern recognition, and caution against over-interpretation.

Where the Research Is Heading

This study opens several important doors for future inquiry.

One question is whether these expressive differences appear in spontaneous emotional behavior, not just posed expressions. Real-world emotional reactions often rely on automatic facial-muscle activation, which may be even more susceptible to physiological influences.

Another question concerns other nonverbal channels. Prior research has shown that emotional dampening linked to elevated blood pressure can affect recognition of vocal and cross-modal cues as well. Whether expressive dampening extends to the voice, gestures, or posture remains to be seen.

Finally, researchers are beginning to wonder whether improving cardiovascular health—through stress reduction, exercise, or medical treatment—might help restore emotional clarity in recognition and expression. If so, the relationship between physiology and emotion may be more dynamic than previously thought.

The Takeaway

This new study adds an important piece to the puzzle of how our bodies shape our emotional world. Elevated blood pressure doesn’t only influence the heart and blood vessels—it may subtly influence the face we show to others.

For clinicians, trainers, and anyone committed to understanding nonverbal behavior, the message is clear: emotional expression is deeply embodied. And sometimes, behind a quiet or muted face, the physiology may be speaking louder than the expression itself.

Commentary from Dr. Matsumoto

There’s much to like about this study. Before I comment about the implications of its findings, however, I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss some questions about the methodology that I have.

First, I’m wondering how they measured accuracy of emotional expressions. Expression accuracy can be measured several different ways and the authors never explained that in detail. That type of detail is important in understanding how to interpret the findings, so I would have wanted more info about that.

Also, the study didn’t require participants to engage in an emotion recognition or perception task. That would have been important because the authors make interpretations about the associations between expressions and perceptions in the Discussion, along with their underlying neural processes. Without actual data about that, however, such interpretations rest on many assumptions and thus become quite speculative.

But let’s give on the methods issues for a moment and consider the implications of the findings, which are interesting and have strong implications for an understanding of the effects of high blood pressure on the neural pathways controlling facial expressions.

More generally, the findings raise questions about how other psychophysiological states impact expression and recognition, and why. Do these findings generalize to stress, neuropathies, or other medical conditions? And what do such effects mean about how humans are wired together, a question that we have so much left to explore.

All in all the study is quite thought provoking and should inspire more research like it in the future, integrating emotion, health, and neuropsychological topics.

Given the dismantling of Humpty Dumpty into many silos of academia for the past century, hopefully the future can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

The post Research: When High Blood Pressure Quietly Dampens the Face first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

Filed Under: Emotion, Science

The Humintell Blog December 10, 2025

Why Experiences Boost Happiness and Connection

Christmas Emotions and RitualsWe often hear that “money can’t buy happiness.” Yet a growing body of research suggests something more nuanced: how we spend our money matters.

According to new findings highlighted in Scientific American, spending on experiences—such as concerts, trips, meals, or classes—creates deeper feelings of connection, belonging, and well-being than spending on material goods.

This research is not only relevant to psychology—it also aligns closely with what we know about nonverbal behavior, body language, and how people build relationships through shared meaning.

If our experiences shape how we act, interact, and signal ourselves to others, then the choice between buying things and doing things may influence not just happiness, but how we show up socially and emotionally.

The Research: Experiences Foster Connection in Ways Objects Don’t

The research summarized by Scientific American draws from 13 experiments involving nearly 2,000 participants. In each study, people were asked to recall either a material purchase (like clothing or electronics) or an experiential purchase (like a trip or a live event).

Across the board, people who reflected on experiences reported:

  • Greater happiness and overall emotional satisfaction
  • A stronger sense of social connection, even to strangers
  • More feelings of similarity and kinship with others who had the same experience
  • Higher motivation to engage in social activities, rather than solitary ones

Crucially, these effects held true even when comparing “better” versus “worse” versions of the same purchase.

Someone who had a more expensive seat at a concert still felt connected to someone who went to the same event. But two people who bought the same type of physical product did not show the same bond.

Experiences, it seems, create shared identity in ways that objects cannot.

Why Experiences Create Stronger Bonds

Several psychological explanations help make sense of why experiences are so powerful for happiness and connection—and why this matters for reading people and understanding their nonverbal communication.

1. Experiences become part of identity

Experiences shape who we are. They influence our worldview, preferences, and the stories we tell. Because identity drives so much of our body language and nonverbal behavior—how we gesture, how we express emotion, how we communicate—shared experiences create an immediate sense of similarity and rapport.

2. Experiences reduce social comparison

Material goods tend to spark judgment and comparison (who has the newer phone, nicer car, more expensive bag). Experiences, by contrast, emphasize shared meaning rather than status. Even if two people had different versions of an experience, the common ground outweighs the differences.

3. Memories spark conversation and connection

Experiences give us stories, emotions, and moments we relive and retell. These memories fuel conversations and help people understand each other’s values—an important foundation for reading people accurately.

4. Experiences motivate social behavior

Reflecting on experiences seems to prime us toward sociability. People recalling experiential purchases expressed greater interest in spending time with others, engaging in group activities, and building relationships.

That matters because social motivation influences posture, eye contact, tone of voice, and other components of nonverbal communication that shape how others perceive us.

What This Means for Nonverbal Behavior and Reading People

christmas presents-presents-giftsFor those who study or work with nonverbal behavior, this research carries several implications:

  • Shared experiences shape expressive behavior. People who engage in more social experiences may display warmer body language, greater emotional openness, and clearer nonverbal signals.
  • Connection changes how we interpret others. When we feel a sense of similarity or shared identity, we tend to read facial expressions and nonverbal cues more accurately.
  • Experiences help people feel “seen.” Doing activities together creates opportunities for emotional expression—eye contact, laughter, touch, gestures—that deepen rapport.
  • Material purchases don’t have the same interpersonal ripple effects. A new gadget might boost short-term mood, but it doesn’t typically alter how people interact or how connection is communicated nonverbally.

In other words: experiences don’t just make us happier—they make us more attuned, expressive, and receptive in our relationships.

A Practical Takeaway: Choose Doing Over Having

If your goal is to increase happiness, improve relationships, or deepen your ability to connect and read people, the research is clear: invest in experiences, not objects.

Experiences:

  • Strengthen social bonds
  • Boost happiness more sustainably
  • Enhance nonverbal communication
  • Encourage openness and shared understanding
  • Build stories, not clutter

Whether it’s a trip, a workshop, a nature outing, or a live performance, what you do with others has far more impact on emotional well-being than what you own.

In a world where loneliness is rising, these findings offer hopeful clarity: connection is built in moments, not merchandise.

The post Why Experiences Boost Happiness and Connection first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

Filed Under: Emotion, Science

The Humintell Blog October 13, 2025

Detecting Deception or Suspecting Deception?

lying-deceit-deceptionIn a previous blog, we discussed the latest scientific understanding about behavioral indicators of deception.

As explained in that blog and the underlying article on which the blog was based, scientific research in the past two decades has made substantial advances in validating a set of behavioral indicators of veracity and deception.

This work was notable because there have been previous claims questioning the validity of nonverbal behavior to do so, most of which were based on a meta-analysis of studies on deception cues published in 2003.

The recent scientific article reviewed that meta-analysis, and the research conducted in the twenty years since, to re-characterize the state of the field more precisely.

Deception Leakage Across Multiple Channels

As the recent blog summarized, behavioral indicators to deception do exist and they occur in leakage across multiple channels of nonverbal behavior.

Thus, instead of looking for single cues of deception, noticing multiple, validated clues of deception in clusters of specific behaviors is likely more beneficial to spot potential deception.

Also, a point that is often missed in the discussion about behavioral cues to deception concerns the fact that some of those same nonverbal behaviors are important signs of other mental states – both emotions and cognitions.

Although disputes previously existed about whether deception cues exist, there is little debate about the fact that nonverbal behaviors signal specific emotions and cognitions.

These cues also aid interviewers in obtaining many different insights into the subjects of their interviews, much beyond deception. Knowing when a subject is happy or sad, excited or afraid, or has hidden thoughts of hostility should allow interviewers to obtain additional insights about their interviewees, making their interviews more accurate and efficient.

In this blog I’d like to go beyond the message in the previous blog and discuss what to do once you observe such behavioral indicators in the interview.

Behavioral Indicators, not Determinants

Let’s first start with this idea: behavioral indicators of deception are exactly that – indicators and not determinants. They indicate that something else is going on in the minds of the speakers above and beyond the words that are spoken.

When they occur, yes – some thought or feeling is “hidden” from view, and thus deceptive. But, whether that “something else” is deceptive about the topic you’re interested in or not is an open question.

After all, people have lots of things in their minds and verbalize only a portion of their mental contents, and people can choose not to be open about a topic for many reasons.

For example, if a person were asked about what they did since waking up, they might be deceptive about some details about their morning toilet routine.

  • They may be too embarrassed to give all specific details.
  • They make think you don’t want to know everything.
  • They may think you don’t need to know everything.
  • Or they don’t want you to know something.

It’s only that last one – they don’t want you to know something– that is the meaningful deception that we want to uncover. But one might observe behavioral indicators for each of these possibilities.

Thus, behavioral indicators of deception help us to suspect deception but should not be considered determinants of deception.

That is, one should not conclude that a person is being deceptive solely because they produced a behavior that has been empirically linked to deception. There’s no “aha!” or “gotcha!”

Further Discussion and Probing

Instead, my interpretation of behavioral indicators is that, when they occur, they open the possibility for further discussion and probing about that topic, sentence, or word.

By the way, this is true for the so-called cognitive or linguistic indicators of deception as well.

Inconsistent or irrelevant statements and illogical narratives may be deception indicators, but the seasoned interviewer or interrogator would not necessarily draw conclusions or make determinations of deception solely based on such observations.

Instead, those cognitive and linguistic indicators, like behavioral indicators, invite further discussion and dialogue.

Multiple Indicators are Better

And, as mentioned in the previous blog, multiple indicators are better. Sure, sometimes meaningful deception occurs with a single indicator.

But when multiple validated indicators are observed – whether behavioral, cognitive, linguistic, or better yet a combination of these (which is what we teach in our courses), that cluster of validated indicators will generally be more indicative of something meaningful being hidden.

At the same time, we can’t get distracted by unvalidated or non-validated indicators. The internet is replete with so many of these.

Non-validated indicators are those that have been tested scientifically but have not been found to be associated with deception.

The classic example of a non-validated indicator is the lack of eye contact. This is a myth that is believed by many people around the world; yet scientific research has tested this behavior and has not provided support for it.

Likewise, unvalidated behaviors are those that have never been formally tested in research. Don’t be distracted by either of these.

What to do once possible deception indicators occur?

Bias of ExpectationOne simple suggestion is to ask more questions about the specific statement, topic, or word on which the deception indicators – cognitive, linguistic, or behavioral – were observed. And then ask more questions and detail about the responses provided.

When there’s multiple topics, statements, or words on which deception indictors were observed, then ask more questions about each one.

Interviewers may want to consider prioritizing which topics, statements, or words to probe depending on the goals of the interview, which each interviewer should know before starting the interview.

Only after sufficiently exhausting this process and considering all other sources of evidence that one may have would the astute interviewer draw conclusions from the interview.

In my experience, one of two things will happen. Probing the indicators will lead to either a resolution of the issue or the uncovering of something meaningful that the subject has been deceptive about.

Seeing a flash of fear in a passenger in an airport checkpoint queue may lead to a discussion in which the passenger was worried about whether she turned off the lights on her car in the parking garage (resolution) or was carrying contraband (deception).

Conclusion

In my opinion, therefore, observing behavioral indicators allow keen interviewers to home in on possible statements, topics, and specific words on which to have extended dialogues in the effort to uncover ground truth.

Leveraging behavioral and other indicators of deception, and veracity, and other mental states in an interview is half the battle; the other half is knowing where to go and crafting good questions.

By engaging in this kind of systematic process, interviewers can leverage behavioral indicators to work systematically to find ground truth in every interview.

The post Detecting Deception or Suspecting Deception? first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

Filed Under: Deception

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 278
  • Next Page »

About

Welcome to an aggregator for blogs about social engineering and related fields. Feel free to take a look around, and make sure to visit the original sites.

If you would like to suggest a site or contact us, use the links below.

Contact

  • Contact
  • Suggest a Site
  • Remove a Site

© Copyright 2026 Social Engineering Blogs · All Rights Reserved ·