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.

The post Research: When High Blood Pressure Quietly Dampens the Face appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

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

For 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.

The post Why Experiences Boost Happiness and Connection appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

In a previous blog

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?

One 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.

The post Detecting Deception or Suspecting Deception? appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

Researchers recently discovered that elephants can deliberately use trunk gestures to ask humans for food, passing behavioral tests typically reserved for primates. It’s the first strong evidence of goal-directed gestural communication in a non-primate species.

For Humintell readers, this discovery opens a fascinating window into the comparative science of nonverbal behavior. It reminds us that many of the communicative principles we teach—audience awareness, persistence, adaptability—aren’t uniquely human. They’re part of a broader, evolutionary story about what it means to connect, signal, and understand.

Elephants with Intent

As Discover Magazine recently reported, scientists from the University of St. Andrews and the non-profit HERD Trust observed 17 semi-captive African elephants interacting with human handlers in South Africa.

During a food-request task, elephants gestured toward humans using their trunks, ears, and head movements—sometimes reaching, sometimes pointing, sometimes shaking their heads in apparent frustration. Across the trials, researchers recorded 313 individual gestures representing 38 gesture types, half of which were shared by multiple elephants.

To test whether these gestures were truly intentional, the scientists applied three well-established behavioral criteria:

1. Audience Awareness – Elephants gestured only when a person was present and paying attention.
2. Persistence – When their goal (getting apples) wasn’t met, they continued signaling.
3. Elaboration – If persistence failed, they changed their gestures—intensifying or switching tactics.

Passing all three tests, the elephants demonstrated what psychologists call goal-directed communication: a deliberate attempt to influence another’s behavior through nonverbal signals.

The Building Blocks of Communication

At Humintell, we define nonverbal communication as “all the ways people transmit information, intentions, and emotions without words.” Our research—like the elephants’ experiment—shows that nonverbal communication is intentional, context-sensitive, and adaptive.

In one of our earlier blogs, The Importance of Nonverbal Communication, Dr. David Matsumoto emphasized that nonverbal signals are not just accessories to language; they are the foundation of human interaction.

The new elephant findings extend that foundation across species, suggesting that the roots of nonverbal intelligence run much deeper in the animal kingdom than once thought.

Just as humans gesture when speaking, nod to indicate understanding, or persist in signaling when misunderstood, elephants appear to use similar principles to achieve shared goals.

Lessons from Comparative Communication

This research invites us to think more broadly about communication itself. When we compare how elephants and humans use gestures, several themes emerge that resonate with Humintell’s core teachings.

1. Audience Awareness

Elephants were selective about when they gestured—only when a human was watching. Similarly, in humans, nonverbal communication depends heavily on recipient design—we tailor gestures, tone, and facial expressions to fit the attention and awareness of our audience.

This mirrors what we’ve discussed in Nonverbal Cues in the 21st Century: that human communicators still rely on being physically seen and heard to make meaning. When that visual feedback disappears—as it often does in text or digital communication—our effectiveness drops.

2. Persistence and Adaptation

When elephants didn’t receive the full food reward, they didn’t give up—they persisted or elaborated their gestures. The same principle applies to human communicators: when a message doesn’t land, we often repeat, adjust, or escalate.

In our post Clusters of Nonverbal Behaviors Differentiate Truths and Lies, we explained that deception researchers observe not one “tell,” but clusters of adaptive behaviors. Like elephants combining trunk reach with gaze or ear motion, humans unconsciously combine signals to increase communicative precision. Both species show behavioral flexibility, an essential marker of communicative intelligence.

3. Context and Feedback

Communication—whether human or animal—relies on feedback loops. Each gesture is both a signal and a test: “Did this work?” When it doesn’t, a skilled communicator adapts.

This adaptability also connects with our observations in How Nonverbal Communication Is Going Digital. As communication migrates to digital platforms, we lose many feedback cues that guide adaptation—eye contact, body shifts, microexpressions. In contrast, the elephant experiment reminds us how vital feedback is. Without it, meaning collapses.

Bridging Species: The Evolution of Intentional Gesture

Historically, intentional gesturing has been considered a hallmark of primate and human communication. The fact that elephants—separated from us by 90 million years of evolution—use similar cognitive strategies suggests convergent evolution.

In other words, when a species lives in a complex social world, intentional signaling becomes useful, even necessary. Elephants live in tight matriarchal families, coordinate travel and caregiving, and exhibit empathy—conditions that favor the emergence of flexible communication systems.

From a comparative standpoint, this aligns perfectly with what Humintell teaches about humans: our nonverbal systems evolved to manage social complexity—to bond, persuade, warn, and coordinate.

Implications for Human Nonverbal Training

So what can humans learn from elephants about reading and sending nonverbal cues?

1. Observe Context First. The same gesture can mean different things depending on situation and relationship. In both elephants and humans, context determines meaning.
2. Look for Persistence. When someone repeats or intensifies a cue, it often signals goal-directed intent. Are they trying harder to be understood?
3. Notice Adaptation. Skilled communicators—like these elephants—adjust strategy when their first approach doesn’t succeed. In humans, this shows flexibility and emotional intelligence.
4. Don’t Over-Rely on Single Cues. Just as elephants combined trunk, head, and ear gestures, human messages emerge from clusters of cues. Interpret patterns, not snapshots.

These lessons echo our work across multiple research programs on nonverbal accuracy, emotion recognition, and deception detection. Whether studying human microexpressions or elephant trunk gestures, the underlying science is the same: communication is about intention meeting perception.

The Bigger Picture

The elephant study doesn’t just expand our understanding of animal cognition—it also offers a mirror for human communicators. It suggests that the ability to intentionally gesture, persist, and adapt is not an evolutionary accident but a universal principle of social life.

At Humintell, our mission has always been to help people become more accurate observers and interpreters of nonverbal behavior. This research reinforces that skill development in humans taps into something deeply natural.

Just as elephants use gestures to connect with us, we use gestures—often unconsciously—to connect with one another. Both acts rest on the same foundation: a desire to be understood.

Final Thought

The next time you raise your hand, nod to a colleague, or gesture to emphasize a point, remember—you’re drawing from an ancient communicative toolkit shared with species far older than ours.

And if an elephant ever waves its trunk in your direction, it might just be saying, “Can you hear me?”—without uttering a sound.

Sources:

Discover Magazine (2024). Elephants Use Non-Verbal Gestures to Ask Humans for Food—A First in Non-Primates.

Scientific Reports (2024). Evidence for Intentional Gestural Communication in African Elephants.

The post What Elephants Teach Us About Intentional Gestures first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The post What Elephants Teach Us About Intentional Gestures appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

Autism and Facial Expressions: What We Often Miss

Facial expressions are the universal language of emotion. But for many autistic individuals, their emotional signals can be so subtle they go unnoticed.

A recent study from Rutgers University shows that tiny facial micromovements—invisible to the naked eye—carry rich emotional meaning.

This discovery reshapes how we understand autism and nonverbal communication, revealing that the emotional intent is there, but often hidden beneath the surface.

What Are Micromovement Spikes?

Researchers, led by Dr. Elizabeth Torres at Rutgers–New Brunswick’s Sensory Motor Integration Lab, identified micromovement spikes—rapid, faint muscle activations in the face.

Unlike traditional microexpressions, which last fractions of a second, micromovement spikes are subtler and harder to detect without technology.

The study found:

• Autistic and neurotypical individuals both use the same facial muscles.

• In autistic participants, expressions were often lower in intensity and fell outside the “culturally familiar range” people recognize.

• Factors like age and sex influenced micromovement patterns, adding another layer of complexity.

How the Research Was Conducted

The team used a surprisingly simple method:

1. Recorded 5- to 6-second video clips on smartphones or tablets.

2. Applied advanced statistical and nonlinear dynamics tools.

3. Detected subtle micromovement spikes during expressions such as smiling or surprise.

This approach makes the findings highly practical for real-world use, from therapy to everyday interactions.

Why This Matters: Autism Communication and Connection

Misinterpreting—or missing—emotional cues in autism can lead to social disconnection and stigma.

This research suggests that by learning to detect micromovement spikes, caregivers, therapists, and educators can:

• Better recognize emotions in autistic individuals.

• Respond with empathy and accuracy.

• Foster stronger social inclusion and understanding.

Future tools, such as apps that analyze micromovements in real time, may become emotional translators, helping bridge communication gaps.

Humintell’s Perspective

At Humintell, our mission is to help people recognize microexpressions and nonverbal cues to improve emotional intelligence and empathy.

This research aligns perfectly with that mission, reminding us that:

• Emotional expression exists in everyone.

• Sometimes, it just takes new methods—and greater awareness—to see it.

Key Takeaways on Autism and Micromovements

The post Autism and Facial Micromovements Explained first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The post Autism and Facial Micromovements Explained appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

When it comes to understanding violent or aggressive behavior, we often focus on psychology or environment. But there’s a hidden factor most people overlook: diet.

Read: Another perspective on understanding anger

Recent studies suggest that junk food consumption can influence emotional stability, aggression, and even violent tendencies—especially among teens and young adults.

In this article, we explore what the science says about the link between junk food and violent behavior and what you can do about it.

How Junk Food Affects Brain Health and Emotional Regulation

Junk food is typically high in:

• Refined sugar
• Saturated fats
• Artificial additives
• Salt and preservatives

It is low in essential nutrients like:

• Omega-3 fatty acids
• Magnesium, zinc, and iron
• Vitamins B6, B12, D, and folate

These nutrients are critical for brain function and impulse control.

Without them, people—especially adolescents—are more prone to irritability, emotional instability, and impulsive behavior.

Research-Backed Evidence Connecting Junk Food and Aggression

1. Ultra-Processed Foods and Bullying in Teens

A large-scale Brazilian study linked consumption of ultra-processed foods (snacks, soda, packaged sweets) with increased bullying and deviant behavior in adolescents.

“Deviant behaviors accounted for nearly 40% of the psychological aggression observed.”

Study Source

2. Western Diet Patterns and High Aggression Scores

In an Iranian study of teenage girls, adherence to a Western diet (fast food, sugar, soft drinks) was significantly associated with higher levels of aggression.

Study Source

3. Fast Food and Anger: A Two-Way Street

A U.S.-based longitudinal study of young adults (18–28) found that:

• Frequent fast food consumption predicted future anger episodes
• Anger and irritability also predicted future junk food cravings

Study Source

Biological Mechanisms: How Junk Food Can Trigger Aggression

1. Neurotransmitter Disruption

Nutrient deficiencies impair dopamine and serotonin, affecting mood and impulse control.

2. Brain Inflammation

Processed food increases inflammation in the brain, particularly in areas tied to emotional regulation (like the amygdala).

3. Blood Sugar Crashes

High sugar intake causes mood swings, fatigue, and irritability, creating the perfect storm for emotional outbursts.

4. Gut–Brain Axis Breakdown

Diets low in fiber and micronutrients disrupt gut microbiota, reducing mood-regulating short-chain fatty acids.

Junk Food and Violence in Correctional Facilities

Several studies have shown a strong link between improved nutrition and reduced aggression in prisons:

Inmates given better diets and supplements experienced up to a 45% drop in disciplinary infractions.
A UK study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry showed a 26.3% reduction in violent behavior with dietary changes.

Study Review – PMC10888116

Adolescents Are Most at Risk

Teenagers are especially vulnerable because:

• Their brains are still developing
• Emotional regulation centers (like the prefrontal cortex) are still maturing
• They often consume the highest levels of junk food

Combined with academic pressure and hormonal shifts, this makes them more susceptible to aggression linked to poor diet.

What Can Be Done? Solutions and Interventions

1. Promote Whole Foods in Schools

Replace vending machines with fruit, nuts, and yogurt.

2. Nutrition Education

Teach students and parents how food affects behavior, not just physical health.

3. Reform Institutional Food Systems

Prisons, schools, and group homes should integrate brain-healthy meals.

4. Support Further Research

Government and academic institutions should invest in more studies on diet and aggression.

Is Junk Food Making Us Mean?

While junk food doesn’t cause violent behavior on its own, it amplifies emotional instability, especially in already vulnerable populations.

With mounting evidence showing the connection between junk food and violent behavior, it’s time to treat diet as a public mental health issue—not just a physical one.

Dr. Matsumoto’s comments:

As a person who was raised on junk food in the 1960s, I find the recent research that has begun to undercover the possible close connection between diet and what happens in our gut and many different physical and mental health outcomes incredibly interesting and important.

The fact that there may be a link between junk food and how we regulate our emotions and behavior is not surprising to me.

That especially reinforces for me the thought that improving our emotional intelligence and wellness – both physically and mentally – starts with having better wellness baselines.

These wellness baselines revolve around six domains:

No matter what techniques we engage in to improve our emotional intelligence – breathing, meditation, critical incident analysis, whatever – their effects are all magnified by having better wellness baselines in the first place.

Of course making changes in anything we’ve done all our lives is difficult, whether in our lifestyle of emotional styles.

Perhaps we can start by making one small change, like cutting out that soda or bag of chips once a week. Even a journey of a 1,000 miles begins with the first step!

The post Junk Food Fuels Violence? The Science of Diet & Aggression first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The post Junk Food Fuels Violence? The Science of Diet & Aggression appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

A recent study from the University of Essex entitled, “Smiling and Frowning Induced by Facial Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (fNMES) Modulate Felt Emotion and Physiology” explored whether electrically induced smiling could influence emotions.

Participants had electrodes placed over their zygomaticus major muscles—those that lift the corners of the mouth.

A gentle electrical current forced a smile or a frown for about five seconds, while researchers measured how positive or negative they felt afterward .

When participants were made to smile, even briefly and subtly, they rated their mood more positively, particularly when paired with pleasant images.

Conversely, forcing a frown nudged mood ratings downward—even if participants weren’t consciously aware of the induced expression .

While the emotional shifts were modest, the effect was striking given that only a few specific muscles were activated—and only for seconds at a time.

Why This Matters: Smiling and Mood

These findings breathe new life into the longstanding facial feedback hypothesis—the idea that our facial expressions can shape how we feel.

Though prior methods like the classic “pen-in-mouth” technique produced mixed results (especially in replication attempts in 2016), the precision of electrical stimulation offers a more controlled way to test how expression directly impacts emotion .

Smiling boosts mood, the study found—even when it’s not genuine.

That mirrors other research showing that adopting a smile (even fake) can trigger neurochemicals like dopamine, serotonin, and endorphins—your brain’s natural mood regulators .

What This Means for You

Smiling—even forced—can lift your spirits. If you’re having a rough moment, trying a simple smile might engage neural pathways that bias perception toward positivity.

Facial feedback plays a real, albeit subtle, role in mood modulation. Even small activations of smiling muscles—without emotional imagery—can influence how we feel.

Future applications may go beyond experiments. Some researchers propose wearable devices or therapies that gently stimulate smile muscles to support mood, particularly in mood disorders, though this remains exploratory .

Real-World Angle: How Humintell Readers Can Use It

If you’re curious about applying this to everyday life:

Try holding a slight, intentional smile for 30 seconds. Even if it feels unnatural, the facial feedback may still trigger a mood shift.

For those engaged in emotional training or coaching: teaching controlled smiling—even in the absence of feeling it—might help reinforce positive internal states.

Although electrical stimulation therapy is not yet consumer-ready—and not a substitute for professional mental health interventions—it signals a new frontier in understanding how smiling boosts mood through physiological feedback.

Caveats & Notes

The mood effects were small, and participants often weren’t consciously aware of being made to smile.

Long-term effects remain unknown, and ethical considerations must guide real-world use of facial stimulation.

Smiling is only one factor: meaningful emotional resilience depends on multiple lifestyle and psychological strategies .

Key Takeaways

• Smiling—even a forced one—can boost mood, supporting the facial feedback hypothesis.
• Experiment shows a brief electrical smile nudged self-reported positivity.
• Though the effects are mild, they underline how smiling boosts mood, even without genuine emotion.
• This opens possibilities for novel mood-regulation approaches, especially when combined with emotional training or clinical care.

This research reinforces how subtle muscle movements can influence internal experience—and it’s a strong reminder that your face doesn’t just express emotion—it helps create it.

Can Smiling Improve Your Mood? Research Says Yes.

The post Smiling Boosts Mood- Even When it’s Forced first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The post Smiling Boosts Mood- Even When it’s Forced appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

A large Danish study called The effects of Covid-19 related policies on neurocognitive face processing in the first four years of life was recently published in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.

The study authored by Carlijn van den Boomen, Anna C. Praat, Caroline M.M. Junge, and Chantal Kemner investigated the effects of Covid-19 related measures on two facets of face processing in children aged 5 months to 3 years:

1. Face categorization (differentiating between faces and houses)
2. Emotional face processing (differentiating between happy, fearful, and neutral facial expressions of emotion)

Their research showed that babies and toddlers who grew up during the pandemic struggled to differentiate between happy and fearful facial expressions of emotion.

The children studied showed a marked difficulty in processing happy facial expressions, which the researchers believe was due to the limited variety of face-to-face interactions during the pandemic.

Background

The researchers wanted to study whether social restrictions introduced during the pandemic, such as reduced in-person interactions and widespread mask-wearing, may have shaped early brain development.

Studies have shown that infants are sensitive to emotions expressed through facial expressions since their first year of birth. In fact, a study published in PLOS ONE, suggests that fetuses even practice their own facial expressions while in utero!

The team wanted to know:

• Whether a reduced variety of facial exposure might influence how children process faces and how quickly they do so.
• Whether children can distinguish between different facial expressions of emotion (known as emotional face processing).

The Methodology

To investigate the questions above, the researchers used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain activity in over 900 children aged 5 months, 10 months, and 3 years.

462 children were tested before the onset of the pandemic, while 473 others were tested between March 2020 and April 2022 when COVID-19-related isolation and mask wearing policies were in place.

By testing the children at these different time periods, this allowed researchers to compare brain responses in children who had typical social exposure to those whose early years were shaped by limited social interactions and more frequent mask use in adults.

In the first part of the study, children passively viewed a series of images that included neutral faces, faces showing the facial expression of happiness, faces showing the facial expression of fear, and houses.
EEG recordings focused on event-related potentials (ERPs), patterns of electrical activity that occur in response to specific stimuli. The researchers analyzed three well-known ERP components linked to face processing.

The Results

1. Faster Face Processing

When it came to how quickly the brain responded to faces, the researchers found no meaningful differences in 5 or 10-month-old infants between those tested before and during the pandemic.

However, in three-year-olds, there was a notable difference.

Young children tested during the pandemic showed earlier responses to faces than their pre-pandemic counterparts, indicating faster neural processing of facial information.

The finding of faster face processing was somewhat unexpected.

In typical development, the speed at which the brain processes faces increases with age and experience.

However, some previous research in adults has shown that reduced facial information — such as when faces are masked — can lead to quicker processing.

2. Face Categorization

In contrast, the ability to tell the difference between faces and non-facial objects, known as face categorization, appeared unaffected by the pandemic.

Across all age groups, children tested before and during the pandemic showed similar patterns of brain activity when viewing faces versus houses.

This suggests that this fundamental aspect of face processing is resilient and may not depend as strongly on a wide range of facial experiences.

3. Reduced Differentiation of Emotional Expressions

One of the most striking findings emerged when the researchers examined how children responded to emotional expressions.

Children tested before the pandemic showed distinct patterns of brain activity when viewing happy, fearful, and neutral faces. But among those tested during the pandemic, this differentiation was reduced or absent.

In both ten-month-olds and three-year-olds, brain responses to happy and fearful faces became less distinguishable, especially in the later ERP components, which are thought to reflect attention or familiarity.

These differences were particularly driven by a reduced neural response to happy faces.

While children in the pre-pandemic group showed stronger brain responses to happy expressions, those tested during the pandemic had weaker responses.

This pattern suggests that happy faces were either less familiar or attracted less attention in the post-pandemic group.

Explanations

1. The researchers propose several possible explanations for their findings:
2. The variety of happy expressions that children saw may have decreased during the pandemic, due to both mask-wearing and the emotional toll experienced by caregivers.
3. If children saw fewer smiling faces, their brains may have become less attuned to recognizing and reacting to them.

The brain’s emotional face processing system is known to be shaped by experience, especially during early development.

Just as infants need to see a variety of faces to build a robust mental representation of them, they may also need a range of emotional expressions to learn how to distinguish them.

Consequences

This study is significant not only for parents but also for policymakers, as it demonstrates the broader societal impacts of pandemic-era policies.

Facial expressions of emotion are important cues in social and cognitive learning. As such, the limited processing of such cues can have far-reaching consequences for the further development of children.

This is important to know for policy makers, and for parents of and individuals working with children that were 0-4 years old during the pandemic.

Moreover, this insight could also benefit children born in non-pandemic times children, as they benefit from a variety of social experiences as well.

Limitations

The study does come with some limitations.

While the researchers inferred that children tested during the pandemic had reduced facial input, they did not measure the exact nature or frequency of children’s social interactions.

Researchers suggest it’s possible that some families maintained relatively typical social environments, while others experienced more extreme isolation.

Other factors, such as parental stress, mental health, and daycare attendance, may also have influenced the outcomes.

Additionally, while brain activity patterns were measured, the study did not assess behavioral responses, such as whether children could label or respond appropriately to different facial expressions.

Dr. Matsumoto’s Thoughts

The results of this study are not surprising, given the growing number of studies demonstrating the negative and somewhat deleterious effects of the use of masks on facial emotional expression recognition and identification in young children.

These negative effects are expected, given the importance of the exposure of the emotional expressions of others in human (and nonhuman) socio-emotional development.

These findings also dovetail with the many deleterious effects of the lack of play with others in childhood over the past several decades. Play with others is incredibly important for learning valuable skills, including problem solving, self- and emotional-regulation, communication, dispute resolution, and many others.

All of these skills are also vitally important in adulthood as well; and learning to read other’s facial expressions of emotion lays at the core of many of these skills.

These emotional detriments that have occurred because of the decrease in play and especially masking during the Covid pandemic may have serious effects for years to come.

Yet, we can all do something to self-correct, which would involve making greater efforts to allow our kids to interact with others, play outside, and deal with problems on their own, all of which can be facilitated by making sure our children learn to read facial expressions of emotion.

The post Pandemic Kids Struggle to Recognize Happy and Fearful Faces first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The post Pandemic Kids Struggle to Recognize Happy and Fearful Faces appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

Guest blog post by Ron Holloway, CEO, Holloway Resilience Solutions

In today’s uncertain world, leaders must be prepared to guide their teams through crises. Success during challenging times isn’t about avoiding adversity, but rather facing it with the right mindset and approach.

One of the most effective methods I use in coaching leaders is rooted in logotherapy principles and benefit finding, which help individuals not only survive but thrive during periods of disruption. The key is to frontload resilience, both logistically and psychologically, to transform crises into opportunities.

Seeing the Big Bad Wolf as a Fur Coat, Not Fangs

In times of crisis, most people instinctively focus on the fear and danger—the “big bad wolf” with sharp fangs. But what if we shift our perspective? What if instead of seeing the wolf as a threat, we view it as a valuable asset, like a fur coat that can keep us warm? This is the essence of benefit finding: reframing challenges in a way that reveals hidden advantages.

Crises often reveal vulnerabilities in organizations, but they also expose opportunities for growth, transformation, and innovation. Leaders who embrace this mindset can help their teams not only weather the storm but come out stronger on the other side.

Emotional Intelligence in Leadership Webinar

Frontloading Resilience: Logistical and Psychological Preparation

Resilience is a combination of preparation, adaptability, and mindset. By frontloading resilience, we equip leaders and their teams to face crises head-on with confidence and clarity. This involves two key components:

• Logistical Resilience: This includes preparing systems, processes, and infrastructures to withstand disruptions. Whether it’s supply chain flexibility, business continuity planning, or ensuring robust communication networks, logistical preparation ensures that when a crisis hits, the company can continue to function effectively.
• Psychological Resilience: The psychological side is equally critical. Using logotherapy, which emphasizes finding meaning in adversity, we help leaders and teams see beyond immediate fears and focus on the larger purpose. This involves cultivating a mindset where challenges are viewed as catalysts for growth and innovation. It’s about framing the crisis not as an existential threat but as a stepping stone toward something greater.

Logotherapy in Action: Finding Meaning in Adversity

Logotherapy, developed by Viktor Frankl, teaches that humans can endure almost any hardship if they find meaning in it. In a business context, this means that when teams are aligned with a clear mission and purpose, they can face even the most difficult challenges with greater resilience.

When crises occur, I work with leaders to reconnect with their organization’s mission. This could involve refocusing on customer needs, finding new market opportunities, or identifying ways to innovate under pressure. By doing so, teams shift from a mindset of survival to one of purpose-driven action. They stop fearing the crisis and start seeing it as a chance to reaffirm their values and pursue new avenues of growth.

Practical Steps for Leaders to Build Resilient Teams

Here are some actionable steps leaders can take to frontload resilience in their organizations:

1. Conduct a Pre-Crisis Audit: Evaluate the logistical strengths and weaknesses of your organization. Ensure there are contingency plans for various scenarios and that critical systems can function during disruptions.
2. Build Psychological Safety: Foster an environment where team members feel supported, even when mistakes happen. Encouraging open dialogue about fears and uncertainties can reduce the emotional impact of a crisis.
3. Frame Challenges as Opportunities: Regularly practice reframing challenges. Discuss past crises and how they were overcome. Identify areas where adversity led to unexpected gains or innovations.
4. Develop a Crisis Mission Statement: Create a clear mission for how the team will navigate crises. This should align with the company’s values and emphasize the opportunity to grow stronger, not just survive.
5. Practice Benefit Finding: During times of stress, encourage teams to actively seek out benefits from challenges. Whether it’s finding efficiencies, identifying new market needs, or streamlining processes, the ability to “find the fur coat” in the wolf’s threat is a critical skill.

Conclusion

Crisis doesn’t have to be feared—it can be leveraged. By frontloading resilience through logistical and psychological preparation, and embracing the principles of logotherapy and benefit finding, leaders can turn crises into opportunities.

With the right mindset, the “big bad wolf” becomes an asset, not a threat. Your teams will emerge stronger, more focused, and more aligned with the organization’s mission.

For more insights on how to build antifragile teams and thrive in times of uncertainty, visit Holloway Resilience Solutions.

The post Guest Blog Post: Turning Crisis into Opportunity first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The post Guest Blog Post: Turning Crisis into Opportunity appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.

In their study entitled “If you blink at me, I’ll blink back. Domestic dogs’ feedback to conspecific visual cues“, researchers out of the University of Parme, “investigated the behavioral and physiological responses of 54 domestic dogs to videos of conspecifics performing blink”.

Research has already shown domestic dogs tend to blink more around other dogs. They also appear to blink to keep the peace with their canine companions—and humans as well—when tensions rise.

The Methodology

Lead researcher Canori and her colleagues created a variety of 12-second videos of a terrier, a cocker spaniel, or a border collie looking at the camera. In some clips, the dogs were blinking, and in others, they weren’t.

A third set of videos showed the dogs licking their noses, a well-known gesture that can signal eagerness or frustration in dogs.

The researchers then edited the videos and strung them together into 71-second clips. In clips with blinking and nose licking, these movements occurred every 4 seconds throughout the clip.

The team then showed the videos on a large screen and in random order to each of 54 adult pet dogs of various breeds who had never interacted with the dogs in the videos.

Researchers outfitted the canine viewers with heart monitors to assess their emotional reactions and also filmed them to spot blinking and other behaviors.

The Results

A few of the dogs got bored and fell asleep but the rest blinked about 16% more on average when watching the other dog blinking than during the two other kinds of scenes.

They found that when dogs witnessed other dogs blinking, they were more likely to blink. They compared these habits to the other behaviors such as nose licking and remaining still and attentive.

Interestingly, only the blinking caused the mimicry effect. Experts suggests that this nonverbal behavior is similar to when we see others yawn and then yawn ourselves.

The researchers suggests that blinking has been a means to express non-aggressive intentions towards members of their own species.

Reciprocal blinking in dogs might help to:

• Facilitate social bonds
• Cope with frustration
• Communicate non-aggressive intentions

Similar to yawning, researchers believe this behavior is related to emotion contagion; the phenomenon when someone’s emotions lead to or produce similar emotions to others.

Even if the blinking is purely reflexive, the results suggest dogs have evolved to use it in meaningful ways.

Researcher Francesconi notes the animals showed no signs of stress in their faces or heart rates while watching the videos.

“Blinking could be a way, for example, to signal, ‘I’m relaxed, and you can be, too.’”

The post Dogs May Use Blinking To Bond With Other Dogs first appeared on Humintell | Master the Art of Reading Body Language.

The post Dogs May Use Blinking To Bond With Other Dogs appeared first on Social Engineering Blogs.