By Dr. David Matsumoto and Dr. Hyi Sung Hwang

There are numerous tests and ways to evaluate what we have learned.  However, there is currently no method to access the learning effect of reading other people’s emotions. Humintell is a leader of emotion reading training programs, and we have been conducting research in understanding emotions for years in order to not only create the best training tools and programs but also to accurately and reliably examine their impact.

 

Study 1:

Recently we published valuable evidence demonstrating the efficacy of training to recognize microexpressions of emotions (Matsumoto & Hwang, in press). This paper is notable because it presents the first scientific evidence of training efficacy to read microexpressions in normal adult populations. In Study 1, we randomly assigned subjects working as salespersons in South Korea to either a comparison group that received a general lecture of understanding emotions or a training group that received a 60-minute training session by an experienced trainer. The results showed a significantly increased ability of reading other’s emotions on the face in the training group compared to before the training and to the comparison group. This finding was especially notable for a couple of reasons. First, both groups were equivalent in their knowledge of emotions because they were both provided with basic information of reading emotions. However, while the training group received the actual training workshop, the comparison group received a book chapter about facial expressions of emotions instead. Second, the impact of the training program was not only demonstrated in the judgment tasks completed but also emerged in social and communication improvements evaluated on the job by third parties about the trainees two weeks after the participation in our program.

Study 2:

The findings of Study 1 were further bolstered by the results of Study 2, which showed the efficacy of the training program during a longer intermission period. In this study the trainees, who were attorneys or psychologists practicing as trial consultants, received our training. Two to three weeks later, a post-test was administered to the training group and a comparison group that did not receive the training. The training group had significantly higher recognition scores than did the comparison group. They also had faster reaction times. These findings were important because they demonstrated that not only can people be taught the ability to read emotions on face, but also that this ability can be retained.

The scientific data presented in these studies provide the necessary evidence for people who are interested in learning about understanding other’s emotions but hesitate to try it because of uncertainties about the outcome. If you interact with many people daily and want to understand them better, getting microexpression recognition training is an option that you may want to consider.

References

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S. (in press). Evidence for training the ability to read microexpressions of emotion. Motivation and Emotion. (Click here for a copy of the report. )

Spotting a liar is complicated, as author Kevin Goodman outlines in his latest Huffington Post Blog “5 Guidelines to Catch a Liar”.

In his post, Goodman asserts that traditional signs of lying such as averting the eyes, fidgeting and playing with one’s hair are not necessarily proof of deception.  Why, you ask?

In their effort to be convincing, liars, actually tend to make good eye contact. Carol Goman substantiates this claim asserting that liars tend to overcompensate their eye contact in that they stare for too long.

As for fidgeting, that could easily be a sign of an innocent but overly anxious person. Dr. Paul Ekman stated in a 1999 NY Times article that “an innocent suspect fearful about being believed, for example, may leak evidence of anxiety or apprehension. The lie catcher must evaluate the meaning of the signals in each individual case”

So if lie detection experts aren’t always relying on these false indicators of deception, what other tactics are they using?

SUE

Goodman discusses a new interview approach favored by many police psychologists and deception researchers called SUE (strategic use of evidence). The approach involves the interrogator allowing the suspect to comfortably tell their account of what happened and then at a later point, the interrogator introduces evidence. The purpose of this method is to disclose inconsistencies. Lying involves mental effort; with this in mind, this approach forces the suspected liar to account for what happened against the evidence and thus, increases the potential for the liar’s contradiction. Keep in mind, this approach is only beneficial with actual evidence.

Non-Confrontational Approach

Lying requires constant mental effort as the liar is battling their story against the truth; therefore the propensity of vagueness and the risk of contradiction ensues. Goodman suggests that the interviewer can gain the upper hand in this situation by maintaining a non-confrontational approach, meaning make the liar feel comfortable with sharing their account of what happened as well as follow-up with details. This way if inconsistencies in the liar’s story verses the truth arises, the details can therefore be verified.

Observing Baseline Behavior

As mentioned earlier, lie catchers note that fidgeting can be a sign of an overly anxious but innocent person, and likewise, overly constrained behavior can stem from naturally reserved people. To tackle this situation, experts observe a person’s baseline behavior – the process of developing a basic understanding of a person’s normal body language.

Microexpressions

Microexpressions are said to help reveal the disparity between how one presents oneself and how one authentically feels. Although microexpressions are involuntary expressions lasting a fraction of a second, Dr. David Matsumoto of San Francisco State University, asserts that people can be trained to spot them when they occur. Goodman suggests that one good way to delve into a more in depth conversation with a witness or suspect is to ask the same types of questions in varying ways (referring to the event in question) and closely watch their microexpressions.

Share Your Insights for Spotting Deception !!