Courtesy of Stockvault

What makes the human face so interesting?  Newborn babies will stare at the faces of the people around them and when you find someone attractive, you may find yourself starting at their face for long periods of time.

Why is it so compelling to covet the human face?

Psychology Today has taken this question to film and asked why our gaze seems to linger longer on images that have faces more than any other images. The article noted that in a study by Robert Fantz, young infants stared twice as long at a black-and-white simplified human face than black-and-white concentric circles. Even though a bull’s-eye target is eye-catching, babies spent twice as much time gazing at a simplified face.

The article notes that the ‘ability to orient to, and accurately read, human faces has high survival value throughout our lives. We must register quickly if there is a stranger in our midst, and sense if this is a friendly or threatening presence.  In short, we may be hard-wired to focus on faces as they provide information that is fundamentally important to our physical and social survival.’

The article directly comments that our face interest is particularly apparent in movies. An interesting insight, commented on by Hungarian film theorist Béla Balázs, is that film stands out from other performance arts in that film has the coveted “close-ups” and can bring its audience closer to the emotion of a scene via the facial expressions of the actor.

Many individuals have difficulty interpreting emotion on a large or abstract scale; images of a tornado victim or the agony of a loss can be expressed more clearly for the audience via the face.

Wide shots usually reveal a broader context while facial shots embody the emotional character of the film.  Also close-ups give the opportunity to have the audience mirror the emotions they see, creating a more intimate relationship with the character in the film and heightening the experience as a whole.

The article goes on to state, “The lingering close-up of a face presents only the illusion of being able to read the inner thoughts of another. What we think a film character may be thinking may reveal as much, if not more, about the inner recesses of our own minds.“

The debate continues on whether or not facial coverings should be allowed in court trials.  The Independent, a UK newspaper, reports on this controversial issue that is still being determined case by case.

Judge Peter Murphy, a UK judge,  recently ruled that a defendant should be obliged to remove her niqab when giving evidence (back in September). He noted, “If a fair trial is to take place, the jury… must be able to assess the credibility of the witnesses – to judge how they react to being questioned.”

He also quoted a New Zealand judge who listed some of the situations in which a witness’s demeanor might be a giveaway. “The witness who moves from expressing himself calmly to an excited gabble,” for example; “the witness who from speaking clearly with good eye contact becomes hesitant and starts looking at his feet.”

The issue with trying to focus on facial expressions by jurors in an effort to try to show deception is that assessing a face can distract, “people [who without training are only about 50% accurate at detecting deception]  into looking at cues they think are associated with lying, and overlooking cues that actually are.” This is according to a meta-analysis of jury research cited by UCL professor, Richard Moorhead, on his blog Lawyer Watch.  Moorhead reported that not only did seeing a face not help assess a person’s truthfulness, it could actually be misleading.

Unfortunately, many people still believe the popular myths about deception such as looking up and to the left means your thinking of what to say; therefore, you’re lying.  Proper training needs to and should take place before a person tries to detect deception from not only facial expressions but any nonverbal behaviors.

On the other hand, an interesting question to look into would be ‘shouldn’t a person be required to open themselves up in a courtroom as a gesture that – Yes they will tell the truth, the whole truth.’  If it has been shown in previous studies that lying (even if just a white lie) is easier to commit over text or email (ie not a face to face interaction) then doesn’t it beg the question if having your face covered also makes it easier?

Judge Murphy was quick to point out that assessing a person’s nonverbal behavior (including facial expressions) has become apart of the justice system “[It] is too deeply rooted in our criminal justice system to be set aside absent compelling evidence.”

Should face coverings be allowed for an individual who is testifying in a court of law?