Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Better Reading Body Language

While we have been focusing on microexpressions, reading people often depends on identifying their body language as well.

Humintell’s Dr. David Matsumoto has done exciting work on the role of body language in human communication and the extent to which similar patterns span cultures. As we’ve noted, it is necessary to disentangle what expressions are universal from those that differ based on culture, and in this respect body language is no different.

A recent article in Discover Magazine dug well into some of Dr. Matsumoto’s past work on body language and posture. Specifically, author Teal Burrell discussed Dr. Matsumoto’s work on the postures of Olympic and blind Paralympic athletes from around the world. This research found that, regardless of sight, victorious athletes consistently made the same posture of triumph.

While powerfully demonstrating universals across cultures, this same research also pointed to the role of culture. For example, defeated athletes often slump their shoulders in shame, but this is less common for those from cultures which discourage outward displays of shame. However, blind athletes from those same countries slumped their shoulders regardless of culture.

This helps show both a tendency to slump shoulders in shame but also the ability of culture to teach people to avoid that form of expression.

Dr. Matsumoto’s research underscores the importance of body language in understanding people and the culture that influences them. As the magazine piece continues, we can leverage our body language to make positive impacts on our own mood.

For instance, smiling may help reduce our stress levels, while so-called “power postures” can improve our confidence. A power posture, as we have blogged on before, is when the chest is thrust out with arms crossed, in a way that Burrell aptly describes as a “Wonder Woman” pose. Research into power postures does find that they lead to a great sense of power, but still such correlations can be taken with a grain of salt.

Body language isn’t just about changing how we feel but can also shape people’s perceptions of us. Eye contact, though not really an indicator of deception, helps promote a perception of trust. Similarly, mirroring posture and facial expressions helps show that we are listening and feeling empathetic.

This helps show how important body language is for us, but like many universal expressions, humans are not alone in our use of such communicative tools. In fact, Burrell points out how critical body language is for bees to communicate, and similar sorts of communicative dances are present among fish. Similarly, the highly intelligent ravens use their beaks to point and gesture, helping to form interpersonal bonds.

Coming to grips with how universal and powerful body language is is as important as understanding how culture mediates it. By better understanding both determinants of behavior, we can learn how to read people better and communicate effectively.

In Dr. Matsumoto’s Own Words

We’ve been talking about new microexpressions research for the last two weeks, so we’ll all benefit from Dr. David Matsumoto’s own insights.

In this new video, Dr. Matsumoto discussed his recent article on microexpressions and the importance of precisely studying microexpressions and their neurological correlates. He emphasizes the striking difference in neurological patterns between expressions at or above 200 ms and those below.

Digging into Deception Detection

lying-deceit-deceptionLast week we wrote about the importance of distinguishing micro and macro expressions, but we passed too quickly over deception detection.

Microexpressions differ from their longer lasting counterparts in many ways, but one of the most salient is the fact that they can betray underlying emotions. The fleeting microexpression can show anger or surprise where someone may be trying to conceal it, and effective deception detection can often involve noticing these microexpressions, as hard as that might be for a layperson.

As Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang point out, there are many factors that make people better at deception detection. These include personality features like openness to experience and conscientiousness but also empathy and emotional regulation.

One of the major takeaways from the study we blogged on last week was the more precise definition of what microexpressions are, committing to seeing them as incredible fleeting and at least under half a second.

This was elaborated on in a 2018 study by Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang which looked at microexpressions as keys to differentiating truth from lies, operationalizing this particular definition of the length of microexpressions. They point out that previous research found mixed results in connecting microexpressions to deception detection, but that such research had failed to rigorously define how long a microexpression is.

Much of this past literature, though it found the potential for microexpressions, was that it did not properly define microexpressions based on observations of how they actually function. Some of this research categorized microexpressions as lasting for up to four seconds!

Such a revised definition makes a great deal of sense when looking at deception detection. Much of the attempt to conceptualize microexpressions comes from trying to see their role in showing spontaneous and concealed expressions. Longer durations are less likely to be signs of repressed and concealed emotions.

This 2018 study then sought to look at the role of microexpressions in deception detection given this more rigorous definition. First, they looked at whether microexpressions under half a second occurred and if they could reliably distinguish truth from deception. They also looked at longer expressions to see if these could be seen as consistently spontaneous.

They found that such expressions were generally frequent and acted as reliable indicators of deception, much more so than expressions longer than a second. Interesting, very short expressions of less than 0.3 seconds were not helpful indicators.

We are curious what our readers have to say about this, however. Do you notice these fleeting expressions? Do you think that they are uniquely distinct from longer expressions? Please comment and let us know what you think!