Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Cultural Gestures and Verbal Cues

Many gestures may be universal, but are associated verbal cues translatable?

Last week’s Olympics blog discussed the universal gesture of triumph and touched on Humintell’s research into the universal nature of many gestures. However, just knowing that many gestures are universal is not enough to effectively read people. Instead, it is important to connect them to verbal messages.

This is exactly what Humintell’s Dr. David Matsumoto and Dr. Hyi Sung Hwang attempted to do in a 2013 study. This research catalogued various gestures, including both culturally similar ones as well as gestures that vary drastically between cultures.

They asked participants from all over the world to list out gestures based on a comprehensive list of possible verbal messages. These gestures were then shown to participants from the same region in order to maintain validity in the experiment. This process allowed Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang to determine which gestures were recognizable as the verbal cue in question.

Interestingly, they found that universal and varying gestures tended to convey categorically different emotions. While many culturally-specific gestures had complex associated messages, universal gestures tended to convey pretty elemental or basic emotions.

Still, they did notice differences. Some verbal messages, such as an insulting one, occurred in every culture but with different associated gestures. Other gestures occurred universally but with different meanings, including the “A-Ok” symbol in Western cultures which conveyed a variety of meanings, including a reference to “money.”

Finally, there were some gestures which were culturally specific and who’s verbal message existed nowhere else. For instance, the gesture for “apology” only occurred in South Asia, and the signal for “hunger” was not present outside of East Asia. No other regions used these gestures or used gestures to convey these concepts.

This sort of research is critically important for those of us who want to better read people. Many gestures convey verbal messages, clarify speech, or amplify certain meanings, all of which add nuance to complex social interactions.

If we simply exclude gestures from communication, we miss a whole sphere of human interaction. Moreover, when trying to interact across cultures, especially if we do not speak a common language, a focus on universal gestures can go a long way towards bridging otherwise intractable differences.

The trick, of course, is knowing which gestures mean the same thing in different cultures. While this blog tries to help you build this knowledge, it can only do so much. Instead, we encourage you to take advantage of Humintell’s specialized cross-cultural training programs to make you a better people reader, regardless of where in the world you happen to be.

The Challenges of Cross Cultural Communication

You may be great about reading some people, but there are still a lot of people whose distinct outlook and culture may elude you.

One of the most important parts of learning how to read people is accepting that this process varies considerably across different cultures, despite the presence of universal basic emotions. In a recent study, Humintell’s Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang seek to investigate the main methodological barriers that confront those of us who want to learn to accurately read the facial expressions of those outside our own culture.

Hopefully, by better understanding these challenges future research can be effectively guided to help all of us fine tune our emotional recognition skills. But how do you as a follower of this blog gain anything from this? Try keeping these points in mind as you read future articles or peruse previous blogs and see if any of these hold for the research that we have reported. Not only will this make all of us a better scholar, but it will enrich your own abilities to read people.

The first of these methodological critiques is the way in which actual experiments are conducted. While Matsumoto and Hwang applaud the efforts of researchers to point out similarities and differences between those of various cultures, they caution us against jumping to any conclusions about the source of any differences.

Many differences, they point out, are just the result of the specific group selected and need not be reflective of an entire culture. This may be especially true in culturally diverse nations or regions where people who live just down the street approach the world from different cultural or social backgrounds.

Their second point is similar in focusing on the potentially biased nature of sampling, i.e. who is brought into the study. Often these experiments are conducted on international students at a university, where they are taken as representative of their home culture. Certainly, this can be seen as flawed as these participants may not be reflective of that culture, either due to a similar flaw as in the last critique or because of their more specific nature as an international student.

In a third argument, Matsumoto and Hwang make a point relevant to all aspects of emotional recognition, namely that many facial expressions also closely resemble other purposeful nonverbal behavior. For instance, raised eyebrows may be a sign of surprise, or it may be a gesture indicating greeting. This problem is even more relevant to cross cultural communication where gestures vary drastically between groups and may not be known to the researcher.

Finally, they question the traditionally bounded nature of many of the questions asked. We may want to test what factors lead to successful emotional recognition, but what exactly does recognition consist of? In doing research, this has to get simplified in order to test it, but especially with complex cross cultural considerations, this simplification may obscure the very real complexities.

This last point is especially salient when conducting advanced statistical analyses. While these are certainly useful, Matsumoto and Hwang also caution that it may be best to ask participants more open-ended questions.

Many of these points reflect broader methodological problems in other fields of social science, and they are not easy to wrestle with. However, they are important to keep in mind both for researchers and people like yourself that are just trying to learn about these fascinating topics.

We definitely recommend that you use these to review other research an, in the meantime, check out some of our official resources on cross-cultural communication! Maybe you’ll develop your own method-based critiques.

The Case for Musical Emotions

For many people, listening to music is a deeply emotional experience, but does that tap into universal emotions?

In a 2016 study, psychologist Heike Argstatter sought to determine whether universal basic emotions are recognizable in music across cultures. This built on her previous research which found that, within one Western culture, both trained musicians and laypeople consistently categorized the same musical sequences into categories based on the same basic emotions. Now, Dr. Argstatter sought to extend these findings to audiences in disparate cultural settings.

The study began by selecting two Western groups, from Germany and Norway, as well as two sets of non-Western participants from Indonesia and South Korea. They were then played the same musical sequences used in Dr. Argstatter’s previous work, given that this music was clearly recognized as evocative of basic emotions.

Even the written descriptions of each track in Dr. Argstatter’s study evoke strong emotions. For instance, the “anger” music is depicted as loud, fast, and showcasing rising volume or rapid fire (staccato) notes. Alternatively, the music intended to evoke happiness tended to avoid dissonance and feature an uplifting or dance-like tempo.

Overall, Dr. Argstatter found evidence that all participants, regardless of culture, would identify the same emotions in the same pieces of music. This was especially true for happiness and sadness.

However, there were marked differences between cultures, as well. For instance, one of the tracks evoking “surprise” was actually interpreted as “happiness” by the Norwegian, Korean, and Indonesian participants. Similarly, “disgust” music was classified in various ways as angry, sad, or frightening, though interestingly never happy.

Still, there were some systemic cultural differences, in that the German participants and, to a lesser degree, the Norwegian ones were consistently more likely to identify the music with its intended emotion.

Dr. Argstatter saw this as demonstrating a consistent “in-group advantage,” writing “This phenomenon is known as in-group advantage: emotional cues (e.g., faces or vocal stimuli) are better recognized if the stimuli and the participants stem from the same culture.”

It is important to note that this is not inevitable but takes some work to break through. Universal emotions, as discussed at length in this blog, are displayed in similar ways across many cultures. However, this study provides valuable insights into exactly how cultural differences do change the way emotions are expressed or recognized.

Thankfully, the study of cross-cultural differences is a specialty of the folks here at Humintell! We offer comprehensive training in improving your ability to read emotions across cultures and in communicating regardless of cultural differences.