Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Learning in Unlikely Faces

The facial expressions of a kombucha drinking social media poster might not be a national headline, but they serve a great example for learning about facial expressions.

As the New York Times reports, an online video by Brittany Tomlinson went viral after she showed a wide range of emotions upon trying some kombucha. In the video, Tomlinson tries her kombucha and proceeds to experience an apparent whirlwind of emotions: wincing, shaking her head, giggling, and smirking.

The verdict? “Low-key it’s kind of good, but it’s nasty,” she clarified.

So, why is this important if you are not contemplating trying kombucha yourself? In fact, the video contained in the Times article shows Tomlinson showcasing a rapid succession of easily identifiable facial expressions.

Dr. David Matsumoto was called in to comment on the exceptional nature of this video. While these cycles of expressions “go on all the time,” he said “you’re watching the person’s mind process in real time, which is really cool.”

Specifically, its “really cool,” because even laypeople can recognize emotions in her faces.

The University of California, Berkeley’s Dr. Dacher Keltner also agreed, calling this “an amazing sequence” which allowed “easy to see” facial expressions.

According to Keltner, Tomlinson showed five to seven clearly different emotions. Disgust is of course clearly available, but what else are you recognizing? Please don’t hesitate to sound off in the comments!

If you’re struggling, this article helps by breaking down the video frame by frame!

Why is that Funny?

Psychology often tries to unravel emotional mysteries, but some resist investigation more than others.

One of these long-standing mysteries is the reality of humor. What exactly makes a joke funny or not? And to whom? It is this question which has long puzzled psychologists and philosophers, and Scientific American’s Giovanni Sabato attempts to trace the history of theory and research on humor in a recent article.

Sabato delves into a long philosophical tradition, including the likes of Plato and Sigmund Freud, which has sought to model how humor works. While Plato and other ancient Greeks theorized that humor resulted from a sense of superiority over the failings of others, Freud made a great deal about the tendency for humor to thrive on the violation of taboos.

Another theory has focused on the idea of “incongruity.” Humor is derived from the subversion of expectations or the incompatibility of various concepts or situations. This helps explain the presence of double meanings and puns in humor, and it showcases the frequency with which humor deals with unexpected punchlines or resolutions to tricky situations.

The latter should be pretty intuitive to anyone who has watched a sitcom!

One more modern attempt to develop a unified theory of humor has built on that idea of incongruity. Drs. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren, of the University of Colorado, Boulder, have introduced the idea of “benign violation.”

This theory focuses on humor being derived from violations of expectations surrounding norms. When somebody acts in a way that they are not supposed to, if it does not result in indignation or scandal, the situation will often be perceived as humorous.

There is also a role here for being distant from that particular, often awkward, violation. By hearing these stories second-hand from a comedian or friend, we have enough distance to find these situations funny.

However, this theory of distance and violation is not the only popular theory. Some psychologists and evolutionary biologists simply see humor as an evolutionary mechanism. Spontaneous and genuine laughter is deeply ingrained in our biology, while contrived and forced laughter developed as a way of smoothing social situations.

One way that humor can be derived from our hard-wired evolutionary experiences is related to the subversion of expectations. A group of philosophers, including Matthew Hurley of Indiana University Bloomington, saw humor as related to mistakes, or at least to their detection.

Our mind naturally assumes that it knows what will happen, relying on heuristics to predict likely events, but when things don’t happen as they should, for instance when another person acts erratically, we interpret that as humor.

None of these are necessarily perfect explanations for such a complex phenomenon. However, they help situate the question of humor into our cognitive and evolutionary history. From past blogs, we already know that emotional expressions are deeply rooted in evolution, and we know that properly reading people often depends on situating our experiences into these cognitive roots.

Social Influence in Investigative Interviews

We talk a lot about how to understand people’s emotions and how to read what they say accurately, but what about learning how we can change our behavior so that they are more forthcoming?

This is the subject of a recent paper by Humintell’s Dr. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang. In this study, they sought to examine the impact that different cues of authority had on information interviews. This was an attempt to determine whether the truth-tellers or the liars in a mock interview context were more likely to convey information, depending on the influence of the interviewer.

After recruiting participants, they were divided into a treatment and control group. The treatment group was encouraged to commit a mock crime but told not to disclose that they had done so, while the control group simply proceeded directly to the informational interview.

This design split the participants into those who had to lie and those who had to tell the truth during the interview, with each being encouraged by a small monetary payout to convince the interviewer that they were telling the truth and had not committed the crime.

However, there were other experimental conditions at play, namely the environmental context and appearance of the interviewer. In order to prime a sense of interviewer authority, for instance, some of the interviewer wore intimidating suits or had impressive degrees and law enforcement posters on the wall.

Nothing beyond those environmental factors was different. All of the interviewers followed the same script and spoke in comparable fashions, but previous research has seen profound differences in perceptions of authority based on these apparently simple differences.

Overall, they found that the authority conditions got truth-telling participants to freely volunteer more information than their counterparts in low-authority conditions. However, there was no effect for the liars.

Interestingly, the effect of the authority condition seemed to hold even for the truth-tellers written statements, even though these were completed after the interview. This suggests that there is some lasting impact from an impression of interviewer authority.

This helps expand on previous work that looked at how to evaluate interviewees’ truthfulness and emotions by looking instead at what can promote efficacy by the interviewer. It appears that these signs of authority, even if limited to clothing, can result in more forthcoming interviews.

While this appeared to only work on people who were already telling the truth, that does not take away from the usefulness of this information. Many interviews are conducted on truthtellers, with the struggle sometimes involving getting tight-lipped people to speak more freely. Wearing a suit or even putting your diploma on the wall might help here!

In the meantime, there is always more that needs to be learned about how to tell if your interlocuter is lying, so check out Humintell’s exciting training procedure!