Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Universal Laughter and Deception

Is laughter recognized in the same way across cultures? And, if so, can we tell if people in different cultures are faking their laughter?

This is exactly what a team of researchers attempted to answer in a recent publication in Psychological Science. An astoundingly large group of 31 researchers sought to analyze reactions to laughter in 21 societies across six regions in the world. Because laughter is practiced in some form in all cultures, they wanted to know if the subtle cues that tell whether the laughter is real or fake also hold universally.

Fundamentally, they hoped to explore what such universality means for early evolutionary uses of laughter, which they see as basically signaling affiliation or a desire to cooperate. Listeners should be able to note whether the laughter was really an effort to signal this affiliation, or if it was false. This is the distinction between genuine spontaneous laughter and non-genuine volitional laughter.

This is not to say that volitional laughter must be deceptive. Instead, volitional laughs can be used to convey the recognition of a need for cooperation or other social cues. The study authors suggest that this is actually the more common usage of volitional or non-genuine laughter.

If laughter has this deep evolutionary grounding, then it should not matter what culture somebody is from for them to be able to make the distinction. Past research has found that spontaneous and volitional laughter are substantively different, after all.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers asked people as far flung as Los Angeles, Central Europe, Iran, India, and Japan to participate in the study, totaling up to 884 participants. These participants were then exposed to audio recordings that contained either spontaneous or volitional laughter and were asked to identify each as either fake or genuine.

Overall, people could reliably make the distinction, noting changes in intensity or higher pitch in the laugh. This all suggests that listeners pick up on subtle emotional variation in laughter. While past research has found that people are good at this within their culture, this is certainly a profound extension.

There is a lot to learn from this study in terms of how to better read people and detect deception. Initially, it is pretty amazing that people are able to note whether the laughter is a lie or not. As we have noted, deception detection relies closely on comparing people’s behavior to their baseline. Thus, the familiarity that assists lie detection is completely lost in those audio clips.

That said, it does fit with previous research finding that people can rank spoken voices accurately based on their intuition that the speaker is likely to commit infidelity.

Most importantly, perhaps, is the way this study helps tie laughter into a sense of universal emotional expression. While joy is a universal basic emotion, laughter need not be synonymous with joy. However, this research helps show us that laughter, like gestures of triumph, can be a universal expression.

Reading Hairstyles?

We focus a lot on reading people’s nonverbal behavior, but is there something to be read into about our hair also?

This is precisely what Humintell’s Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang argue in a recent paper. Essentially, while past research has argued that emotional expressions can reveal one’s culture, they argue that differing hairstyles, which are often culturally-linked, confounds these impressions and significantly shape our identifications of other people’s nationalities.

Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang are responding to past research (Marsh et al., 2003) which found a distinctive “accent” between Japanese national and Japanese-American expressions. Essentially, this research asked participants to identify the subject’s nationality (Japanese or American), based on their facial expression. When participants were able to do this, it was attributed to fundamental cultural differences in the form of expression.

However, this may have ignored striking confounders that are not linked just to the facial expression.

For context, when we see a person’s face, we process a host of information, such as their facial structure, expressions, and other artificial features, like piercings, glasses, or hairstyle. Each of these have important impacts on our assessment that are often hard for researchers to untangle.

It was these artificial features which Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang turned to in their study. Because hairstyles often differ between people in different nations, even if they have cultural ties, they developed an experiment to see if this accounted for past findings.

After collecting almost 200 students, they exposed them to a series of images displaying basic emotional expressions on Japanese faces, including the photographs used in the previous study to divide between Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans. However, half of the photographs were edited to switch hairstyles between the groups, giving Japanese nationals American hairstyles, for instance.

Once the participants were divided between “original” and “switched” groups, participants were shown a series of images and told that some were Japanese nationals and others were Japanese-Americans. Then, upon being shown each image again individually, they were asked to mark the nationality of each.

As hypothesized, hairstyles did impact evaluations for Japanese nationals and reduced the accuracy for Japanese-American neutral expressions. While it is interesting that Japanese-American emotional expressions were not impacted, it is clear that hairstyle plays a significant role.

This necessarily challenges the idea that emotional expressions have a certain “accent” or “cultural dialect.” Instead, many of those differences could be attributed to proclivities to artificial features, like jewelry or hairstyles.

Not only does this demonstrate the importance of universal emotions, as they really are universal, but it also serves as an important lesson for anyone trying to read emotions across cultures. Our brain immediately picks up on these artificial features as it holistically recognizes the face and emotion, so it might take some training to learn to disentangle them!

Silent Political Power?

Many commentators are keen to read into the nonverbal behavior of political leaders, but is that even really possible?

After Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met in Helsinki last week, it’s safe to say that they completely dominated the news cycle. In a presumable effort for a fresh take, the Washington Post interviewed nonverbal behavior experts, concluding that Putin was the “clear winner” of a “battle for nonverbal dominance.”

This leads to two pressing questions: is it really possible to analyze nonverbal behavior in those settings and, if so, did Putin really win?

First of all, nobody can really say there is a “clear winner” to any nonverbal interactions. This is especially true when somebody is just watching their behavior in the news.

Humintell’s Dr. David Matsumoto dismissed much of such commentary on the Putin-Trump summit, saying “Whenever there’s a big meeting of leaders, you see all the body language ‘experts’ on TV with interpretations. But the reality is little of that is validated by science.”

This is not to say that we can’t pick up on some nonverbal behaviors, but they have to be carefully distinguished from mere “noise.” Moreover, they can only ever be indicators rather than tell-tale signs of emotional states.

The Washington Post interviewed Dr. Carrie Keating of Colgate University who emphasized how the leaders walked, their gestures, and the extent to which they paid attention to the audience in an effort to analyze the social dynamic. Keating stressed that the most important feature was Putin’s ability to talk first and longest, which she claimed established him as the dominant man in the room.

Dr. Matsumoto did agree that experts can look into certain nonverbal behaviors and microexpressions, pointing out such subtleties as fleeting looks of contempt or disgust, as well as Putin clearing his throat in an apparent effort to control the dialogue.

However, Dr. Matsumoto emphasized that “there are real limits” to any sort of deduction about internal mental states. Expressions must be carefully dissected and coded in a scientific fashion, and the context matters: “You can’t compare Trump walking into meeting with Putin or standing at podium, for example, to video of him sitting down with Angela Merkel. They’re different settings and actions,” he explained.

Followers of this blog know that nonverbal behavior can tell us a lot about an interaction, but it is not a simple process. Yes, we can derive a wealth of information from observing Putin and Trump’s body language and expressions, but it is difficult to figure out which ones signal something interesting and what are just noise.

Similarly, we must be cautious about making claims about somebody’s internal state from their non-verbal behavior. An expression or gesture may suggest that they are lying, but it cannot definitely tell it. This is especially true with people we don’t personally know, as comparisons to that person’s emotional “baseline” are critical.

Still, this is not to say that people can’t learn something about politicians’ motivations and emotions by watching them. In a series of posts during the election, Dr. Matsumoto presented numerous approaches for reading between the lines when following the news. Similarly, this handy quiz helps show us how subtly opinions can be passed off as factual statements.