Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Do Power Postures Work?

It is pretty popular for people to explore the idea of taking power postures to achieve success in interpersonal interactions, especially negotiations, but is it empirically valid?

A recent study by Drs. Joseph Cesario and David Johnson wades into this debate with a resounding rejection of the idea of power postures’ efficacy. In a series of experimental studies, they test whether taking a power posture in realistic situations accomplishes anything. Their null results fly in the face of some established precedent.

Humintell has previously blogged on power postures, including on research finding that taking on such postures can make people feel more powerful. It is logical to assume that such a feeling will manifest in more confident behavior, but it is likely this implication that Drs. Cesario and Johnson would dispute. In fact, they situate their research as a response to the same work by Cuddy which we blogged on!

Despite the popularity of TED talks devoted to power posturing, the current study delves into the evolutionary arguments in favor of power posturing. They conclude that it would make little evolutionary sense for an animal to act differently just because it is presenting the illusion of expansiveness or power.

In order to assess these claims, they conducted a series of experiments. The first of these asked participants to watch a TED talk video on power poses and attempt to consciously hold power poses.  These were contrasted with two studies where participants were not told why they should hold such a pose, and two of these studies were conducted with multiple participants in the same room.

Each participant was then brought together to compete in various tasks involving gambling, abstract thinking, and negotiation. These were intended to see if using the power pose would actually enhance abilities or competence in any of these tasks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they found that the participants who had been exposed to the TED talk did reliably utilize the power posture in these exercises.

Overall, there did not seem to be any evidence that power poses had beneficial effects. This should cast doubt on a lot of the established literature. The study authors note that their sample sizes were generally larger and that there were consistent problems in replicated past findings.

They even asked participants to record whether their power pose led them to feel greater senses of power, and this again failed to predict much success in terms of outcomes.

This is an exciting and emerging field of research, so it is pretty natural that there would be disparate results and contradictory findings. We are definitely hoping that future researchers continue to delve into this question!

In the meantime, there are some pretty tried and true tactics for better negotiating and reading people. Check out some of our training tools here!

Nonverbal Behavior in Relationships

holding-hands-coupleWe keep talking about nonverbal behavior with strangers, but what role does it have in close interpersonal contexts?

There is plenty of reason to think that this is important! We pick up on our romantic partner’s nonverbal behavior, even if we don’t realize that we are doing it. In a recent paper, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Ruddy Faure sought to understand whether implicit partner evaluations led to significantly different nonverbal behavior, and what that means for relationships.

This research appears motivated by questions of what exactly makes some relationships last and others fall apart. Some time ago, we blogged on Dr. John Gottman’s answer to this question. He argued that the slow growth of contempt between partners will almost invariably drive them apart over time.

Dr. Faure’s answer is not quite different, focusing on the idea of implicit partner evaluations. These basically entail our often automatic feelings towards a partner, where we begin to think badly or critically. This is a shift from previous attempts to study relationship dissolution, because most past research has focused primarily on explicit emotions.

However, this research grappled with the impressive question of how to really measure those things? How can you track the implicit evaluations and nonverbal behaviors present in relationships?

To address these concerns, the team organized an intensive project where couples were videotaped discussing contentious topics. They were then asked to complete a personal diary over 8 days. Before engaging in the taped interview, each partner was asked to assess implicit partner evaluations based on subtle questionnaires.

Importantly, the taped interviews allowed for a better understanding of what nonverbal behaviors were being displayed, especially given the implicit questionnaires completed beforehand.

Overall, they found that more positive implicit evaluations did lead to more constructive nonverbal behavior. This means that the less a partner had negative associations with their partner, the kinder they expressed their emotions during the videotaped interview.

The connections to Gottman are then pretty clear. Contempt would lead to much lower implicit evaluations, emphasizing our partners’ flaws, for instance. This would inevitably come out, even if unintentionally, when trying to discuss something contentious, in the form of negative body language.

While this sort of thin may not even be consciously noticed, it certainly has the potential to impact our interactions.

If you are curious about learning more about these subtle emotional cues in relationships, check out some of our past blogs on Dr. Gottman here and here.

Complex Deceptive Behaviors

A great deal of popular discussion of how to detect deception rests on specific, isolated factors like eye contract, but the reality is a bit more complex.

This is the case that Humintell’s Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang made in a 2017 study published in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. In this experimental analysis, they had participants engage in a simulated investigative interview which, after being recorded, was analyzed to see which deceptive nonverbal behaviors were exhibited and, most importantly, in what combinations.

Importantly, while many previous studies have found that certain nonverbal behaviors are reliable indicators of deception, these findings have often been difficult to replicate. These studies have focused on vocal fluctuations, body language, and gestures, all of which do demonstrate underlying emotions.

However, Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang emphasize that, because of the complex emotions involved in deception, analyzing just one behavior at a time seems problematic. This is why, in the current study, they sought to see whether looking at clusters of behaviors may help solve this puzzle.

In order to do this, they recruited a series of participants who were all asked to engage in a mock crime simulation. These participants were given the opportunity to “steal” a $100 check, with some told to do so and some to refrain. Both groups were then assigned to mock interviews where they were either told to lie or confess.

With this premise set up, the exciting analysis work began. Each interview was recorded and then analyzed, frame by frame, with machine-learning informed algorithms which sought to categorize individual frames based on certain emotions, including many basic emotions like anger, disgust, fear, happiness, etc.

This allowed the researchers to calculate exactly which emotions tended to be the most common during the interview.  Then, they hand coded a series of nonverbal behaviors, including head shakes, nods, and shoulder shrugs.  This analysis was then combined with sophisticated assessments of vocal pitch and volume, helping create a comprehensive account of the subtle behaviors involved in the interview process.

When comparing these behaviors to whether or not the interviewee was lying, Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang found that it was clusters of non-verbal behaviors that most reliably predicted deception. Liars tended to have fewer head nods and greater changes in vocal pitch, though with a lower average.

Importantly, the types of questions, be they open-ended or more closed had significant impacts.  Liars tended to have even lower pitches during open-ended questions, for example.

These findings have significant ramifications for anybody attempting to detect deception. While many of us are told to focus on individual behaviors, like eye contact or closed postures, these alone cannot fully explain the situation.

Instead, deception seems based on these clusters of behaviors which can be even more difficult to determine. This is definitely on reason why Humintell offers advanced deception detection classes which can be helpful for anyone, but especially any of you who make it your business of conducting lie detection interviews.