Couretesy of dailymail.co.uk

It’s not new, news that humans have a great many different facial expressions.  It is also becoming more common knowledge that there are 7 universal facial expressions of emotion (anger, sadness, disgust, surprise, fear and happiness), which have been validated by  numerous research studies.

Mail Online has now reported that additional research, from Ohio State University, purports humans routinely and universally display  21 different facial expressions, of course this would include the 7 universal facial expressions as well as variations of them.  The researchers claim that these findings are 3 times as much as the long proven 7 universal facial expressions of emotion.

Lead researcher, Aleix Martinez, stated that his research goes beyond the research on universal facial expressions such as happy or sad.  230 volunteers were asked to depict 6 out of the 7 universal facial expressions of emotion. They were then asked to act out compound emotions after they were given time to practice making those compound emotions in a mirror.

The findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, noted that with higher than 90% accuracy individuals displayed the same facial expressions such as sadness and happiness, which has already been validated by previous research on the seven universal facial expressions of emotion.

The draw back to this new claim is that the facial expressions that are created are somewhat forced and not natural. Therefore, one cannot say for sure that the compound expressions each individual made (although possibly similar to the other volunteers) is what they would elicit in the real world without practice.

It is important to note that the research that validates the 7 universal facial expressions of emotion does not say that humans do not have any other facial expressions such as shyness or or any combination of the whole 7 universal facial expressions of emotions.

Dr. David Matsumoto, who has done extensive research in the field of facial expressions and FACS coding noted, “I think by asking posers to create the expressions of the blended labels artificially forced them to create those faces.  I seriously doubt that people would produce exactly those faces in real life.  That’s one of the pitfalls of this area of research.  You can’t reverse engineer what people actually do in real life by asking them to pose what they think they would do.“

With these findings the researchers hope to gain a better understanding of human emotions and in turn possibly help treat conditions such as autism and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as in the design of computerized aids for the disabled.

What are your thoughts on these new findings?

The FBI’s March 2014 Bulletin featured important interviewing techniques and detailed information on reading people.  Drs. David Matsumoto, Humintell’s Director, and Hyisung Hwang as well as former FBI Special Agent Lisa Skinner commented on the scientific evidence behind behavioral anomalies that they have found through years of research and training.

Many law enforcement professionals understand and appreciate the importance of behavioral anomalies. These verbal and nonverbal signs of cognition and emotions provide additional clues to what an individual is thinking and feeling beyond the content of the words being spoken. In the context of investigative interviewing, these behavioral anomalies are called indicators.

When reading people, one important distinction interviewers must make is the difference between validated and non-validated indicators. Those that are validated have scientific and field evidence documenting the association between the behavior and specific cognition or emotions. Non-validated indicators lack such data—either in scientific evidence, field operations, or both.

This bulletin give a great example of validated and non-validated indicators.  Take the example provide below of an interview of a suspect:

A police officer asks what happened. For an instant the interviewee’s eyes get wide so that the white above the irises is visible. The suspect’s story begins with details about memories from before the incident, including things the alleged offender did and did not do. The suspected criminal describes the event while wringing the hands and looking away, up and to the left, not making direct eye contact. The interviewee’s speech becomes slower and references to other people change with the use of pronouns. The suspect, whose left eyebrow is twitching, does not speak about the incident itself and finishes the story with “and that’s about it.”

There are validated and non-validated indicators imbedded in the example at the beginning of this article.  Do You Know What They Are?

1. The flash of the eyes so that the white above the iris is seen is a validated indicator of concealed fear,

2. The suspect’s comments about behavior that did not occur are indicative of a potential lie i.e is a validated indicator.

3. Looking up to the left and twitching of the left eyebrow are not validated indicators of lying, even though many people believe they are.

Researchers, Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang and former FBI agent Skinner agree that, “Anomalies provide important cues and valuable insight into the personality, motivation, and intention of suspects. Investigators must ask themselves some important questions based on their observation of behavioral anomalies.”

Statement and nonverbal analysis are not new to law enforcement as the techniques have been taught to investigators for years. However, in real-life, indicators of veracity and lying occur simultaneously, and awareness of both increases an investigator’s ability to identify meaningful content areas of an interview. The importance of considering verbal and nonverbal indicators concurrently was highlighted in a recent study—published in a previous FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

Humintell offers training for leaning how to read facial expressions of emotion as well as live webinars and webinar recordings that have the practical applications of their facial expression training.  Some of the practical applications of studying facial expressions of emotion such as microexpressions is outlined in further examples in the FBI Bulletin.

Recognizing these indicators helps investigators detect lies and gain insight into the personality, motivation, and internal conflicts of interviewees and identify content areas necessitating further exploration and discovery. Law enforcement officers would benefit from imbedding  these techniques within their strategic interview methodology.

For more detailed information and examples regarding validated and non-validated behavioral anomalies, read the entire article:  FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin: Reading People:  Behavioral Anomalies and Investigative Interviewing.