Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

The Humintell Blog July 31, 2015

Training Boys to Recognize Another’s Fear Reduces Violent Crime

Universal Facial Expression- FearWritten by Jessica Hamzelou for New Scientist Magazine

Wide eyes and mouth agape – you might think a fearful face is easy to recognize. That doesn’t seem to be the case for people who repeatedly commit antisocial offences. For the first time, training offenders to better read facial expressions has reduced violent crime.

The computer-based training – which only requires one person and a laptop to administer – is a promising new lead for managing antisocial behavior.

Under UK law, such behavior is defined as that which causes harassment, alarm or distress to another person, and includes violent crime, theft and criminal damage. People that repeatedly engage in this kind of behavior, with scant regard for those they hurt, are described as having antisocial personality disorder by the American Psychological Association.

“People tend to think that children who show antisocial behaviors are just criminals,” says Stephane de Brito at the University of Birmingham, UK. “But if these behaviors persist, they are at an increased risk of developing so many problems, such as psychotic illness, depression and substance abuse.”

In an effort to avoid this, children can be monitored and receive training from youth offender services. Other approaches target schools with anti-bullying programs, or offer support to parents. “There’s a lot done, and a lot of money is invested, but the programs are not having as much success as one would hope for,” says Stephanie van Goozen, a biological psychologist at Cardiff University in Wales.

Reading Faces

Van Goozen and her colleagues decided to try a different approach. The team turned to the psychological theory that people who harm others may do so because they can’t tell that their victim is distressed. Research has shown that both adult psychopaths and children diagnosed with “conduct disorder”, which is associated with antisocial behavior, struggle to recognize fear in the faces of other people.

When these children engage in behavior that is unpleasant or causes pain, they can’t tell that that the other person is suffering, so feel no need to correct their behavior, says van Goozen.

To find out if learning to recognize emotions would help these children to rein in their behavior, van Goozen’s team used a computer-based program that teaches people to recognize facial expressions. The system was originally developed by a team in the US to help people with brain injuries relearn the rules of social interactions.

They trained half of a group of 50 boys who had been convicted of a crime to recognize happiness, sadness, fear and anger in facial expressions. Each participant was aged between 12 and 18, and completed a total of between 7 and 9 hours of training over two or three sessions. “Gradually you teach people to pay attention to the right signals in the face, such as the eyes and the mouth – the things that tell you how intensely people feel,” says van Goozen. Her team also made a note of the crimes that all the boys had committed in the past, and those that were committed in the six months following training.

The team found that boys who received training significantly improved in their ability to recognize fear, anger and sadness in others’ faces, while those who had no training did not. Moreover, while all of the participants committed fewer offences than in the six months before the training – probably because they were closely monitored – in those who’d had training the crimes were significantly less violent and severe, and tended to involve theft rather than physical aggression. It is the first time that emotion training has been found to affect real-world crime.

Costly Crime

“It’s an important study,” says Richard Rowe, a psychologist who specializes in antisocial behavior at Sheffield University in the UK. While it is too early to make policy decisions based on one relatively small study, he says the findings represent an exciting new lead.

One advantage is the technique’s low cost. Antisocial behavior is expensive – by the age of 28, those who have engaged in it persistently from age 10 can end up costing society around 10 times more than those without a similar history, due to lost productivity as well as education and criminal justice system costs.

Money is currently spent on initiatives like support programs for the parents of offenders, but these tend to work best in families with the least problems. “My issue is that these programs might work in some kids but they don’t work in all kids, and they particularly don’t work in kids that need it most,” says van Goozen.

Van Goozen’s technique seems promising and low-cost, says Rowe. “All you need is one person and a laptop,” says van Goozen, who now plans to test the program in more young people, as well as children as young as 4 who might be at risk of developing antisocial behavior, because they have been abused, for example. She thinks it could work in adults too, given the success of similar training programs aimed at adults with brain injury in the US.

Filed Under: Nonverbal Behavior, Science

The Influence People Blog July 27, 2015

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count Just a Few Ways

“How do I love thee? Let me count the ways,” is a famous line from an Elizabeth Barrett Browning poem. Counting the reasons you love someone (or like a friend, enjoy your car, prefer a certain store, etc.) is only good advice if you don’t have to count too high. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say don’t have people count past one hand. Allow me to explain. I’ve been rereading Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. If you want a great overview of how your subconscious and conscious minds work then you’ll want to pick up his book. He touches on our irrationality, similar to Dan Ariely’s work in Predictably Irrational, heuristics (click-whir responses) as mentioned by Robert Cialdini in his classic Influence Science and Practice, as well as many other concepts about how our minds work.As I’ve been reading I’m struck by the reality that our minds work in ways that are quite often opposite of what we might expect. For example, who would be more persuaded to buy a BMW? The person who is asked to list a dozen reasons BMWs are great cars or the person who is asked to list just three reasons? Most people would intuitively guess the person who lists a dozen reasons. After all, if you can come up with 12 reasons it must be a good car, especially when considered against just three reasons. Unfortunately you’d be wrong. In several different studies cited in Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman clearly show people who are asked to generate fewer reasons are more persuaded than those who have to come up with many more. Why is this the case? If you can easily come up with three reasons you are probably pretty confident a BMW is an excellent car. However, if asked to come up with lots more, and you do so but struggle in the process, you start to wonder if the BMW is really as good as you think. The struggle allows doubt to creep in.This feature of thinking is common to all people. When we can quickly come up with a few reasons we are for gay marriage or against it, for a political candidate or against the candidate, for tax increases on the wealthy or against them, or for or against anything else, we will be even more confident that our position (for or against) is the correct decision. However, if asked to list many more reasons we might just wonder how strong our case really is.Pause to consider this if you happen to be in marketing or sales. Inundating people with reasons your product or service is the best might not work as well as hammering home three to five reasons because your prospective customer will probably easily recall two or three of those reasons. However, a laundry list of why your offer is so great will only work against you!There’s a saying, “Sometimes less is more,” and it’s certainly the case when you want someone to believe your product or service is the right one for him or her. By the same token, when it comes to love, “How do I love the? Let me count the ways,” will work much better if you save your loved one some time and energy and just ask them to tell you two or three things they love about you! Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence Officer influencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Filed Under: Influence, Predictably Irrational, Psychology, Science, Training

The Humintell Blog July 23, 2015

The Trustworthiness of an Inmate’s Face May Seal His Fate

inmate-visitThe perceived trustworthiness of an inmate’s face may determine the severity of the sentence he receives, according to new research using photos and sentencing data for inmates in the state of Florida. The research, published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, reveals that inmates whose faces were rated as low in trustworthiness by independent observers were more likely to have received the death sentence than inmates whose faces were perceived as more trustworthy, even when the inmates were later exonerated of the crime.

“The American justice system is built on the idea that it is blind to all but the objective facts, as exemplified by the great lengths we go to make sure that jurors enter the courts unbiased and are protected from outside influences during their service. Of course, this ideal does not always match reality,” say psychological scientists John Paul Wilson and Nicholas Rule of the University of Toronto, co-authors on the study.

“Here, we’ve shown that facial biases unfortunately leak into what should be the most reflective and careful decision that juries and judges can make — whether to execute someone.”

Previous research had documented a bias against faces perceived as untrustworthy, but much of the research had relied on study participants contemplating criminal verdicts hypothetically. Wilson and Rule were interested in knowing whether this bias extended beyond the lab to a very real, and consequential, decision: whether to sentence someone to life in prison or to death.

The researchers capitalized on the fact that the state of Florida maintains a comprehensive database of photos of all its inmates; Florida is also one of the states that still regularly delivers death sentences.

The researchers obtained photos of 371 male inmates on death row in Florida — 226 of the inmates were white, 145 were black, and all were convicted of first-degree murder. They converted the photos to gray scale to minimize any variations in the images and asked an online panel of 208 American adults to look at the photos and rate them on trustworthiness using a scale from 1 (not at all trustworthy) to 8 (very trustworthy). The raters also evaluated photos of age- and race-matched inmates who had also been convicted of first-degree murder but received a sentence of life in prison instead of death. Importantly, the raters did not know what sentence an inmate had received, or even that the photos depicted inmates.

Wilson and Rule found that inmates who had received the death sentence tended to be perceived as less trustworthy than those sentenced to life in prison; in fact, their analyses showed that the less trustworthy a face was deemed, the more likely it was that the inmate received the death sentence.

This association remained even after the researchers took various other factors — such as facial maturity, attractiveness, and the width-to-height ratio of the face — into account.

The researchers point out that the inmates in the two groups had committed crimes that were technically equally severe, and neither sentence would have allowed for the inmates to return to society — as such, the motivation to protect society could not explain the harsher punishment doled out to the less trustworthy looking individuals.

“Any effect of facial trustworthiness, then, seems like it would have to come from a premium in wanting to punish people who simply look less trustworthy,” they explain.

More striking, a follow-up study showed that the link between perceived trustworthiness and sentencing emerged even when participants rated photos of inmates who had been sentenced but who were actually innocent and were later exonerated.

“This finding shows that these effects aren’t just due to more odious criminals advertising their malice through their faces but, rather, suggests that these really are biases that might mislead people independent of any potential kernels of truth,” say Wilson and Rule.

The research ultimately shows just how powerful appearances can be in guiding judgment and decision making, influencing outcomes in situations that are literally a matter of life and death.

“In a few states, like Florida, it only takes a majority of jurors to sentence someone to death. In Alabama, judges even have the power to override juries that choose a life sentence by unilaterally replacing that sentence with the death penalty, which actually happens with some regularity,” the researchers note.

“We think it is critical that people know and understand that these biases exist, else they might not have the presence of mind to police their thoughts and overcome them,” they add. “Every jury-eligible citizen is subject to participating in the process of delivering justice to others, meaning that the majority of people have a stake in better understanding how peripheral information like facial appearance can bias their ability to perform their civic duty.”

**

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

All data and materials have been made publicly available via Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/54skn/files/

Filed Under: Science

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • …
  • 128
  • Next Page »

About

Welcome to an aggregator for blogs about social engineering and related fields. Feel free to take a look around, and make sure to visit the original sites.

If you would like to suggest a site or contact us, use the links below.

Contact

  • Contact
  • Suggest a Site
  • Remove a Site

© Copyright 2025 Social Engineering Blogs · All Rights Reserved ·