The Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP) set out to answer the question, how are emotions generated in the brain?  They are using mice as a model to map the emotional circuitry within the neural network of the brain in an effort to study how activity in these areas elicit emotions.

Science 2.0 reports on this interesting research project.  Surprisingly,  mice have a very similar brain anatomy to humans; therefore, are great candidates for this study.

The scientists set out with the premise that our emotions are based on the activity of nerve cells. Emotions cause activity to happen in several parts of the brain such as the neocortex, the brain stem and an almond-shaped region in the limbic system called the amygdala.

The researchers plan to navigate their hypothesis via virus interactions with the brain; hopefully, helping them to fully understand the origin of emotions.  Why use viruses?  Well, they infect nerve cells and migrate along them to the brain.  They will inject a florescent protein into the virus to track the path it takes through the brain.

This project will also answer the question, ‘how genes and pharmaceutical substances affect the activity of neuronal circuits and influence emotions?’ .

In an interesting and related article by Science Codex, purports that the language we use when describing an event affects our overall mood.

The study focused on what type of verbiage we use when we talk about a past event.  They noted that we can describe events either as already completed (I ran) or as ongoing (I was running).   Why is this Important? 

The researchers suggest that to improve your mood you should talk about a negative past event as something that has already happened opposed to an event that was happening.  How does that Help?

Their findings revealed that people who described a positive event with words that suggested it was ongoing felt more positive. And when they described a negative event in the same way, they felt more negative.

 Let the Humintell community know your thoughts on this research

Below is the continuation of the interview with Dr. Matsumoto  about his current research on Triumph vs. Pride by science reporter, Anna Meldolesi, for her Italian Newspaper, Il Corriere della sera:

Q2:  What about defeat behavior in athletes and primates?

Dr. Matsumoto:  Our papers show the behaviors of the defeated to include head down, arms brought to the side or front, eyes gazing down, face covers. These behaviors are consistent with the emotion of sadness and/or shame.

Q3:  Can you comment on behavior and expressions of elite athletes before competition? Think of Usain Bolt for example. Are they kidding or threatening competitors?

Dr. Matsumoto:  Can’t really comment as we have never studied it formally. Anecdotally I think each athlete is different in their optimal “game face.” While there are the Usain Bolt’s of the world, there are other athletes who do very different things yet perform extremely well. It would be a good study.

 Q4:  Marco Balotelli is a talented and eccentric football player often criticized by the media and targeted by racist remarks in Italy.  After scoring twice in a very important match this year, he  took his t-shirt off and posed like Hulk in the middle of the field.  Can you please comment that expression [Below]?

Dr. Matsumoto:  It’s different than what we study because we examine the initial, automatic, and probably unconscious reaction to the win. The expressions you have here occur seconds later where the person is posing and voluntarily expressing behaviors. All in all they all serve to enhance the dominance and success of the person, but these are all unique because they happen after the initial reactions and are voluntarily driven.

Q5:  What can you say about these two photographs [below]?

                                               

Photo courtesy of CHAD ZUBER/SHUTTERSTOCK via Pacific Standard Magazine

By now, many of us have realized that the average person, yes that’s you and me, is not very good at detecting deception BUT very proficient at implementing it.

This fact has been proven time and time again by research that purports we are only as accurate as chance (50%) when it comes to correctly catching lies.

Pacific Standard Magazine has reported on the deception myths that some law enforcement officers fall prey to such as, if a suspect is fidgeting, touching their nose, stroking their head etc.

Much research finds this mindset is counter productive and notes that it even lowers the accuracy of judgments.  Why are the above concepts inaccurate?

Simply because people react differently under stressful situations.

What juries, law enforcement, and media need to understand is that accusing someone of a wrong doing is Very stressful and even frightening (for the innocent as well as the guilty) and convicting them because they don’t react to tragedy or the loss of a loved one as others want them to or expect, affects not only them but their families and the effects are irreversible (even if they are later found innocent and released).

Overestimating one’s ability to recognize when someone is not being truthful might not make much of a difference for us on a daily basis.  However, when criminal investigators do it, it can have dire consequences.

David Taylor, a homicide detective and veteran law enforcement trainer points out some important facts,  “Everyone responds to traumatic situations completely differently.  Given death notifications, some people will ball up in a corner and cry their guts out. Some will sit there in complete disbelief, or become argumentative. How would you be, accused of a crime? And how the person accuses you is going to impact your reaction.”

In a related article also by Pacific Standard mag the lie myths from above, which were popularized by the T.V.  show Lie To Me (cancelled) are put under scrutiny.  Timothy Levine, a professor of communication at Michigan State University reported that  “Lie to Me appears to increase skepticism at the cost of accuracy.” 

In past post, Humintell reports, “While the TV show is loosely based on Dr. Paul Ekman’s work in the field of microexpressions, it must be remembered that Lie to Me is a television drama series where plot lines are fabricated, characters are fictional and the truth is often exaggerated.”

Levine’s study, published in the journal Communication Research, finds watching the drama increases suspicion of others even as it reduces one’s ability to detect deception.  Levine and his colleagues experiment involved 108 undergraduates at the university.  To find out more about Levine and his study read Humitnell’s past blog,  Lie to Me: Viewers Impact.

 How do you weigh in on this information ?  
Do you think you are better than average at Detecting Deception?