Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Nonverbal Behavior and Election Outcomes

silhouette-774836_640By Humintell Director David Matsumoto, Ph.D

“A politician is someone who can tell you to go to hell in a way that makes you look forward to the trip.”

Along my travels around this country and around the world I came along the quote above and it has always stuck in my mind. Now with the crazy 2016 presidential election winding down (or winding up to a frenzy, depending on your point of view), I have been thinking about this quote a lot.

I believe what we have all been witness to in the last few months is truly the power of nonverbal behavior in shaping perceptions, preferences, and opinions. How the presidential candidates behave in terms of their nonverbal demeanor – their facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, body postures, positioning and interpersonal spacing – all have provided important cues to not only each candidate’s personality, motivations, and intentions, but also to the quality of their interpersonal relationships and the dynamics of that relationship. But while this is true most of the time in general, I believe that these perceptions have come to far outweigh any other factor that may (or should) be considered when making decisions about who to vote for. These other factors, for instance, might include the policies they are advocating for the future, how policies have worked or not in the past, and evidence concerning the candidates’ competence and effectiveness in their positions in the past. Surely, these other factors should also be given consideration in making voting decisions. This election, far more than any other election in recent history, seems to be more about impressions of the personalities of the individual candidates rather than factors such as future intended policies or previous competence or effectiveness. And judgments about the impressions of their personalities is largely driven by nonverbal behavior.

In fact there is a large research literature spanning several decades that has examined the influence of nonverbal behavior on voting preferences, election outcomes, and judgments of trustworthiness and credibility (click HERE for sampling of these studies). These studies have shown that people reliably make judgments of trustworthiness, credibility, and liking from facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, and overall demeanor and style. Moreover, these judgments have direct effects on voting preferences and election outcomes.

Many politicians know this and surround themselves with consultants who help politicians change or adjust their nonverbal behavior so as to look and sound more credible, trustworthy, and likable than they truly are. And many are very good at that game, especially polished politicians with years or decades of experience. Some politicians also strategically attempt to degrade the perceived trustworthiness, credibility, or suitability for office of their opponents, rather than debate on future policy or past competence or effectiveness. In this election cycle, it sure seems we are inundated with these perceptions, and NOT focusing on issues concerning future directions, policies that work or don’t work, and how exactly life will be better for all of us.

Don’t get me wrong; I am of course a large proponent of the power of nonverbal behavior. But it seems to me that elections, especially this one, should be about more than our impressions of people that may or may not be artificially produced. Perhaps we should spend more time examining what kinds of policies they advocate that would affect positive change, which ones would not, what has been effective in the past, and what has not, over and above the rhetoric. I think the American public deserves that.

Clowns and Masked Fear

Over the last couple of months, there has been a surge in stories about so-called “creepy clowns” prowling the streets. This trend has caused mild panic as schools fear about the effect on children, and even the White House has weighed in.

Terrifyingly, one such clown, with rainbow polka dots and curly blue hair even tried to abduct a small child earlier this month in Concord, CA. This lends some credence to clown-based fears, but there is more to the story than these incidents. What is it about the very nature of clown suited assailants that so deeply troubles the American public?

Humintell’s Dr. David Matsumoto explains that such a disguise “provides de-identification” for possible assailants. This means that, because their faces are obscured by makeup or fake noses, they are difficult to identify. The clown suits, in other words, create a sense of anonymity. This creates fear as anonymity can result in significant behavioral changes.

When individuals are recognizable or unmasked, they are more likely to follow social cues and expectations.  As Dr. Matsumoto pointed out, “Identity is a large part of how society regulates behavior.”

This subject has been extensively studied in the field of social psychology, and researchers have found that people wearing masks tend to act more aggressively, self-evaluate less frequently, and eschew social norms of behavior.

Moreover, clown makeup obscures facial expressions, and clowns are infamous for pulling pranks. Factors such as these exacerbate the existing problem that masks and de-individualization create. In fact, clowns compete with the likes of funeral home directors and taxidermists for the “creepiest” profession.

Clowns often even actively take on an identity different than their own. A lot of clowns have their own pseudonyms, calling themselves something like “Mr. Bibbles” instead of their legal names. This feeds into the idea that they are not acting like themselves, which combined with their anonymity, results in a fear that they will act violently, or at least erratically.

But this phenomenon is not just about why we find clowns creepy. Instead, it is about why we find what seems like a movement of clowns especially creepy. Part of the reason is that de-individualization is deeply intertwined with group conformity.

In a classic study, psychologists analyzed the behavior of masked children on Halloween, in order to determine if anonymity led to them committing a minor transgression: stealing extra candy. Almost unsurprisingly, they found that the majority of masked children would help themselves to the candy bowl, especially if other children were doing the same.

Even if the children lost anonymity after being asked for their names and addresses, the majority continued to steal if the first few children did.

This speaks to the fact that large numbers of masked individuals create a homogenized and de-individualized mass with this apparent proclivity for deviant behavior. This is a lot of what inspires fear over these creepy clowns: they are anonymous, and there is a large group of them. Why are there so many? Why must they disguise themselves?

Or perhaps we have all just read too much Stephen King.

Click here to view the embedded video.

For more information on fear, read our blog on detecting fear here and the unexpectedly direct result of terror here.

Persuasion and Influence 2016-10-30 14:01:00

JUST ASK‘I find you very attractive, will you go to bed with me?’ Elaine Hatfield carried out a revolutionary experiment in 1989, showing that 75% of men would go to bed with an averagely attractive woman if they just asked (Hatfield, 1989). Other research has confirmed the power of asking, by demonstrating that if you want something you should simply ask for it. Santos, Leve and Pratkanis (1994) suggested we have pre-set answers to questions. Therefore, an usual request is more likely to be completed as we will need to think about the answer. To demonstrate this, Santos, Leve and Pratkanis got confederates to ask a participant to borrow either a low or high amount of money, that was either strange e.g 17 cent or typical e.g a quarter. The results firstly showed that if you want to borrow money you should just ask as it is likely to get results. Secondly, people are more likely to give you money if you ask an usual request compared to a typical request as seen in Figure 1.From the research done on the ‘just ask’ principle, I wanted to see how effective this technique would be in real life situations. I had bought a pair of jeans a couple of months ago, with the intention of giving them back to the shop. However, life got busy and I had missed the deadline for a refund. Seen as I had nothing to lose from the situation but money to gain, I decided to go into the shop and ask for a refund anyway. To my surprise, the shop assistant did not even bat an eyelid and completed the request without a seconds hesitation. Due to being astonished that I was about to get money for something I should not be, I even doubled checked that the shop assistant was aware of my lack of receipt. The request was still made. All I did was ask, and ended up getting money back in return.This is further proof of the ‘just ask’ principle. In the majority of situations, if you want something just ask! People drastically underestimate the power of asking, due to not believing it will be effective. However, as previous research such as Hatfield (1989) has shown, as well as my real life example illustrates, asking gets results!REFERNCES:Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.