Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

The Humintell Blog June 28, 2022

Screaming Conveys at Least Six Different Emotions

Why do people scream?

In non-human primates and other mammalian species, scream-like calls are frequently used as an alarm signal exclusively in negative contexts, such social conflicts, the presence of predators or other environmental threats.

Humans also use screams to signal danger and to scare predators. But new research suggests that humans scream not only when they are fearful and aggressive, but also when they experience other emotions such as despair and elation.

In the past, scientific studies on human screams have focused almost exclusively on vocalizations of anguish—and this oversight nagged at neuroscientist Sascha Frühholz. He and his colleagues set out to characterize the screams we let us for a range of emotions, negative and positive.

By studying screams recorded in a small, padded room, Frühholz and his team identified six acoustically distinct scream categories: pain, anger, fear, joy, passion, and sadness.

Their research was published in PLOS Biology.

The Study

As reported in National Geographic, the researchers recruited 12 volunteers to scream with each emotion. The volunteer was primed with a description of an emotion-evoking scenario for each scream type, such as getting attacked by a stranger in a dark alley.

Each person also recorded a “neutral scream” for comparison, which is just an intense utterance of “ahh.” They then instructed the participant to let loose in the soundproof room.

Frühholz and his team analyzed recordings of each scream by looking at 88 acoustic features, such as measurements characterizing pitch and intensity. They trained a computer algorithm on the various features that differed between screams and found it could correctly categorize screams nearly 80 percent of the time. The most accurate classification was for joy, with 89.7 percent correct classifications.

The team then studied participants listening to the recorded screams, measuring how quickly they could categorize the emotion triggering the scream by clicking an option on a computer screen.

In one set of trials, they tested people’s ability to select the scream type from all six emotions or neutral, and in another, the listeners only had the option of picking one of two scream types. The team also created maps of brain activity for people listening to playbacks of the screams using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

They were interested in three particular brain systems in the fMRI scans, Frühholz explains.

  1. The first was the auditory system, which is involved in analyzing and classifying each sound.
  2. The second was the limbic system, which is involved in emotional responses, particularly during survival situations.
  3. Finally, the frontal cortex, which is involved in decision-making and helps put the sound in the broader context of a situation.

The Findings

The researchers found that volunteers more readily recognized—and their brains more efficiently processed—screams that were not considered alerts, including joy, passion, and sadness, compared to the screams of pain, anger, and fear.

They more slowly recognized screams from negative emotions, including pain, fear, and anger. Similar patterns also held for fMRI analysis, which showed non-alert screams sparked greater activity in listener’s brains compared to the alert screams. Exactly why, however, remains uncertain.

For all animal species, screams are considered a vital way to rapidly communicate danger to others nearby; why the joyful screams of this latest study seemed to invoke the strongest response remains unknown.

“The results of our study are surprising in the sense that researchers usually assume the primate and human cognitive system to be specifically tuned to detect signals of danger and threat in the environment as a mechanism of survival. This has long been supposed to be the primary purpose of communicative signaling in screams. While this seems true for scream communication in primates and other animal species, scream communication seemed to have largely diversified in humans, and this represents a major evolutionary step.”

Other Scream Research

Other research has been conducted on screams, including a study out of Emory University that found most people can’t tell the difference between screams of joy and screams of terror when they are heard out of context.

Unlike speech, the study finds screams lack distinctive and consistent acoustic parameters, which make them harder to identify. To see whether people could do so, researchers asked 182 participants to listen to 30 screams from Hollywood movies through headphones. Each scream communicated one of six emotions: anger, frustration, pain, surprise, fear, and happiness.

After hearing each howl, listeners then rated on a scale of one to five how likely the scream was associated with one of these six emotions. The results reveal participants correctly paired screams and emotions in most cases, except when it came to happiness. The group often confused these screams with fear.

“The acoustic features that seem to communicate fear are also present in excited, happy screams. In fact, people pay good money to ride roller coasters, where their screams no doubt reflect a blend of those two emotions.”

Interestingly, similarities between cries of joy and terror could have deep evolutionary roots. The findings may even provide a clue to the age-old question of why young children often scream while playing.

“Nobody has really studied why young children tend to scream frequently, even when they are happily playing, but every parent knows that they do. It’s a fascinating phenomenon.”

The post Screaming Conveys at Least Six Different Emotions first appeared on Humintell.

Filed Under: Emotion, Science

The Humintell Blog June 9, 2022

[STUDY] Do the Best Performers Give the Best Advice?

Everyone knows that if you want to learn how to do something, you should get advice from people who do it well, right?

In a 4-part study, researchers from Harvard University and the University of Virginia aimed to answer this question.

Their paper entitled “Tips From the Top: Do the Best Performers Really Give the Best Advice?” was recently published in the journal Psychological Science.

Part 1

In the first part of the study, around 1,000 participants (606 females; the average age of 35 years old) were asked to play Word Scramble. Participants were asked whether they thought there might be any link between how good someone was at the game and how good they’d be at helping others play it.

The answer?

Most people stated that someone’s ability to play the game would be an indicator of how good their advice was.

Part 2

In the second part of the study, 78 people (38 males; mean age of 36 years old) were chosen to be advisers to 2,000 more people who were tasked with playing the game. The advisers’ guidance varied, with some advisers saying people should look for short words, for example, or look for certain parts of words.

At the end of this part of the study, the researchers found that guidance did tend to improve people’s performance. However, they also found that the guidance that came from the best players was not actually any more beneficial to the new players compared to the guidance given from other advisers.


body languageDid you know?

The ability to read emotions in others and in oneself has proven through research to be the strongest driver of leadership and personal excellence.

A recent study even suggests people who are in tune with their colleagues’ emotions are more likely to bring home a bigger paycheck than their emotionally-stunted colleagues!


Part 3

The third part of the study switched things up again. This time, 300 people (152 males; mean age of 34 years old) were given the guidance written by advisers in the previous part but were told not to implement them into the gameplay. Rather, they were asked to simply guess how effective the guidance would be.

It’s crucial to note that the players who were given the advice were told nothing about the performance of the people who gave it.

The results showed that the guidance provided by the most successful players was regarded as sounding better than the guidance provided by the rest—even though the previous part of the study (part 2) showed that this advice was not actually any more effective in practice.

Part 4

The fourth and final part of the study did not involve any gameplay. In this section, researchers analyzed the advice given by the more successful players to see why people rated it more highly. They found that the more successful performers made a higher number of suggestions than others.

“The best performers did not give better advice, but they did give more of it, and participants apparently mistook quantity for quality,” the study reads. “These studies suggest that performing and advising may often be unrelated skills and that in at least some domains, people may overvalue advice from top performers.”

Although advice from the best-performing advisors was no more beneficial than advice from other advisors, participants believed that it had been—and they believed this despite the fact that they were told nothing about their advisors’ performance. Why?

The best performers did not give better advice, but they did give more of it, and participants apparently mistook quantity for quality.

These studies suggest that performing and advising may often be unrelated skills and that in at least some domains, people may overvalue advice from top performers.

The post [STUDY] Do the Best Performers Give the Best Advice? first appeared on Humintell.

Filed Under: Emotion

The Humintell Blog May 17, 2022

Past Blog: Raising Awareness About Active Shooter Incidents

This past weekend’s horrific events at a Buffalo supermarket and California church are stark reminders that active shooter incidents are incredibly frightening events that often have deadly consequences for individuals, and dire consequences for organizations.

The term “active shooter” describes a “situation in which a shooting is in progress and an aspect of the crime may affect the protocols used in responding to and reacting at the scene of an incident” (Blair & Schweit, 2014, p. 4). Most government agencies in the U.S. define “active shooter” as an “individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area” (Blair & Schweit, 2014, p. 5).

Since they have been studied, active shooter incidents have been steadily increasing over the years, causing increasing numbers of casualties, including many who have been killed or wounded (Blair, Martaindale, & Nichols, 2014; Blair & Schweit, 2014).

Active Shooter Preparedness: How to Protect Your [+Checklist] - AlertMedia

Unsurprisingly, most of these events have occurred at businesses. Because these data are cause for grave concern for any organization, private or public, it is no wonder that many organizations are coming to grips with the reality of considering ways of dealing with, managing, and preventing these kinds of incidents to occur.

ABC News on Twitter: "Of the 27 active shooter incidents in the country  last year, four were at a high school and one was at a middle school. Those  five school shootings

Obviously there are multitude of ways to approach this very important problem for security professionals. The first step is often raising awareness of this important issue, as many security professionals and organizations unfortunately remain in the dark about the frequency and/or severity of these types of events.

Raising awareness alone is not enough; what is equally if not more important is to actively consider, implement, monitor, and refine a comprehensive security plan in order not only to deal with these incidents when they occur – as well as their aftermath – but also how to prevent them in the first place.

By now many security professionals have heard of the current rendition of the “best” response to an active shooter incident, involving the mantra “Run, Hide, Fight.” But let’s dive deeper into how this may actually occur in an active shooter situation.

In reality, data on active shooter incidents have shown that 70% of such incidents ended in five minutes or less, with 37% ending in two minutes or less (Blair & Schweit, 2014). At the same time, the average (median) response time by law enforcement officers to the scene is about three minutes.

These statistics indicate that civilians often have to make life and death decisions in a very short time, and in a very emotional situation. How to do so?

My many years of training athletes in Olympic judo competition gives us clues about how to approach the problem. These are also highly charged situations in which split second decisions need to be made when one is hyper aroused. In fact we have clocked athletes’ heart rates in competition upwards of 200 beats/minute.

Given that that is what is occurring in real life, it becomes very clear very quickly that training in what to do in a very neutral, calm environment (e.g., a classroom lecture or workshop) has little or no bearing on making constructive changes to behaviors in the hyper charged situation.

While classroom workshops on active shooter incidents are great for raising awareness, their potential in producing effective behaviors in a hyper charged situation is extremely limited. What is needed is training that simulates, as close as possible, the actual environment in which the desired behaviors need to take place. The most effective training will be that which produces that simulation well.

There are many ways to think about prevention as well. Research has increasingly documented the signs and signals of impending violence (Matsumoto, Frank, & Hwang, 2015; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013, 2014; Matsumoto, Hwang, & Frank, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2016), much of which can be transformed into proactive detection capabilities to intervene before things escalate.

For more on this research, visit this past blog. 

Moreover, recent research on lone actors and other actors who perform violent acts against others has documented that many – upwards of 80 – 90% of these individuals – leak their plans and intentions in some way, shape, or form to others (Meloy & Gill, 2016; Meloy, Roshdi, Glaz-Ocik, & Hoffman, 2015). Heightened awareness of these signs and signals, and procedures for reporting these to security professionals may be of interest.

These are just some of the many ways to consider how to deal with, manage, and prevent active shooter incidents. Perhaps the most important factor to consider, however, and perhaps the most difficult, is to find the courage and conviction to truly deal with them in the first place.

References Cited

Blair, J. P., Martaindale, H., & Nichols, T. (2014). Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2012. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January. Retrieved from https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012 website:

Blair, J. P., & Schweit, K. W. (2014). A study of active shooter incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013. Washington, D.C.: Texas State University and Federal Bureau of Investigation. U.S. Department of Justice.

Matsumoto, D., Frank, M. G., & Hwang, H. C. (2015). The role of intergroup emotions on political violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 369-373. doi: 10.1177/0963721415595023.

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). The language of political aggression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32, 335-348. doi: 10.1177/0261927X12460666.

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2014). Facial signs of imminent aggression. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 1, 118-128. doi: 10.1037/tam0000007.

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2013). Emotional language and political aggression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32, 452-468. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12474654.

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2014a). Emotions expressed by leaders in videos predict political aggression. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 6, 212-218. doi: 10.1080/19434472.2013.769116.

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2014b). Emotions expressed in speeches by leaders of ideologically motivated groups predict aggression. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 6, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/19434472.2012.716449.

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2016). The effects of incidental anger, contempt, and disgust on hostile language and implicit behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12374.

Meloy, J. R., & Gill, P. (2016). The lone-actor terrorist and the TRAP-18. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 3, 37-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tam0000061.

Meloy, J. R., Roshdi, K., Glaz-Ocik, J., & Hoffman, J. (2015). Investigating the individual terrorist in Europe. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 2, 140-152. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tam0000036.

 EditRaising Awareness about Active Shooter Incidents

The post Past Blog: Raising Awareness About Active Shooter Incidents first appeared on Humintell.

Filed Under: General

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • …
  • 558
  • 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 ·