Click here to view the embedded video.
A microexpression is a brief involuntary expression of emotion. They usually occur when an individual experiences a strong emotion but tries to conceal his/her feelings. They may also occur because a person experiences multiple emotions in rapid succession. Unlike normal facial expressions, it is difficult to voluntary produce or neutralize microexpressions. They can express any of the seven emotions universally expressed in the face: disgust, anger, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise and contempt. They can occur as fast as 1/15th to 1/30th of a second.
The History:
Microexpressions were first discovered by Haggard and Isaacs (1966). In their study, Haggard and Isaacs outlined how they discovered these “micromomentary” expressions while scanning motion picture films of psychotherapy hours, searching for indications of non-verbal communication between patient and therapist.
At around the same time, Condon and Ogston (1967) pioneered the study of interactions at the fraction-of-a-second level. In Condon’s famous research project, he scrutinized a four-and-a-half hour film segment frame by frame, where each frame represented 1/25th of a second. After studying this film segment for a year and a half, he discerned interactional micromovements, such as the wife moving her shoulder exactly as the husband’s hands came up, which combined yielded microrhythms. Condon’s work, however, did not focus on facial expressions.
Subsequently, Ekman and Friesen (1969, 1974) included the concept of microexpressions in their studies of deception. The results of this work were reported in the book Telling Lies (Ekman, 1985), and were popularized in the mass media through the television series Lie To Me. They also play a central role in Robert Ludlum’s posthumously published The Ambler Warning, in which the central character, Harrison Ambler, is an intelligence agent who is able to see them [microexpressions]. Similarly, one of the main characters in Alastair Reynolds’ science fiction novel Absolution Gap, Aura, can easily read microexpressons. On Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Detective Robert Goren was adept in detecting microexpressions.
Although the existence of microexpressons was reported in the 1960′s, the first report published in a peer-reviewed, scientific article validating their existence was Porter and ten Brinke (2008). And, the first report published in a peer-reviewed, scientific article about tests of the ability to recognize microexpressions was Matsumoto et al.’s (2000).
Some studies have indicated that the ability to read microexpressions is indeed related to the ability to detect deception; ironically, the most recent studies suggest that the ability to read subtle expressions (expressions of low intensity), not microexpressions, are better related to the ability to detect deceit.
References Cited:
Condon, W., S,, & Ogston, W. D. (1967). A segmentation of behavior. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 5, 221-235.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Nonverbal behavior and psychopathology. In R. J. Friedman & M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 3-31). Washington, D. C.: Winston and Sons.
Haggard, E. A., & Isaacs, K. S. (1966). Micro-momentary facial expressions as indicators of ego mechanisms in psychotherapy. In L. A. Gottschalk & A. H. Auerbach (Eds.), Methods of Research in Psychotherapy (pp. 154-165). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J. A., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken, K., Ekman, P., . . . Goh, A. (2000). A new test to measure emotion recognition ability: Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(3), 179-209.
Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2008). Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychological Science, 19(5), 508-514.
Facts, figures and statistics – we’re bombarded with them. We just came though another election and most of us were inundated with political ads. It’s amazing how two candidates can talk about the same facts in such different ways. Democrats touted lower unemployment and a rising stock market. Republicans debated the legitimacy of both claims when it came to helping people and the economy. Had the tables been turned and Republicans been in power they’d have bragged about the declining unemployment rate and all time highs in the stock market. And it’s very likely the Democrats would have debated those same facts.Another example; sometimes we hear that average household income is up. On the surface that’s good. However, if you dig a little deeper and realize the increase only went to a very few people at the top and that most people’s income was stagnant or lower, would it still be such a good thing? Not if you’re in the mass of people who are not benefitting.As noted earlier, the stock market is at an all-time high. Again, a good thing on the surface but if the growth in revenue and profits isn’t leading to job creation then are we (or at least the majority) really better off?I’ll never forget seeing the debate over a potential increase in the state tax for Illinois. One group said it was a 66% increase and another group said it was a 2% increase. And both were right. The state tax was 3% and the proposed increase to 5% was raising it two percentage points but people would pay 66% more in state income tax compared to what they’d pay without the increase.I hope you can see statistics can be used to portray whatever someone wants you to believe. I won’t say it’s unethical because in each instance facts are being shared but the vantage point can make all the difference. Two homes could look out over the same land but can have very different views depending on where each home sits. And so it is with stats.Mark Twain once said there were lies, damned lies and statistics. His point was simply this; sometimes facts and figures can be used to justify the position of the person communicating. As noted earlier, all you need to do is listen to politicians from opposite sides of the aisle to realize this. They may talk about the very same issue and you’d think they were from different planets. You’ll get some very diverse viewpoints if you scan CNN, MSNBC and Fox.What does this mean for you? Simple; don’t take everyone or everything at face value. Ask questions, dig a little deeper into the claims being made, occasionally play devil’s advocate. In doing so you’ll give yourself a fuller picture and better opportunity to make the best decision possible.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence Officer influencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.