Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Analyzing Nonverbal Behaviors

In the interview below by DeCodeur du Non-Verbal on analyzing nonverbal behaviors, Dr. Matsumoto was asked by French body language consultant Romain Collignon, about how he got started in analyzing nonverbal behaviors and expressions of emotion.  See Dr. Matsumoto’s response below.

“As an undergraduate, I was initially interested in how children (ages 3-5) could understand their parents’ emotional states even though they could not understand their words. Therefore I decided to delve into this and do a research a project on how preschoolers can understand emotions expressed in  para linguistic cues and not words.“  This is what started Dr. Matsumoto’s path into the research of Cross-Cultural Communication and Nonverbal Behaviors.

Upon a trip to Japan for Judo training, Dr. Matsumoto ended up collecting additional data on nonverbal cues and when he returned was able to do a cross-culture study on judgments of nonverbal behavior, which he then pursued in graduate school at UC Berkeley and continues to conduct research in today.

“There are some professions where it is very useful to learn about microexpressions because one wants to gain an edge in understanding how a person is actually feeling.  In those professions learning microexpresssions is useful.“

Click here to view the embedded video.

 

To Listen to the Entire Interview click Here.

The Victor’s Stance

hi-judo-anger-852-jpgIn recent years there has been much talk about the stance a winner takes after a competition.  Originally labeled as pride, this “victory” stance has been studied by many researchers.  With the winter Olympics just around the corner it is prudent to note new research findings for the triumphant body language of the victor’s stance.

Time Magazine reports on the new findings from researchers at San Francisco State University that suggest the victory stance may be inherited and that athletes instinctively display this “aggressive dominance” over their opponent.

“It raises interesting questions about the history of sports in general,” says Dr. David Matsumoto, lead author of the study and professor of psychology at the university, “They are rarified forms of competition, and there is something very basic and primal about sports that lends itself nicely to these reactions and keeps them alive.”

Matsumoto became aware of the ubiquitousness of this posture during his years as the U.S. Olympic coach for judo.  “What I saw everyday in training and in competition had nothing to do with pride,” he says. “It’s all about just having clobbered somebody. It’s a sign or signal given to other members of the community who are watching.”

He goes on to note that it’s likely an evolutionary trait, based on a need to express triumph, and dominance – and that it was something instinctive, that athletes weren’t even aware of conscious of doing.

From his previous work, Matsumoto coded these behaviors as expressing dominance rather than pride.  This was due to the fact that pride tends to be more reflective involving more gentle and internally directed behaviors. It also occurs at least a few seconds after the victory.

Dr. Matsumoto and his colleagues to studied video of Olympic judo medal matches and zeroed in on the athletes’ very first reactions after the match was over. CBC News  reports that the researchers reviewed more than 35 athletes from different countries, including congenitally blind competitors in the 2004 Paralympics.  Their report published in the journal Motivation and Emotion, they found that victors consistently engaged in any of a number of dominance behaviors, including throwing their hands up, expanding their chests, shouting, making fists, or pumping the air. The losers in the matches never exhibited such reactions, instead keeping their heads down and averting their gaze from those nearby.

The same effect was documented among Paralympic athletes who were born blind, and never had the opportunity to observe these dominance displays. “This is a phenomenon that is occurring in people all around the world, in people who are blind and never saw it happen,” he says. “There is something wired in us to do that at that particular moment.”

 

Why You Should Include a Useless Option

Dan Ariely author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality is a Professor of Psychology and Behavioural Economics at Duke University and a founding member of the Centre for Advanced Hindsight.  In a TED talk Ariely did a number of years he looked at the way the Economist presented their pricing structure and was puzzled at what he found.  It seemed that the Economist had presented a useless option and in true Ariely style he challenged the rationality of including such an option by calling the Economist and asking them why? 

While he got no joy fom the Economist he did complete his own research on the pricing strategy using MIT student and here is a short excerpt from the talk.  As you watch it think about the Contrast Phenomenon and how you can change the way people experience anything by what they experience first.  After the video I will draw some conclusions of my own for you.

So what Ariely found was that while the middle (print only) option was seemingly useless from a product selection perspective and from an anchoring or Contrast perspective it was vital in framing the third option in its best possible light.

We can only assume that the Economist wanted people to take up the print and on-line option (#3) as it was better for them, otherwise why include option #2.

What they had cleverly done with the inclusion of the seemingly useless option of print only for $125 was draw a contrast for final option (print and internet) presenting it in a much better light so people chose that option based on value.  When the useless option was absent the internet only deal was preferred based on price alone (i.e. it was selected because it was cheaper).

Value vs Price

I get asked all the time how do we compete on value and not price.  This is a valid question regardless of where you work or what you do.  If you are presenting a service or a product it breaks down to how much the person making the decision gets for what it costs them.  If the decision is price alone ultimately someone will always be willing to do what you or sell what you sell for a cheaper price to win the work.  As this research shows however the key is thinking about how you are framing your proposals and showing people that the recommended option is of better value and perhaps you need a useless option to help highlight that for them.

So while on the face of it the Economist’s approach may have seemed wrong-headed, we as persuaders know that the contrast of the second option was critical to presenting the final option (and best one for the Economist).

So think about how you are framing your preferred option and perhaps that useless option is not so useless after all!

 

Are your recommendations presenting your preferred option in the best possible light?

 

 

 

 

 

The post Why You Should Include a Useless Option appeared first on Social Influence Consulting Group.