An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields
We’ve been talking about new microexpressions research for the last two weeks, so we’ll all benefit from Dr. David Matsumoto’s own insights.
In this new video, Dr. Matsumoto discussed his recent article on microexpressions and the importance of precisely studying microexpressions and their neurological correlates. He emphasizes the striking difference in neurological patterns between expressions at or above 200 ms and those below.
Last week we wrote about the importance of distinguishing micro and macro expressions, but we passed too quickly over deception detection.
Microexpressions differ from their longer lasting counterparts in many ways, but one of the most salient is the fact that they can betray underlying emotions. The fleeting microexpression can show anger or surprise where someone may be trying to conceal it, and effective deception detection can often involve noticing these microexpressions, as hard as that might be for a layperson.
As Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang point out, there are many factors that make people better at deception detection. These include personality features like openness to experience and conscientiousness but also empathy and emotional regulation.
One of the major takeaways from the study we blogged on last week was the more precise definition of what microexpressions are, committing to seeing them as incredible fleeting and at least under half a second.
This was elaborated on in a 2018 study by Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang which looked at microexpressions as keys to differentiating truth from lies, operationalizing this particular definition of the length of microexpressions. They point out that previous research found mixed results in connecting microexpressions to deception detection, but that such research had failed to rigorously define how long a microexpression is.
Much of this past literature, though it found the potential for microexpressions, was that it did not properly define microexpressions based on observations of how they actually function. Some of this research categorized microexpressions as lasting for up to four seconds!
Such a revised definition makes a great deal of sense when looking at deception detection. Much of the attempt to conceptualize microexpressions comes from trying to see their role in showing spontaneous and concealed expressions. Longer durations are less likely to be signs of repressed and concealed emotions.
This 2018 study then sought to look at the role of microexpressions in deception detection given this more rigorous definition. First, they looked at whether microexpressions under half a second occurred and if they could reliably distinguish truth from deception. They also looked at longer expressions to see if these could be seen as consistently spontaneous.
They found that such expressions were generally frequent and acted as reliable indicators of deception, much more so than expressions longer than a second. Interesting, very short expressions of less than 0.3 seconds were not helpful indicators.
We are curious what our readers have to say about this, however. Do you notice these fleeting expressions? Do you think that they are uniquely distinct from longer expressions? Please comment and let us know what you think!
Although microexpressions are analogous to longer-lasting ones in many ways, it is in their differences that much of the latest exciting science dwells.
Humintell’s Drs. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang recently published an analysis of a major study, Shen et al. (2016), which sought to contrast fleeting microexpressions from those that lasted longer than 200 milliseconds. This analysis helps situate readers into the contemporary research on microexpressions and the importance of seeing them as a discrete phenomenon from longer-lasting expressions.
Shen et al. found that microexpressions, i.e. those that only lasted 40 to 120 milliseconds, were perceived quite similarly but were perceived quite distinctly from expressions which lasted longer. Of course, longer is relative here at only 200 milliseconds!
These findings, as Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang contend, have four major implications on the study of emotions and microexpressions.
The first of these is the importance of the 200 millisecond threshold. This fits well with research Drs. Matsumoto and Hwang completed two decades ago which emphasized that that once an expression is held for 200 ms it tends to be processed in observers’ short-term memories. This is one of the crucial distinction between everyday expressions and the more fleeting and unconscious microexpressions which Humintell studies.
Both this study and Humintell’s work support a definition of microexpressions that includes only those expressions which occur more quickly than half a second. While this has been controversial in the literature for some time, it seems clear that around this threshold stand distinctive psychological phenomena. Another interesting thing to note: Humintell was prescient in this by defining microexpressions more than a decade ago as those that occurred less than half a second. Humintell’s definition has been different from claims used by others that are not validated.
Second, this research contributes to the importance of finding neurological correlates to the perception of microexpressions. This has been extensively studied for longer-lasting facial expressions, but only a handful of studies have looked at the neurological reaction to fleeting microexpressions.
Shen et al. found that even hard-wired universal emotions, which we know have a significant biological basis, are still processed through culturally-taught rules, values, and associations, even when processing microexpressions.
Third, these neurological correlates also show how distinctive microexpressions are. Shen et al.’s research concluded that the neurological correlates for microexpressions differ significantly from longer lasting expressions. This leads to lasting questions about how expression duration can be used to study different types of expressions, such as the difference between voluntary or involuntary expressions, for instance.
Finally, this study and many others contribute to a growing field that seeks to understand deception detection. Microexpressions can often betray those seeking to lie. The ability to see those microexpressions is hard and demands training or practice. Still, it is important to note that individual differences, such as personality characteristics, can make this harder or easier.
Overall, this piece is an important addition to a growing body of literature seeking to understand microexpressions and their ramifications for deception detection.
We are very interested to hear what you think! What do you find compelling in terms of future questions? Where would you drive this research if you could? What do you think about these assertions?