Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Nonverbal Expression of Dominance

Fig. 2. Stimuli used in Study 1 (top row) and Study 2 (middle and bottom rows). From left to right, the poses illustrate downward head tilts, neutral head angles, and upward head tilts. In all images, targets posed with neutral facial expressions (i.e., no facial-muscle movement).(University of British Columbia)

While we often talk about prominent examples of nonverbal behavior, like the triumphant pose, many are actually quite subtle.

A fascinating new study out of the University of British Columbia looked at the marked impact of something as simple as head position in evaluations of a person’s inclination towards dominance. This study found that a slight downward tilt of the head, while still maintaining eye contact, is often perceived as a dominant and intimidating signal.

In their first experiment, study authors Zachary Witkower and Jessica Tracy recruited subjects online to view a series of computer-generated images of faces. After being shown each image, the participants were asked to rate the person based on perceptions of dominance. This involved answering questions like whether that person “would enjoy having control over others” or “would be willing to use aggressive tactics.”

Consistently, they found that the faces slightly tilted downwards, while still maintaining a level gaze, were rated higher in dominance than the control. While an upward head tilt was also generally significant, its effect was greatly dwarfed by the downward tilt.

Of course, the attentive reader would notice that there could be something wrong with asking participants to look at computer-generated images. In order to address this, the study authors went further and conducted additional studies.

The first of these simply sought to replicate the previous study using actual images of people’s faces, maintaining the same control as well as an upward and downward tilt for comparison. This generally replicated the findings of the first study.

But what about the downwardly tilted face has this impact? Is it knowing that the head is tilted? Or does tilting the head downward have certain impacts on facial muscles that create this impression?

In addressing this final question, Drs. Witkower and Tracy conducted a third study which, instead of exposing participants to images of faces, instead exposed participants to narrow bands of those same faces, this time just showing the eyes.

Noting that these bands still showed marked differences, such a model helped evaluate whether it was a change in eye position or the actual head tilt that promoted a sense of dominance. They also showed participants images of faces, tilted and otherwise, with the eyes missing.

This final study found that the dominance-inducing effect of head tilt was only present when the eyes were, and it did not seem to require the entire face. This indicates that something about the eyes and the related muscles convey that image of power.

Questions of dominance are incredibly important in many of the same contexts that microexpressions are. In conducting an interview or interrogation, it behooves the investigator to show a sense of authority and power. Similarly, recognizing this tactic in other people might greatly benefit your ability to read them effectively.

Social Influence in Investigative Interviews

We talk a lot about how to understand people’s emotions and how to read what they say accurately, but what about learning how we can change our behavior so that they are more forthcoming?

This is the subject of a recent paper by Humintell’s Dr. David Matsumoto and Hyisung Hwang. In this study, they sought to examine the impact that different cues of authority had on information interviews. This was an attempt to determine whether the truth-tellers or the liars in a mock interview context were more likely to convey information, depending on the influence of the interviewer.

After recruiting participants, they were divided into a treatment and control group. The treatment group was encouraged to commit a mock crime but told not to disclose that they had done so, while the control group simply proceeded directly to the informational interview.

This design split the participants into those who had to lie and those who had to tell the truth during the interview, with each being encouraged by a small monetary payout to convince the interviewer that they were telling the truth and had not committed the crime.

However, there were other experimental conditions at play, namely the environmental context and appearance of the interviewer. In order to prime a sense of interviewer authority, for instance, some of the interviewer wore intimidating suits or had impressive degrees and law enforcement posters on the wall.

Nothing beyond those environmental factors was different. All of the interviewers followed the same script and spoke in comparable fashions, but previous research has seen profound differences in perceptions of authority based on these apparently simple differences.

Overall, they found that the authority conditions got truth-telling participants to freely volunteer more information than their counterparts in low-authority conditions. However, there was no effect for the liars.

Interestingly, the effect of the authority condition seemed to hold even for the truth-tellers written statements, even though these were completed after the interview. This suggests that there is some lasting impact from an impression of interviewer authority.

This helps expand on previous work that looked at how to evaluate interviewees’ truthfulness and emotions by looking instead at what can promote efficacy by the interviewer. It appears that these signs of authority, even if limited to clothing, can result in more forthcoming interviews.

While this appeared to only work on people who were already telling the truth, that does not take away from the usefulness of this information. Many interviews are conducted on truthtellers, with the struggle sometimes involving getting tight-lipped people to speak more freely. Wearing a suit or even putting your diploma on the wall might help here!

In the meantime, there is always more that needs to be learned about how to tell if your interlocuter is lying, so check out Humintell’s exciting training procedure!

Dr. Matsumoto Podcast Interview Part 2

Last week, we began discussing Dr. David Matsumoto’s podcast interview, but we weren’t able to get to all of it. So, now time to discuss the second half!

This time around, Dr. Matsumoto expounded on topics including the connection between deception and microexpressions, the role of gestures in communication, education, and artificial intelligence.

One of the important uses of microexpressions is their role in deception detection and lying. Even when somebody is trying to mask their true emotion, signs of it will “leak out” before they are able to sport the smile or passive expression that would hide their feelings. This is even more likely when that underlying emotion is particularly intense.

These “leaks” don’t necessarily prove truth or deception, but they may show that the emotion being expressed is not the expression being experienced. This can be the case for their gestures, body language, or facial expression.

Dr. Matsumoto connects this idea to the use of microexpressions. It is these ultra-quick expressions that get produced, but they are very hard to notice. Even people who notice a strange expression struggle at interpreting it. That is why most of the research involves video taping people and looking at the tapes frame by frame.

After this discussion, the interviewer sought to understand how different behaviors translate to their underling emotion.

While this is a big question, Dr. Matsumoto started by discussing different kinds of gestures. For example, certain types of hand waving exist to “animate speech.” These do not have inherent meaning, but this is still important in conveying excitement or word emphasis. Other gestures, called “emblems” can have specific verbal messages and include the “thumbs up,” among many others.

Gestures help with communication, but they also strengthen our own cognition. In experimental settings where hand gestures are constrained, people are shown to struggle at performing certain tasks, such as memory tests or mathematical problems.

Both Dr. Matsumoto and the interviewer emphasized the role of nonverbal communication in education. Clearly, an educational context is shaped by environmental factors, the behavior of the professor, and the way that professor conveys information.

Because these environmental factors determine a lot about a communicative context, as we discussed last week, Dr. Matsumoto emphasized the need for teachers to arrange classrooms as they saw necessary to determine certain sorts of educational engagement.

Similarly, while society emphasizes “what to say,” it often does not focus on how teachers should say things. Even if we praise (or chastise) a student, it is very important how this is done, in terms of the gestures and nonverbal behaviors conveyed by the teacher.

Finally, the interview ended with a discussion of artificial intelligence and how machines can be made to communicate effectively. Dr. Matsumoto stressed the need for machines to resemble humans but suggested that there was still uncertainty over exactly how human the robot looked.