g m g D e s i g n . c o m

Observing the behavior of my dog and cats I’m increasingly convinced that their behavior is deterministic in perhaps every respect. The elusive red dot generated by the laser pointer elicits the same “chase” and predatory instinct from the cats. The dog engages in the same, predictable dominance rituals on our walks (though I’ve learned to be the “pack leader”). In fact, I think animals are only “unpredictable” when people fail to notice or understand their signals (body language, vocals, or other behavioral clues).

People are a bit more complex, but not dramatically so. Anger generates a similar reaction across various species – tensing jaw (or even baring teeth), tightening of muscles orbiting the eyes – the eyes narrow and focus (this same “focusing” is seen when we have a “determined” look about us). Another example:  both dogs and humans show interest in something or someone via the “head tilt,” though it’s more pronounced with dogs than humans. This tilting of the head might signal that not only are we interested, but we are non-threatening, as we are exposing our necks to our counterparts. You would have a tough time doing this “neck exposure” if your arch-nemesis was standing in front of you.

Like humans, dogs can become anxious and fearful. In the case of anxiety (stress), people do certain (predictable) things:  fidgeting, self-touching (esp touching or rubbing the back of the neck); the vocals change as well – you’ll notice a higher pitch (and perhaps volume) of the person, if speaking. Humans become defensive as well (not sure if that term is appropriate for dogs). Where does a defensive person’s arms go? Generally in front of him, possibly crossed and clasped. While being subjected to an episode of The Bachelorette (long story), the gentlemen all waited nervously—their hands clasped in front of them and in front of their crotch area (symbolically protecting their masculinity). When we are nervous, we “shield” ourselves with our arms, or sometimes with objects.

Dogs signal their confidence via the position of their tail. Their tails act as meters of their level of confidence. A dog (or cat, incidentally) will signal its confidence with their tail position; a tail that is nearly straight up in the air indicates a high level of confidence. A lowered tail indicates a lack of confidence (possibly a desire to submit to a more dominant animal or human). A tail that is in between the legs (protecting the genitals) is indicative of fear. Humans don’t have tails. In our faces, we express our fear by tightening our muscles near the eyes, sometimes bringing the brows closer together. The muscles around the mouth will tighten as well. In context, we will probably express fear in non-facial body language as well, as well as vocals (higher pitch of voice).

The point here is that behavior is often deterministic, based not on contextual knowledge (though that would probably bolster predictability as well, that is not what I’m focusing on here), but on the signals that people (or animals) convey in their non-verbal language.

What does their body language reveal? Any guesses?

While reading a commentary by Nicholas Kristof, I found something I’ve been looking for for some time – something that wasn’t actually relevant to the content of the editorial. The editorial is about two African-American males in the US, one of whom attended Johns Hopkins and was awarded a Rhodes scholarship, the other who will spend the rest of his life behind bars. Both men have the same name (but are not related), and in many ways each could have become the other. The Rhodes recipient could have entered a life of crime while the criminal behind bars could have graduated college with a promising career in his future. Kristof writes a well-written commentary on what can be done to foster more of the good outcomes and avoid some of the bad outcomes. Please read it and ponder.

The thing that struck my attention though—which again had nothing to do with the article—was the picture of the Rhodes recipient with a classmate and friend of his. Check it out. This is perhaps the best example of a fake smile and a real smile right beside each other.

I’ve cropped the relevant portion of the picture below. What do you see? The man on the left, Wes Moore (the Rhodes recipient and the success story in Kristof’s editorial), clearly has a genuine smile (what Dr. Paul Ekman calls an “enjoyment smile” as opposed to a “non-enjoyment smile”). You’ll notice that the man on the left not only contracts the zygomatic muscles in the lower part of the face (moving the cheeks up and forming the U-shape of the mouth), but the muscles orbiting the eyes also contract (obicularis oculi). That involuntary contraction is a significant factor in differentiating the fake vs the real smile (and in a still image, probably the only way of distinguishing the two).

The man on the right is posing, of course. He’s faking a smile by flexing his zygomatic muscles, but there’s no contraction of the muscles around the eyes. He’s doing what I’ll call a “courtesy smile.” It’s forced, but socially required for the picture.

In fact, the smile is the most common (emotional) mask we wear. We smile at co-workers, only for that smile to quickly evaporate when they’ve passed. Or we might retain smiles much longer than is natural if we are posing for the camera. In real footage (rather than just a still picture), the timing and duration of smiles is another way of distinguishing the fake from the real thing. Real smiles are “smoother” in their formation and in their fading away (called onset and offset, respectively). And then there’s the fact that, for a real smile, the face will be much more symmetrical than a fake smile, which will favor one side of the face (typically the left).

Smiles intrigue me because, unlike most other emotions, people regularly wear smiles as an emotional mask. That is not as common with anger, sadness, disgust, etc. But happiness/enjoyment are often feigned. Not that the fake smile is bad—it’s normal to show a fake smile in an enormous number of contexts: politeness, show of submission, non-threatening signal, etc. But if you want to differentiate the fake from the real smile, ignore the bottom part of the face and look at the eyes.

Some time ago, I began studying body/facial language (I distinguish the two for clarity). I started with an easy to read, “best-seller” book. Not long after, I delved into the more academic books, mostly written or co-written by Paul Ekman, an authority on the subject of body and facial language (and yes, the main character in Lie to Me is very loosely based on Ekman; Ekman is a scientific consultant for the show as well).

Anyway, back to the title of this post, which is on handshaking. Handshakes are interesting. You can learn quite a bit about a person from his handshake, namely the level of submissiveness or dominance of that person. But how?

We’re all taught to use a firm handshake. Not crushing, but firm. The firmness of the handshake is an important factor, but not as important as another one other factor I’ll mention in a moment. The reason that firmness is not quite as indicative is that we’re all taught to use a firm handshake, meaning that people who are not confident at all will sometimes (but not always) use a very firm handshake. Sometimes, more confident people will lighten up on their handshakes, perhaps to avoid coming across as “bullying.”

So what else aside from firmness can give away someone’s confidence level? The next time you shake someone’s hand, take note of the angle of that person’s hand, preferably by feel (don’t stare at the person’s hand). A confident person will angle his hand so that his palm is angled slightly down. As a consequence, the less confident person’s palm will be slightly tilted up in this case, meaning the dominant hand will be slightly atop the other person’s hand.

My strategy is to use a firm handshake and to use a neutral hand position. This allows the other person (the person whose hand I’m shaking) to angle his hand whichever way he wants. If the person isn’t very confident, the handshake will remain “neutral,” meaning my palm will be parallel to the floor (neither facing up nor down). If the person is more confident, he will slightly twist such that his palm is angled slightly down, meaning his hand is “on top” (a dominance gesture). He won’t even be aware that all this is going on, of course.

This is a fascinating test. I immediately discern the person’s level of confidence from the handshake alone, even if the person is not trying to come across as overly confident. Of course, there are many other “tells” of someone’s confidence, so I admit that this is more a curiosity than anything else. But it’s intriguing how incredibly consistent this is.

It’s also interesting to observe two dominant people shaking hands. You’ll notice one trying to “one up” the other following the initial contact; he’ll place his other, free hand atop the pair’s already-clasped hands, or even on the other person’s arm or shoulder. Sometimes the other party will then respond by placing his hand over the shoulder as well. It looks very affectionate, but all of this one-upping is a dominance game, not affection or friendship.

Above – Obama/McCain shake hands. Notice both former candidates doing an elbow grab, attempting to (probably unknowingly) “one up” the other. Obama’s expression is curious. Maybe he is about to say something, while exerting some effort to maintain a fake smile. McCain is clearly showing us what Ekman calls a “miserable smile” (aka, a grin-and-bear-it smile); he also looks away while doing this, whereas Obama maintains his gaze toward McCain. McCain might be looking away out of avoidance—a desire to not be in his current situation, hence, casting his gaze away.