Reading people's face: Paul Ekman and Microexpressions

           When I tell people that I study Psychology in college, people often asks me if I am capable of reading their minds. Those times, I often feel frustrated, since Psychology mostly is not about 'reading' people's mind, but is about figuring out how mind, brain and behavior are related to each other. On the other hand, I think such questions reflect people's huge, general interest towards figuring out other people's hidden messages.
           The fact that TV shows like 'Mentalist' and 'Lie to me' are nowadays enjoying a huge popularity also proves people's interest in knowing other people's thoughts to cope properly in relationships. In the shows, there come out main characters who can read people's mind. They do so by watching people's facial expressions and body languages. Especially in the show 'Lie to me,' there comes out a psychologist who is an expert in reading people's mind by examining their facial expressions. In fact, it is well known that he was modelled after the famous psychologist Paul Ekman.

            Paul Ekman is one of the most famous researcher in the field of emotions and facial expressions. He is also famous for conducting a research in Papua New Guinea. When he was visiting Papua New Guinea, the country was of a complete primitive state. He was the first outsider to take a step on the land. In the country, he conducted his interesting experiment. He wanted to prove that expressions on human faces do not mirror social convention but are universal displays of human emotion. Surprisingly, when he asked the natives to make facial expressions that corresponds with each sentences like 'Death', 'Happiness', and etc, they would make the same kinds of facial expressions that people in civilized society would make.         



Facial Expressions of native Papua New Guineans



             He then started to think that if the facial expression is such a universal, inborn one, he would be able to know exactly the kind of an emotion a person has, by examining his/her facial expressions. He also thought that although people may be(and usually are) capable of faking their facial expressions, they would not be able to control facial expressions that occurs on a sub-conscious level. The finding that such sub-conscious level's facial expressions always take place, before people even decide to control their facial expressions, assured him even more that by examining people's facial expressions, he would be able to figure out their true emotions. He categorized people's emotions into 'Happiness', 'Anger'. 'Disgust', 'Contempt', 'Sadness'. 'Surprise', 'Fear.' He then analyed certain characteristics of those facial expressions:

Click to see in full size

            On one hand, however, since such sub-conscious level expressions(Later named 'Microexpression') only lasts for less than one third of a second, sufficient training is needed to be able to to read such microexpressions on people's face. In his web-site 'www.paulekman.com' you can find an online training kit that is designed for self training. The only thing is, the training kit costs $69!(However, there also exists a simpler version with cheaper price.) If you get a score that meets a certain requirement, you can also get a certificate from Paul Ekman.
            I wouldn't deny that before I even started the training, I was rather concerned with what would happen if I really become able to read other people's mind through their faces. Wouldn't that be a true pain in the ass, since I'm not even a FBI agent! Fortunately(?) however, the tool kit took only an hour to complete, and I could only be trained to a level on which I know the traits of each facial expressions, but I cannot quite catch them in evereyday situations. I'd have to watch more video resources and read more books on the issue to get some deeper understanding of it.

For further information, you could read 'Unmasking the Face(By Paul Ekman)'. You can also try the demo version of the training kit here-> http://face.paulekman.com/default.aspx (botton right corner)

           .

An Interesting Article from in-mind.org

Link to the original article: http://beta.in-mind.org/node/380 

           The in-mind.org is a site in which you can read many interesting articles regarding important current issues and discoveries in Social Psychology. The web-site also provides a convinient service which shows readers the important headlines from many different Psychology magazines at one place. In-mind.org also provides readers with helpful video resources.

           An interesting article I read here today, was about a research conclusion that health promoting campaigns should also be adjusted according to each cultural contexts by which people are influenced. The writer divides the culture into two different categories: Individualistic culture and collectivistic culture. The writer claims that in individualistic cultures, like that of North America, United Kingdom, and etc, people become motivated to take care of their health when they are told about "positive" effects that certain acts will bring to them. For example, Americans would be more motivated to floss their teeth when they are told it will make their teeth healthy and therefore make their life happier. Whereas in collectivistic cultures, such as in Korea, people would be more motivated to floss their teeth, when they are warned with negative results that not-flossing their teeth will bring to them. There is a thread of connection between the result of the research and the overall attitude differences between people from individualistic and collectivistic culture. In individualistic society, an individual's major goal in life is to pursue the utmost happiness(unless it doesn't hurt other people). Thus, people pay their biggest attention on maximize their own happiness. On the other hand, people from collectivistic culture concentrates more on avoiding 'negative' incidents from happening in thier lives. It could be inferred that this is because, in collectivistic society, people regard it to be one of the biggest shame to be blamed publicly for their misakes or faults. Moreover, since they believe a person's mistake could also bring detrimental effects on overall society, people are both consciously and unconsciously more aware of negative consequences of their behavior, which may affect their social relationships.
            In addition, since people from collectivistic culture put much emphasis on their social relationship, they hesitate on revealing their problems to others(including psychiatrists, which explains why counseling institutions are not active in Asian countries) They, on the other hand tries to solve their own problems by themselves, often through social interaction, while not revealing their problems to their companions. However, people from individualistic cultures act the opposite. Another research furthermore suggests that 'subjective well-beingness' of  people from collectivist society tends to increase when they perceive 'not necessarily asked for' emotional supports from others. In contrast, there only existed weak relationships between the two variables, for those people from individualistic culture. I believe this explains why such unique and untranslatable word like 'Jung(情)' exists in Korean. 'Jung' is a word that stands for warm hearted feeling that ties people and neighbors together, which you do not necessarily have to express in words to show it. Although I haven't done a thorough research yet, I assume that such connection between people, and the words to express it also exists in other collectivistic cultures.