What Your Body Language Reveals

By Lisa Collier Cool Jan 18, 2013

While most people think the face best conveys emotions, actually body language is more accurate indication of how someone really feels, according to a new Princeton study. The researchers asked volunteers to guess from photographs if the person pictured was feeling the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, or other intense emotions. Although 80 percent of the volunteers said they would rely solely on the face to tell the difference between pain, pleasure, victory, defeat, joy and grief, in fact those who based their guess on the facial expression only had a 50/50 chance of being right, while those who looked at both the face and the body had much higher accuracy.

Nonverbal Clues that Influence Success in Life and Love

In a TED talk thats had more than 3 million views, Harvard researcher and professor Ann Cuddy reports that our posture and other nonverbals influence our decisions and successes. "We make sweeping judgments based on body languagewho we hire or promote, who we ask on a date, she says. It doesnt just describe you, it gives you a presence, helps shape you. And there are major gender differences in the signals our bodies send, whether were in the classroom, the boardroom or on a sports team. The good news is, we can change our body languageand, perhaps, change our destiny.

Is Your Body Language Powerful or Passive?

The basic difference between expressing control or seeming wimpy is projecting a physically open demeanor or a closed, frightened (or bored) appearance. For example, in a classroom, when the instructor asks a question, some students arm shoots up into the air, while others hold their elbow close to your body, only slightly raise their hand. Its the first group of studentsthe eager, confident oneswho are chosen to speak and often get the better grades. Girls typically fall into the latter category. They chronically feel less powerful than men, Cuddy says.

The Testosterone Connection

The behaviors are linked to our hormones: confidence and feeling empowered are associated with testosterone, the predominant male hormone, while "closed, contractive postures" connect to cortisol, the stress hormone.

A dominant posture actually boosts testosterone, giving a person the feelings of power and adaptability that open us up to taking risks and assuming leadership positions. As I recently reported, assertive posture even helps you feel less pain: more testosterone helps to increase pain tolerance, while a lower testosterone level, coupled with elevated cortisol, is linked to lower confidence and reduced pain tolerance. In a recent study, standing tall was associated with greater tolerance of pain than a submissive posture (hunched shoulders and an inwardly curved torso).

How to Change Your Body Language

Cuddy suggests everyone perform an audit of how they express themselves physically: Whats your body language communicating to me? What does mine communicate to you? Lifting our arms high in a V and raising our chins, for instance, shows prideits how we behave when we win a competition while slumping and folding our arms in front of us, in effect making ourselves smaller, shows a lack of confidence. Interestingly, when we encounter someone who shows assertive body language such as standing with their hands on their hips, we tend to do the opposite, perhaps clutching papers in front of us or looking elsewhere. Likewise, when were with a person who doesnt exude confidence, we often assume the dominant position in the conversation without consciously planning it, keeping eye contact, sitting up a little straighter and keeping our hands on the table. Try these tactics to exhibit an empowered (but not aggressive) body language:

Pay attention to your posture when youre talking with friends and colleagues. Professor Cuddy presents several high-power positions, including sitting in a relaxed pose with your hands behind your head and legs or ankles crossed, with no protection. This sends the message that youre out there and dont need props to carry on an effective conversation. (Obviously this position might not be appropriate for job interviews or some business meetings!) Standing with both hands flat on the table, or with feet apart and hands open on your hips are also high-power positions. The high-power kicker: hold your power pose for two minutes. Thats how long it takes to boost your testosterone (and power) levels. And the longer you can remain in a power position, the more your message of confidence will sink in. Avoid low-power posturesslumping in your chair, touching your neck, folding your arms in front of you. Using "engagement behaviors" such as laughing, eye contact and nodding your head creates the image of a higher socioeconomic status, while disengagement behaviorsdoodling, fidgeting with gadgetsgives the impression of a lower-income background, researchers from the University of California, Berkeley found in a 2009 study. When strangers viewed 60-second clips of the study, they correctly guessed participants richman-poor-man status. Take a tip from successful athletes. A study published in the Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology in February, 2012 showed that players with dominant body language were perceived more positively by soccer goalkeepers and were expected to perform better than players with a submissive body language.

You cant practice your power positions during a job interview or formal meetingbut, Cuddy says, you can practice them beforehand. Just before the stressful situation, go into the bathroom and practice holding your high-power poses and eye contact for two minutes, and emerge feeling up to the challenge. Leave the situation saying, I really got to show who I am. Confident body language will enable you to do just that.

Psychol Sci. 2010 Oct;21(10):1363-8. doi: 10.1177/0956797610383437. Epub 2010 Sep 20.

Power posing: brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance.
Carney DR, Cuddy AJ, Yap AJ.

Source
Columbia University, Graduate School of Business, New York, NY 10027-6902, USA. dcarney@columbia.edu

Abstract
Humans and other animals express power through open, expansive postures, and they express powerlessness through closed, contractive postures. But can these postures actually cause power? The results of this study confirmed our prediction that posing in high-power nonverbal displays (as opposed to low-power nonverbal displays) would cause neuroendocrine and behavioral changes for both male and female participants: Highpower posers experienced elevations in testosterone, decreases in cortisol, and increased feelings of power and tolerance for risk; low-power posers exhibited the opposite pattern. In short, posing in displays of power caused advantaged and adaptive psychological, physiological, and behavioral changes, and these findings suggest that embodiment extends beyond mere thinking and feeling, to physiology and subsequent behavioral choices. That a person can, by assuming two simple 1-min poses, embody power and instantly become more powerful has real-world, actionable implications.
PMID: 20855902 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Dev Sci. 2012 May;15(3):417-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01143.x. Epub 2012 Mar 7.

Best friends: children use mutual gaze to identify friendships in others.

Nurmsoo E, Einav S, Hood BM.

Source
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, UK. e.nurmsoo@kent.ac.uk

Abstract
This study examined children's ability to use mutual eye gaze as a cue to friendships in others. In Experiment 1, following a discussion about friendship, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds were shown animations in which three cartoon children looked at one another, and were told that one target character had a best friend. Although all age groups accurately detected the mutual gaze between the target and another character, only 5- and 6-year-olds used this cue to infer friendship. Experiment 2 replicated the effect with 5- and 6-yearolds when the target character was not explicitly identified. Finally, in Experiment 3, where the attribution of friendship could only be based on synchronized mutual gaze, 6-year-olds made this attribution, while 4and 5-year-olds did not. Children occasionally referred to mutual eye gaze when asked to justify their responses in Experiments 2 and 3, but it was only by the age of 6 that reference to these cues correlated with

the use of mutual gaze in judgements of affiliation. Although younger children detected mutual gaze, it was not until 6 years of age that children reliably detected and justified mutual gaze as a cue to friendship. 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
PMID: 22490181 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Dev Psychol. 1998 May;34(3):525-39.

Children's use of triadic eye gaze information for "mind reading".

Lee K, Eskritt M, Symons LA, Muir D.

Source
Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. kang@pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca

Abstract
Five experiments examined children's use of eye gaze information for "mind-reading" purposes, specifically, for inferring another person's desire. When presented with static displays in the first 3 experiments, only by 4 years of age did children use another person's eye direction to infer desires, although younger children could identify the person's focus of attention. Further, 3-year-olds were capable of inferring desire from other nonverbal cues, such as pointing (Experiment 3). When eye gaze was presented dynamically with several other scaffolding cues (Experiment 4), 2- and 3-year-olds successfully used eye gaze for desire inference. Scaffolding cues were removed in Experiment 5, and 2- and 3-year-olds still performed above chance in using eye gaze. Results suggest that 2-year-olds are capable of using eye gaze alone to infer about another's desire. The authors propose that the acquisition of the ability to use attentional cues to infer another's mental state may involve both an association process and a differentiation process.
PMID: 9597362 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Dev Psychol. 2006 Jan;42(1):142-52.

Children's use of the temporal dimension of gaze for inferring preference.

Einav S, Hood BM.

Source
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Abstract
This study examined 4- and 5-year-olds' ability to spontaneously use the relative duration and frequency of another's object-directed gaze for inferring that person's preference. In Experiment 1, analysis revealed a strong age effect for judgment accuracy, which could not be accounted for by cue-monitoring proficiency.

Reducing the saliency of the objects in Experiment 2 yielded significant improvement in the younger children's performance. Thus, at 4 years, children already show signs of attending to the temporal dimension of gaze for making mentalistic inferences of preferential liking, but their competence may be undermined by the object choices themselves. By 5 years, they appear to overcome this competition. The obtained developmental difference is discussed in terms of concurrent transitions in attention regulation. Copyright 2006 APA, all rights reserved.
PMID: 16420124 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 Jun;103(2):117-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.06.005. Epub 2008 Aug 3.

Children's knowledge of deceptive gaze cues and its relation to their actual lying behavior.
McCarthy A, Lee K.

Source
Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2X2, Canada. anjanie.mccarthy@utoronto.ca

Abstract
Eye gaze plays a pivotal role during communication. When interacting deceptively, it is commonly believed that the deceiver will break eye contact and look downward. We examined whether children's gaze behavior when lying is consistent with this belief. In our study, 7- to 15-year-olds and adults answered questions truthfully (Truth questions) or untruthfully (Lie questions) or answered questions that required thinking (Think questions). Younger participants (7- and 9-year-olds) broke eye contact significantly more when lying compared with other conditions. Also, their averted gaze when lying differed significantly from their gaze display in other conditions. In contrast, older participants did not differ in their durations of eye contact or averted gaze across conditions. Participants' knowledge about eye gaze and deception increased with age. This knowledge significantly predicted their actual gaze behavior when lying. These findings suggest that with increased age, participants became increasingly sophisticated in their use of display rule knowledge to conceal their deception.
PMID: 18678376 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3462484 Free PMC Article

Results: 3
1.

Fig. 3. From: Childrens knowledge of deceptive gaze cues and its relation to their actual lying behavior.
Participant responses to where the story character should look in the Truth, Lie, and Think vignettes. Note. Error bars are standard errors of the mean. Anjanie McCarthy, et al. J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 June;103(2):117-134.

CitationFull text
2.

Fig. 1. From: Childrens knowledge of deceptive gaze cues and its relation to their actual lying behavior.
Average durations of eye contact when answering Truth, Think, and Lie questions. Note. * p < .001, indicates significantly more eye contact when truth-telling and thinking compared to lying for 7-and 9-year-olds. Error bars are standard errors of the mean. Anjanie McCarthy, et al. J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 June;103(2):117-134.

CitationFull text
3.

Fig. 2. From: Childrens knowledge of deceptive gaze cues and its relation to their actual lying behavior.
Average durations of averted gaze in the up and down directions when answering Truth, Think, and Lie questions. Note. * p < .001, indicates significantly more gaze in the upward direction when lying compared to truth-telling or thinking for 7- and 9-year-olds. Error bars are standard errors of the mean. Anjanie McCarthy, et al. J Exp Child Psychol. 2009 June;103(2):117-134.

CitationFull text