A talk with Herman Ilgen, who’s been a negotiator for more than 30 years and who is the founder of the Institute for Nonverbal Strategy Analysis (INSA). Ilgen has researched how facial expression patterns may be connected to personality traits. His paper was titled “Personal Nonverbal Repertoires in facial displays and their relation to individual differences in social and emotional styles.” Topics discussed include: what led him to do that work; what the findings were; how one might make practical use of the findings; and various thoughts on nonverbal behavior and on negotiation strategies.
A transcript is below.
Podcast links:
More resources related to this talk:
- Details about Ilgen’s INSA Method training
- Discussed in talk: James Russell’s work on facial expressions
- Discussed in talk: Vincent Denault’s work on nonverbal behavior and lie detection
- Previous episode of podcast with Tim Levine, who’s researched nonverbal behavior and lie detection
TRANSCRIPT
[Note: transcripts will contain errors.]
Zach: Welcome to the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast about understanding people better. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.
In this episode, I talk to Herman Ilgen about his research on facial expression patterns and their link to personality. A 2021 paper by Ilgen and his colleagues was titled Personal Nonverbal Repertoires in facial displays and their relation to individual differences in social and emotional styles.
To quote from their paper: “Some people constantly raise their eyebrows, others frequently tighten their lower eyelids, and still others continuously smile. Are these purely coincidental phenomena, or could they reflect an individual’s style in social interactions? We argue that there are individual differences in nonverbal expressions, which we refer to as Personal Nonverbal Repertoire (PNRs).”
To read from another part of their paper:
“Whereas facial reactions are clearly situation-contingent, that is, responses to an event, they can also be considered as more stable dispositions: individuals may systematically differ in the frequency with which they show specific facial reactions, across specific situations. Following discussions in personality research (see also Fleeson & Noftle, Citation2008; Geukes et al., Citation2017; Mischel & Shoda, Citation1995), we believe that the occurrence of a nonverbal behaviour in an individual can be situation-contingent, but at the same time relatively stable over time. Thus, whereas everyone may smile more at a wedding rather than a funeral, some people may smile more than others in both contexts. In the present research, we are interested in such stable individual differences that occur across situations.” end quote
The study was two part: seeing if participants had personal patterns that were consistent over the time window of the study, and then seeing if they could find correlations with the patterns and personality as measured on a few different personality trait tests.
As part of the first part of finding the PNRs, they videotaped 110 individuals for 10 minutes in 2 different situations: one situation was when they were alone in a room answering questions on a computer. The other situation was with an interviewer who asked them questions. The two different contexts is noteworthy because it was an attempt to show that these patterns weren’t just caused by social interactions but were likely a person’s general way of being, even when alone.
They found five PNRs that people had. Those were:
Smiling
Partial Blinking
Drooping eyelids
Tensed eyes, and
Eyes widening
When it came to the PNRs that were linked to personality, to quote from the paper again: “Three PNRs showed weak to moderate correlations with individual differences in social and emotional styles: Smiling is associated with Compromising and Extraversion, Drooping with Yielding, and Partial Blinking is negatively correlated with Extraversion. These findings suggest that some of an individual’s frequent facial action patterns are associated with specific styles in social and emotional interactions.”
If you’re interested in learning more about this, I recommend checking out the paper. I’ll include a link to it from the entry for this episode on my website.
Here’s a little more about Herman Ilgen, which I got from his INSA foundation website, which is at insa-foundation.org:
He’s been a negotiator for more than 35 years and a mediator and trainer for more than 20 years. He’s always been fascinated by the psychology of negotiations and conflict situations. He decided to immerse himselfself in the relationship between (observable) nonverbal communication and unconscious behavior. Working with the University of Amsterdam, he’s conducted research on nonverbal behaviors. To make his insights useful for daily practice he developed the INSA Method.
At the INSA Foundation, they conduct training to people interested in making use of his ideas. People who attend his training include negotiators, lawyers, police officers, healthcare professionals, personal coaches, and more.
In this talk, I ask Herman about his research, about what got him interested in doing that, about how he makes practical use of his findings, and about negotiation work in general.
I also wanted to give a quick thanks to Alan Crawley, who gave me the initial idea for talking to Herman, and who helped me brainstorm question ideas. Alan is a nonverbal behavior expert who goes by the online handle Sin Verba; if you’re interested in nonverbal behavior, I had a great talk with him for the podcast that was one of the more popular ones of last year.
Okay here’s the talk with Herman Ilgen
Zach: Hi Herman. Welcome to the show.
Herman: Hello, Zachary. Nice to be here.
Zach: Uh, maybe we can start with, uh, what led to you focusing on facial expressions in the, in the first place?
Herman: Well, this came from my. Practice as a professional negotiator and mediator is, I thought I saw something happening that might be interesting to know more about. I’ve done 35 years plus of negotiating 25 years plus of mediating, and then you tend to see that whether you get a result or not, uh, is.
It’s not dependent on the issue. It’s not so much, uh, due to the intentions of the people at the table, but there’s also something happening in a sort of an undercurrent. So that got me interested in, uh, in diving into this,
Zach: was it surprising [00:06:00] that there wasn’t much research or, or really. Any research maybe on that topic?
Could you talk a little bit about delving into that research?
Herman: Yeah, it was, it was really a big surprise to me. Uh, I had spent, spent months, uh, of going through literature on nonverbals and, and especially the phase and what it would mean. I. Um, and I only found literature and research on momentary states on what people show in a given moment, uh, like, uh, drawing up raising their eyebrows or raising the corners of their mouth.
And what would that mean in that instant? And the stuff I was interested in is what people are showing all the time. Uh, so not so much momentarily, but structurally. And I didn’t find it. So I, uh, contacted University of Amsterdam. Uh, they have some sort of a specialism in this field. Uh, and I asked the professor, uh, can you put me on the right track to find this literature?
Of which I was co convinced that it would be there. And she [00:07:00] reacted, it’s not there. If you’re interested to talk. Uh, please come by. So this was a big surprise. I was, I’d never imagined that something so obvious. Wouldn’t have been researched already. Mm-hmm. Um, so that, that was the, the initial big surprise and the surprise only became bigger when we started, uh, working on the data of our first research, uh, project.
When I already at an early stage saw that people tend to show certain facial displays 80 to 200 times in 10 minutes. So again, I had the sensation, how come nobody ever looked at this? At, at least in a, in a scientifical way.
Zach: Right. It seems, I mean, it does seem kind of obvious in the, in the sense that like you, we, we would think that there would be, you know, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that there are personal patterns that are, that are common amongst people.
And, and like you said, you, you, you’ve talked about how other non-verbal and, and facial expression researchers have mentioned that they’re. Are [00:08:00] likely, you know, various patterns. Uh, what, what do you think it is about? Why do you think it, the work hadn’t been done? Is it, is it just that it was such a difficult thing to do?
Herman: Well, maybe because it’s, uh, the other surprise was how, how tough and laborious this, this, uh, project was. But, um, but I don’t know, um, uh, maybe people are more interested or had been more interested in, um. Something that happens suddenly. And what would it mean? Is this person maybe even lying? Or is this, is this person showing something of their feelings?
And it’s sort of a, an automatic, um, tendency. I think that science starts off in a certain way, and then there are a lot of others who follow in those tracks and form their own opinions. Uh, I don’t have a conclusive, uh, explanation. Explanation, but it’s not that people didn’t see it. Mm-hmm. Paul und wrote in one of his books that he found it remarkable that some people were [00:09:00] raising their eyebrows, uh, quite a lot.
And then he goes on saying maybe it has to do something with their personality or with the people they contacted when they were learning, uh, speech. And then he leaves it and goes on with his emotions, uh, uh, theory. It’s not been the focus apparently.
Zach: Yeah, I guess it, it, it’s kind of, it might be related sort of in, in the poker tells poker behavior space, you know, or just in general.
I think people like to try to figure out like a decoding kind of like this means that thing as opposed to being like, well maybe there’s like more complex Yeah. You know, personal, uh, set of categories that people fall into. You know, that, that, that’s a much harder. Thing to try to parse in a more nuanced thing, to try to, to figure out than, than trying to reach for these, like, oh, this means that mostly, and we can
Herman: Yeah.
Zach: Try to use that as a code or something.
Herman: Exactly. People are always understandably looking for, for a quick interpretation and a quick fix, but unfortunately or [00:10:00] fortunately, uh, individuals are too complex too. Uh, to draw conclusions like that. And, uh, so it’s also in our, uh, in the method that I, that I developed in parallel to doing the research is that we, we don’t do one-on-one explanations.
We provide a, uh, certain interpretation of what you’re seeing in a phase, and especially focusing on, uh, what it, how it might help you to build contact with a person. Uh, so not judging or, or, or having a, sort of a semi conclusive, uh, uh, interpretation about what you see in the facial display.
Zach: So when it comes to your, your own negotiation work, before you got into focusing on the research, were people’s nonverbal behaviors or, and including their facial expressions, were those playing a role in how you approached different situations?
Were you. Of nonverbals in your negotiation [00:11:00] negotiation work. And is that part of what led you to, uh, well, I guess you, you partially answered that, but maybe you could. Go into a little bit more detail on that.
Herman: Yeah, well, like any negotiator, you get impacted by non-verbal cues that the other person at the table is, uh, is uh, transmitting.
But you do that on, largely on an unconscious level. It’s more intuitive. And of course as you get more experience, you pick up more. But still, I found out when I, I had dived into this, uh, specific field. That even with all my experience, I also had my blind spots in terms of people that I was structurally being surprised by that I couldn’t really see coming, if you know what I mean.
In my case, this was especially people who. Tend to show initial aggressive behavior, which you’ll find at many negotiation tables that the, the negotiator first attacks the person on the other side of the table and [00:12:00] then try to push their agenda. Uh, and of course I always dealt with that and it’s not like.
I was intimidated by it, but it cost me relatively, uh, a lot of energy. And with the knowledge that I have now, I can see it coming. So it doesn’t surprise me and I don’t even have to judge it. I’m neutral about it, and I’ll just do what needs to be done. So it’s more like moving from intuitive to, to having a complete picture and, and as I said, see it coming before it happens.
Zach: Maybe you could talk a little bit about. When it comes to, you know, when you, when you, you are making practical use of these, of these patterns in the, in the wild, what are some of the things that pop out to you immediately when you’re, when you’re studying someone?
Herman: Well, from the method that, that I developed, um, uh, I know I first have to track.
The main style of this person by observing his or her face for a couple of minutes. It takes [00:13:00] a couple of minutes in which I try to look like, uh, a camera looks at someone, which is just noting down what I see and how often I see it. After a couple of minutes, usually five, I have a database which gives me information about information, how this person is best.
To be approached and that differs hugely. Some people you like to get to the point immediately and be clear about whatever you need to be clear about, even if it’s, uh, conflicting interests, other people first want to start quietly, not to quickly have some space to, as it were, land in the situation.
Again, others first want to know. Who they’re dealing with and what they can expect. So people are interested in having some predictability in the situation. And a fourth category is, is, uh, is made up by people who value the, the working relationship, who value you, taking interest in. What [00:14:00] moves them and try to find something like a joint solution or a compromise.
The way you approach these negotiators really differs. And so the first thing I, I want to do, I need to do when I start a negotiation is use the first few minutes when usually nothing special happens to make up my, uh, uh, my database and my analysis and start acting from that.
Zach: Would you say, I’m understanding correctly that it allows you, uh, you’re saying it allows you to form a quicker understanding of their general tendencies, whereas without that knowledge you might reach some of those same conclusions.
It would just take you a longer time. Is that, is that accurate to say that you’re basically being able to reach a better understanding of their, their general personality tendencies quickly?
Herman: Yes. That’s in essence that’s it. And especially focused on what do I need to do to build up contact with this person and create an atmosphere where we [00:15:00] can go, uh, solve problems.
Zach: A note here, next up, I ask Herman for some examples of how he uses these patterns in real world situations, as sometimes happens, as it’s hard to speak off the cuff about such things, Herman wasn’t that happy with how he’d phrased things, so he later recorded a retelling of those stories, and I’ll play that now.
Herman: I have two different examples. Uh, one, uh, is I was hired by a team to help them in a negotiation with a guy they described as a handful, always dominating the discussion, impatient, changing the subject. So when I met him, I saw high frequency of raising eyebrows and upper eyelids, what we would call the acting type.
This type of person generally needs others to be entirely clear and assertive. Plus having a focus on results. So I was going to work accordingly, but I also needed to contain his tendency to improvise and wander off in terms of the content, and of course match his energy level, which was high. What I did [00:16:00] first was asked him, what result do you strive for today?
Then put our goals directly next to his. From there on, I asked how do we structure this meeting to get there, and we agreed on an agenda, knowing that he would tend to digress anyway, which he did seven or eight times. What I did then is ask him, do you now want to discuss this new topic, which means we have to reconsider the agenda, or do you want to go back to the agenda as it is every time he chose the last.
Essential was that I didn’t compete, saying he could not discuss, digress from the agenda, but by asking the question and by being assertive on the agreed agenda, I could contain him. At the end. I would typically ask him, are you okay with the result of today? I. And then a completely different situation. I had to deal with a person who was primarily showing drooping eyelids and raised eyebrows without raising the upper eyelids.
At the same [00:17:00] time, we would call this type primarily adapting and secondarily acting. These are people who are sort of relaxed on energy, a bit secondary in their reactions, but also quite firm on their own goals. What this type needs is to feel you respect them by giving them space for their input, for their thinking, and also give them space to ponder whatever you have said.
Any form of pressure is a bad idea because they’ll immediately distance themselves from you and you will not get anywhere with them. So I took time, I gave him space to express his views, both on the process and the content. And also to think about my ideas and my, my input before he had to react to that and I matched his energy level, which was moderately low.
So initially this makes for a more paced and even slow process if you compare it to the first example. But when he start, started feeling that I [00:18:00] was really respecting him in his interaction needs, the process started speeding up. At the end of this meeting, I would typically ask this person, how do you feel about what we have done today?
So these are two completely different persons and different approaches, uh, which goes to show that being able to read the face will help you, uh, make your, make your approach more tailor made to your interaction partner.
Zach: Next up, I asked Herman about the role of rapport in his model when talking about nonverbal behavior.
A lot of people talk about matching the styles of other people and using that to gain rapport. So I asked Herman how important that is when it comes to these patterns.
Herman: Well, in general, I, uh, I advise people always please be authentic. Don’t do or try to do anything, especially with your face that’s not, uh, authentic.
Zach: Mm-hmm.
Herman: Let me give you an example. Uh, if I look at my personal nonverbal repertoire, uh, I’m a guy [00:19:00] who draws up his eyebrows and upper eyelids and also some, sometimes show some white underneath. Uh, my iris. What I don’t do in my, uh, in my, in my personal repertoire, uh, is tense. My lower eyelid. Of course, if I, if I look into the sun, I do that, but normally it’s not something I do.
Suppose I would be negotiating with the guy who is doing that constantly and I would start matching that. I guarantee you it’ll look terrible because my personal nonverbal repertoire will always be what it is. Mm-hmm. Regardless of the situation. So I’m doing something that’s not congruent with that.
But it’s strange in that, and even if this person doesn’t know this, I. Information doesn’t know this method. They’ll pick up on, on, on, on, on, on the, on the noise in my, uh, nonverbals. So, no, that’s exactly what I don’t do. I don’t try to match someone’s expressions or display. I use the information to understand what I need to do.
[00:20:00] To, to build rapport. And that’s in the approach of the, of the conversation. So I don’t change my face. Mm-hmm. Even if I, if I could, but I, which I probably couldn’t.
Zach: Right. So it’s more about matching the Yeah. Your, your general approach. Exactly. And it’s about changing your face. Yeah, yeah,
Herman: exactly. Yeah. Yeah.
Zach: Um, yeah, that, that, I’ve talked about that on a few previous podcasts where I. Yeah. The, the focus on matching people’s behavior in general, I think is, is misguided because it, like you’re saying, it comes across what people don’t understand is like, even if that were, were theoretically. The best way. It’s like people can sense that it’s a fake thing and that makes them uncomfortable, you know?
And so you have all these people trying to do things that just come across as weird and, and kind of unnatural and makes people, uh, not, not like them, basically. Yeah,
Herman: no, you’ll get the opposite of rapport if you do that. Mm-hmm.
Zach: So, I, I was curious, uh, when it comes to. Some of the behaviors, you know, like, let’s, let’s say the, the drooping eyes.
Do you [00:21:00] have explanations about, you know, what are the underlying causes of these expressions? I guess to a certain extent, some of these are, are pretty, you know, pretty easy to understand, like, you know, smiling, obviously being more engaged and, and extroverted. But for the other behaviors, do you have, um, explanations about.
You know, why, why, for example, drooping Eyes is, is more likely to be a, uh. Submissive yielding way of being?
Herman: Well, only very general. Um, what we did in our research is just find out what patterns are there and what combinations apparently are significant. Uh, what we found is that there are four combinations in, in the total data that are, are apparently significant.
And one of those is the combination of the, the drooping eyelids right underneath the iris. And you even see a lot of partial blinking. So people blinking without entirely closing their eyes in this same category. It seems that [00:22:00] the, the, the common denominator here is low muscle tension and low muscle tension, uh, in combination with behaviors like, uh, being able or willing to yield, being inhibited, uh, not speaking out, uh, being withdrawn.
Sometimes it doesn’t sound strange, but it’s not like we. Research the why of what we found. We did an explorative research in, in repetitive facial displays, consistent in. Two different situations and what that says about, uh, uh, the personality of the, of the person. But the exact why, I don’t know yet. I mean, I can guess at it, but it’s mm-hmm.
Something else than knowing.
Zach: Well, you had talked a little bit before, uh, you know, before this talk you had tied in your work with, um, like James Russell’s work on, you know, the spectrum of arousal and the spectrum of
Herman: Yeah.
Zach: Valence or warm cold feelings. Could you talk a little bit [00:23:00] about how you see those ideas mapping over maybe?
Herman: Yes. Well, James Russell did, uh, very important work on how people perceive other people, right? So he was looking from the observers, observers part, uh, in the interaction I. What he found is he put it in a, what he calls a, a bi dimensional model. What he found is that some nonverbals are consistently interpreted like high arousal, which is the eyebrows up, upper eyelids up is interpreted as high arousal and.
Uh, a drooping face, drooping eyelids, uh, are perceived as the opposite, as low arousal. And you found that people who are smiling, uh, and, and, and raising their cheeks are being perceived as, uh, as, uh, pleasant, uh, warm. And people who frown their eyebrows and squint their lower eyelids are being perceived as cold and distant and unpleasant.
This is [00:24:00] all from the, the observer’s perspective. So it doesn’t say anything about the reality of the person who is being observed. At the end of our uh, uh, research, we found that the structure that we, we saw in the repetitive facial displays is more or less the same as the structure of the bi dimensional model that Russell has found.
There, there we match with, with what? With his work. And the interesting thing is that we, uh, we look differently. So we, we got information from the participants themselves about themselves. So we had not the observer information, we had the obs the information of the, the person that were, that was in the, in the, in the project who was being observed.
Uh, and other than Russell, we looked at what was happening in the face all the time. So you could say that what we found is very much in line with what, what, uh, uh, James Russell has done. Mm-hmm. It, it adds to, to his work, I would say.
Zach: And, uh, to make sure I’m [00:25:00] understanding too. Uh, I’m, I’m getting that, you know, because it’s personality length that, that the p and r is that, that you’ve studied because they’re personality linked.
It’s not like you’re, you know, say you’re analyzing someone. You’re finding out something about their, their personality. So it’s not like you’re returning, going back to, to look right. You’re, you’re not like calibrating on the fly, like say in a negotiation you’re you. Or you might be maybe using some other things, but the p and r that, that you’ve researched.
Are meant to be about personality. So even if someone changes their, you know, their approach, like these p and r would not change. So you’ve gotta, yeah. You know, in, in your, and you’re telling, you’ve got a, a sense of of, of who they are at, at a, at a deep level basically.
Herman: Yeah. You see, you see their baseline also in terms of behavior.
And of course people are more complicated than this. We don’t have the, the illusion that we know everything about a [00:26:00] person. We know a certain dimension, and then people are also individuals with their own backgrounds and, and, and, and upbringing and personal development. And so it’s, it’s, it’s not to be taken too simply, but it gives us an, a line of approach and that’s the value of it.
Zach: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think, uh, I. The, the ideas make sense to me. ’cause I’ll, I’ll say from my own perspective, like thinking about my own patterns, I, it wouldn’t be surprising to me because I know myself, you know, or at least I think I know myself pretty well. Like, I’m pretty, you know, when it comes to interacting with other people, I, I’ve had anxiety and depression issues in the past.
I’m pretty. Actually submissive in, in many ways and, and not extroverted. I’m, I’m pretty introverted and more submissive in my interpersonal reactions, so it wouldn’t be surprising to me that I have, you know, say the, you know, the, the drooping eyelids, the, uh, you know, the, the non, the non extroverted patterns.
Yeah. And I wonder, uh, [00:27:00] actually just thinking about it, when we talked on. Video for our preliminary talk that you and I did. Did you happen to, did, did, did you do any analysis of me?
Herman: Well, not really, uh, specifically, but of course I pick up, uh, information from, from all the work that I’ve, I’ve been doing on this.
I also think that I saw, uh, the, the, the tensing of your lower eyelids in our, uh, video interview. Which would mean mean that you also tend to be, uh, analytic. That you also have the need to get some grip on a situation or a person to, uh, to feel, uh, comfortable and I mean mental grip so that you, you, you are comfort zone especially start when you start understanding if you are confronted with something that you cannot make sense of, it’ll create some sort of, uh, of tension and stress I would imagine.
Do you recognize? Do you recognize that?
Zach: Yeah. That, that, that is accurate. And, and I would, I would agree with that. Uh, I guess [00:28:00] one, one thing I wondered, oh, do, did you have something else to say there?
Herman: No, that’s, that’s basically what I, what I saw. And if it’s in combination with this adapting, uh, uh, profile, which is the, uh, drooping eyelids and so forth, uh, usually people who combine that are people who are very, uh, specific and very.
Uh, details in their analysis. They are not satisfied with a, a general analysis. They want to do a thorough one, preferably. Mm-hmm.
Zach: Do you recognize that? Yeah. Yeah. That for, for sure. Yeah. And, and I wonder, uh, one thing I wonder is, you know, do, do you think that people would be surprised, you know, by these analysis?
Like, ’cause it seems like to me like some of these things would be. I think most people would be like, oh yeah, my, my, uh, you know, these patterns make sense. You know, in the sense that like, you know, tensing your, tensing your eyes more, the partial blinks, you know, to me does map over in a intuitive way to [00:29:00] being more analytical and discerning.
You know, you’re like looking at the world through a more, you know, kind of strained the like, you know, tensed view or whatever. So I’m wondering, do people, are people surprised, you know, by the analysis, or, or do, do you think most people would be like. Oh yeah, that, that makes sense for me. Mostly.
Herman: Yeah. The vast majority of people, majority of people, uh, recognize what we.
Give them as feedback when we have them in personal coaching or in a training. Uh, sometimes, and this is especially the, an analytic type who first starts to question whether it’s, uh, is, it’s correct if it’s researched, because they want to be sure that the information is correct. So, but this is a little bit, uh, teasing you.
Mm-hmm.
Zach: They’re skeptical, which is part of their
Herman: system. So, uh, if I, if I do a presentation about this, uh, this matter, about this method. I always say I would be a bit disappointed if some of the analytical people in the, in the audience wouldn’t be critical.
Zach: Yeah. That, that’s what’s interesting [00:30:00] about your work.
You know, it does map over. In an intuitive way. And, and even if they, they are kind of intuitions we have, you know, that proving it is another thing, right?
Herman: Yeah, exactly. And having now this, this, uh, basic proof that we found in our first, uh, research makes it even more relaxed and more. Well more secure to apply this in, uh, in professional practice.
It’s not like I think I saw some something or I sensed something. You can know what you’re looking at.
Zach: Mm-hmm.
Herman: Uh, which makes it more easy to do certain interventions or maybe change your approach when it is needed. Mm-hmm.
Zach: Yeah. And I think it’s, yeah. And the more I’ve thought about your work, it’s, it’s interesting in the sense that like, sort of like we were saying, getting quick reads on people, like you can imagine talking to someone for, you know, a few minutes and getting some of these same reads, but say you saw them, you know, immediately doing, you know, partial blanks.
That, and, and you know, and maybe that’s gonna give you a, uh, [00:31:00] insight that you wouldn’t have had, you know, focusing on, on some of these things. Maybe we could talk a little bit about the. The drooping eyes because I mean the, yeah. In some of your training materials, and I’m not sure if this was, I think this was more like the, your training and, and not necessarily the, the research.
There’s a, there’s a distinction there, but Yeah. In your, in your training materials, you talked about how, you know, there can be four people with the drooping eyes pattern. You know, you can have a valence there of someone being relaxed versus someone being, you know, uncomfortable. So, yeah. Can you talk a little bit about how you see.
Tho those kind of personality traits may be playing out in different scenarios.
Herman: Yeah, well, people are different in the way that they are balanced as a person, that there are at ease in situations and in general, you can expect someone who shows the drooping eyelids to bite underneath the iris and the, and the partial blinks.
If this person is. [00:32:00] At ease. This person will also be, be perceived by others as calm, composed, easy, easygoing, uh, whereas when this same person is out of his or her comfort zone, the perception will also change. There will be more a sense of them being withdrawn, maybe not interested or too passive unclear.
So the way you come across. Uh, with others also has to do with the level of your personal ease of your personal comfort zone. Mm-hmm. And so this will transpire in your behavior, but it’ll also have, uh, an impacts on, uh, how others will perceive you, whether they know what they’re looking at or not,
Zach: and how, uh, what, when it comes to other factors, you know, say, you know, obviously the content of what people.
Are saying, uh, you know, which is obviously huge. How significant do you consider, you know, analyzing some of these? [00:33:00] Patterns, uh, you know, do, do you think it gives a significant, uh, boost to a negotiator’s skillset? Or, or how do you see that, that these things playing into other factors?
Herman: Yeah, as well. The other factors are also important.
And, and I wouldn’t say even that they would, that they are, uh, less important. It’s all a combination. And, and this is, uh, in, in, in my view and from my experience, a clear, uh, add-on to all the other. Aspects and knowledge that negotiators or mediators or lawyers or personal counselors may already have or have it, it creates something extra.
What is also a benefit from this method is that if you acquire this, uh, we will force you to go and look at another person like a camera does. So you have to step out of your perceptions, out of your judgments, and first just register what you’re seeing. And this involves a mindset. That will also help you [00:34:00] listen better and have a better overview of what is happening.
So there’s, in that sense, also a side benefit that this requires, but it also generates a certain mindset in interaction with others
Zach: being more cognizant of, of other people’s styles and, and personalities and such. Yeah.
Herman: It’s like stepping into the helicopter and having the helicopter view.
Zach: Are, are there other facial patterns or other behavioral patterns that you think are reliable and practically useful that you make use of, or that you train about but that you, or that haven’t been formally studied?
Are there, are there some things like that?
Herman: Well, we, we, from our, uh, our core ideas, we tend to stick to what has been researched and peer reviewed, uh, published, uh, material. Mm-hmm. Uh, so that’s, that’s the core. That doesn’t mean we throw away other, uh. Elements like I’m, I also, I also have my intuition.
Mm-hmm. But I, I am wary of [00:35:00] just going by this intuition because I know in my intuitions are also my blind spots are my specific perceptions. Mm-hmm. So it’s not that I don’t use them or, or would discredit them, uh, but I’m more careful to use them. Uh, and this gives me more, well, more certainty of what I’m, uh, what I should do in approaching another person.
I.
Zach: Right. I get that. You know, for, for people that do research, especially like you don’t wanna mix your opinions and, you know, intuitions with muddy the waters with the, the research. But, um, I, yeah, I, I, I definitely get that. Are, are there, is there anything you, you would be willing to share about, you know, say for example, like in your years of negotiation, are there any, you know, tips that you have that you think are valuable and under examined for say.
Approaching certain kinds of people a certain way or maybe like tips on like, uh, lying, deception, these kinds of [00:36:00] things. Anything stand out as things that you, that you use, but while recognizing that they might, you know, be hard to prove or not prove at all?
Herman: Well, let me first say that, um, uh, as far as I know, scientifically speaking, there is no.
Uh, Val validated way to detect lies. In fact, from that point of view, lie detection is sort of a non-issue. But you’ve had more interviews about this. Uh, uh, uh, probably, uh, I think, uh, Alan Crowley also talked about this, uh,
Zach: and Tim Levi, yeah. Had Tim Levi on. Yeah.
Herman: And, and, and maybe you know, the work of, uh, Vincent Denu, the, the Canadian researcher who.
Uh, has done a lot about this in, especially in, in debunking existing theories about, uh, lie detection. Uh, apart from, from, uh, uh, opening my minds to really understand the other person in my experience as a negotiator is always very important to, to manage expectations, to have a clear playing field. Both parties or [00:37:00] all parties know what is the agenda?
What are we going to do and what do we need to be able to do that? This is sort of the, the logistics of the negotiation in my experience, that is a, a, an important one, and it’s often a neglected, neglected one. In the mediations that I do, I find that a lot of conflicts stem either from people not understanding each other, uh, and or.
Uh, failures in, in dealing with, uh, expectations. So those two in my experience are in, in, in terms of, uh, being successful in negotiation are most important. And sometimes I see something happening on the other side of the table apart from the baseline. I see suddenly something happening in the face that is different.
Well, that might be interesting, but I have not a beginning of understanding what it could mean. It could mean anything. I mean this, if I suddenly see my opposite number, uh, frowning and he didn’t do that before mm-hmm. It, it could mean that he, he thinks something about. What I have just [00:38:00] been saying, but it could also mean that he’s thinking about the route that he had with his wife just before he went to the negotiation.
So it’s, mm-hmm. I can only speculate. I have to find out what might be behind, behind it.
Zach: Right. Staying open to, yeah, staying perceptive, but also not reaching any firm conclusions and staying open-minded. Yeah. I think that’s, that’s, I think that’s the risk of. The whole, you know, the thinking that the training that some people do or, or the, the school of thought of some.
Nonverbal behavior trainers in, in trying to communicate like, you can, you can firmly understand these people in these situations. You know, that, I think that’s where the, the risks come in or the, the downsides of people thinking like, oh, I really understand what’s going on here, and having a firm conclusion.
You know?
Herman: Yeah, that’s so scientifically that’s wrong. But also I think also, uh, uh, morally, morally that’s a problem there. I mean, what agenda is behind this way of thinking? [00:39:00] It is the, is the agenda. I know more than you and I’m going to use that. I mean, uh, that wouldn’t be my agenda. My agenda is just the conviction that I need to make contact as a beginning of getting to solutions with mm-hmm.
Whoever is on the table. Um, right.
Zach: I think that gets into the, yeah, like, I, I, that was something I talked about with Alan Crowley is the, the, you know, a lot of people view these things as like exploitative or manipulative, whereas Yes. You know, it’s better to view it as. The proper way to view it is, you know, you can, you can use these things to, to make real connections with people and that’s what being human’s all about.
And so, yeah, it’s a good thing. Yeah,
Herman: exactly. Uh,
Zach: do, do you have, um, police I. Interrogators, uh, police officers that, that come to the training are interested in the, in the training.
Herman: We, we, yes, we have, uh, we’ve had some of those. Uh, there’s even, um, uh, a, a person who has a, a leading position in the Dutch police who is now, [00:40:00] uh, finishing her complete education at, uh, at, uh, our institute.
So she will become, also become, uh, a license holder. Uh, we’ve had people from the Dutch, uh, secret surface. Uh, from customs, uh, from, um, several parts of the, of, of government organizations in the, in that field. So that’s, uh, that’s part of the, the, the groups that we get.
Zach: Mm-hmm. Um, I, I, I’m someone who’s interested in, in verbal, uh, you know, v verbal patterns, uh, basically, you know, content.
Patterns. And, uh, for example, mark, I really enjoyed Mark Cher’s book. I Know You Are Lying, which analyzed mm-hmm. A lot of real world criminal cases for, for language patterns. And I’m curious, did, was it often the case in negotiation where you did, would you ever get like occasional tells, basically based on people’s wording of language that that clued you into, [00:41:00] you know, their, their motivations or, or maybe they’re hidden.
Desires, would that ever happen? Occasionally. And And was that a part of, does, is that something that grows as a negotiation skill?
Herman: Well, it’s still going away from the intuitive part, uh, from, from the way that I look at people and, and experience people. And then in, in negotiations, I sometimes see in their, the style of their verbal communication parallels to what I see in the face.
So, uh, as what we call type two, uh, acting type will be, uh, will be quick in his speech, will be very explicit. Um, a lot of variation in the intonation and especially, uh, uh, a lot of speed and movement. On the other hand, someone who shows the Dr. Drooping eyelids, the, the type one adapting type will be more circumspect.
It’ll take longer. It’ll, uh, initially be more vague than then very explicit [00:42:00] people who, who have the analytical profile. So the, the squinting lower eyelids tend to be more, uh. More structured, more, maybe even more, more rigid in the, in the way that they speak. It’s, uh, uh, and, and people who, uh, are of the affiliating, uh, type, which is the, the smiling, uh, smiling people.
Well, they’re also, uh, moving around a lot. And, and, and in their, in the way that they speak, they, they tend to speak a lot more about we than about I, for example. So they’re always looking for the. The, the, the relationship with whoever they’re, they’re dealing with. So we, we can pick up verbal cues in terms of the, the, the style of speech and maybe also the words that they use, but I’m careful to, to pinpoint a one-on-one there.
As I said, people are more complicated
Zach: and to be a little bit more specific, I, I was talking about like actual content of what they say. So for example. You know, uh, there’s [00:43:00] often patterns of people using more vague or indirect language when they’re avoiding something or, or maybe pausing more, uh, you know, before answering ju just these kind of general, you know, even if they’re not a hundred percent, the, the kind of things that clue you in, like, Hey, maybe somebody’s avoiding this based on the language they’re using.
I’m curious, would those things often do, do, would you often use those kind of. Little, little reads tells in, in, uh, negotiation.
Herman: Well, primarily I’m going to, uh, match with what I hear, with what I see. So if I have this type one adapting low muscle tension person who is, uh, speaking vaguely, I. Uh, and, and, and waiting before he or she reacts.
I, I would interpret that as completely normal and natural, and no reason to, to try to find out what’s behind it. Uh, if I would see the [00:44:00] same with, uh, a type two acting person, uh, well, this would be sort of strange and, uh, that might be a flag for, hey, what might be the matter here? Uh, maybe I should explore a little bit more.
And so it’s, it’s, I I use the, the, the nonverbal in that sense as a, uh, as a measure to see if it’s, if it’s congruent, if it’s logical, what I, what I hear them say and the way they, they are saying it or saying it
Zach: when it comes to criticisms or. Feedback about your work? How, how has the community, uh, nonverbal research community or, or maybe other research communities, how have, how people responded to your work?
Herman: Well, I didn’t have so many reactions from that field. Not much. Uh, the article has been viewed quite well if I see it on online, so that’s not the problem. We had some in, uh, initial interest from. Various universities that people were saying, Hey, this is interesting. Can we go [00:45:00] and do, uh, a next, uh, project, uh, together.
I had a couple of really nice compliments from the scientific community here in the Netherlands, like one, one scientist who said, Hey, you’re opening a complete new avenue in nonverbal research. So that was really nice. And of course you also get some skepticism, but then. If people look at the results in the, uh, in, uh, in the publication, well, they speak for themselves.
So it’s not much, uh, to, to talk about there. Uh, people have, some people have had to get used to the idea that there is a link between the face and personality. I. Because of course, if you go back a century and a half, there were all kinds of ideas about facial features and personality. Uh, I dunno whether you know, this stuff like the, the, the, the low eyebrows and the uh, and the big nose and, and stuff like that’s more static.
Elements, and of course that has been discre, the discredited, uh, uh, kind [00:46:00] of
Zach: chronology sort of stuff.
Herman: Yeah, that’s stuff. And of course that’s in the past and this is something entirely different. Mm-hmm. Um, we, we, we got a lot of, uh, uh, public at attention here in the Netherlands. After the publication, I found myself suddenly, uh, uh, two times in two days on national TV and on the radio and newspapers and, and, and stuff like that.
So that was, that was nice. But no real, um, follow up reaction from the scientific community as yet.
Zach: Yeah, I know you’re, you’re doing some more work on this. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that, but I’m also curious, has it inspired other people to do similar research that you’re aware of?
Herman: Not that I’m aware of.
I hope, I hope for it because this, there’s so much more to find out about this stuff. Uh, and of course we are going to continue to do research, uh, together with the University of Amsterdam. I sincerely hope that others will also pick this up and have their view on it and, and tell me where I, uh, didn’t see [00:47:00] things correctly and, and so forth.
Because then we will get more information, um, uh, altogether. Well, you asked me about the, the next, uh, project. We started it already a few years ago. Um, in that project, we, uh, put the participants in a longer simulation interaction to see if this non-verbal pattern would vary, uh, in, in, in, in, in the phases of this, uh, of this, uh, simulation.
Or that it would be consistent even if you, if you break down the, the, the simulation in, in let’s say two minute blocks. Um, and what we also did there is, and it was a dynamic situation, so it’s not like questions and answers, but it was a simulation of a negotiation. We, uh, we of course, we, we recorded that on video and people had to fill in questionnaires about what they think that they had done in this.
In this simulation, in, in terms of their behavior, but we also recorded it [00:48:00] separately on audio and have some expert coders, people who are, uh, expert in, in, uh, negotiations code the actual behavior. So we have a triangular measurement in our second project between nonverbal, uh, self-report, an observer. Uh, codings.
Well, this is next to finished. Uh, I’m already working on the, on the manuscript. Uh, what we found so far, at any rate is that, uh, yes, the per personal nonverbal repertoire is also consistent in a dynamic simulation over over a longer period. So it’s not like it changes a lot in the course of a conversation.
It’s, it’s consistent. And the other thing that we already can see is that the structure of the nonverbals, the facial displays is even closer to what Russell has found than in our first research. So that, that looks good. Uh, and for the rest, um, you’ll have to wait because it’s still, uh, in the works.
Zach: This has [00:49:00] been great.
Thanks for coming on, Herman, and thanks for talking about your work.
Zach: That was a talk with Herman Ilgen about his research into facial expression patterns and personality traits. His website is at insa-foundation.org. If you’re interested in learning more about his work, I recommend checking out his paper, which was titled Personal Nonverbal Repertoires in facial displays and their relation to individual differences in social and emotional styles, and reading up about the descriptions of the Insa Foundation training on that website.
And if you enjoyed this talk, just a note that I have quite a few episodes in the library about nonverbal behavior and behavioral research in general. One of the more popular ones recently was a talk with Tim Levine about his research into using nonverbal behavior to detect lies.
If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, just a reminder that you can sign up for a premium membership at behavior-podcast.com and help support this podcast.
Okay, thanks for listening.