As an expert in body language I am often asked to do reads of political leaders. (Yes, I know your thinking, “How do you become an expert on such a weird thing.) I have communication degrees with a specialization in body language, taught the topic at the university level, and have researched, written and spoken on it for over 25 years)
Last week I was asked by Psychology today to study tapes of the speeches and interviews of the top presidential candidates over the next few weeks I will be posting to my blog the detailed notes I took as I read over 12 hours of tapes on the candidates. I wanted to start my discussion with a research study on the influence of body language on political choice - body language influence on Presidential voting.
Body language influences us in so many ways, but did you know it profoundly effects who is chosen as president of the United States. Researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research studied the effects of charisma on politics The study involved a group of Harvard undergraduates who were shown 10-second silent video clips of candidates in 58 gubernatorial elections between 1988 and 2000--candidates unfamiliar to the study participants. When asked who they thought had won the election the students were still able to choose the candidate who won 60% of the time. They didn’t know anything about the background of and more importantly never heard a word they said. Their choices where made purely on the basis of body language!
What explained this? "Shapiro was reluctant to call it charisma, although his colleague Danial J. Benjamin, a fellow at the University of Michigan...had no such qualms. He noted 'We found that snap decisions based on charisma are good predictors of election outcomes'."
How did they define Charisma? They used a definition from German sociologist Max Weber, who studied charisma, described it as a gift of power, leadership. They were looking at the body language seeing those strong power characteristics and saying that is the body language of a leader. In fact, According to US psychologist, Alex Todorov, people respond intuitively to faces so rapidly, that their reasoning minds may not have time to influence the reaction. The results of the newest research say that when we see a new face, our brains decide whether that person is attractive and trustworthy within one-tenth of a second.
Hilary Clinton Body Language
Representivtive Hilary Clinton steeples when she talks. This gesture is unusual for women to do. She takes her hands and clasps the fingers together so they are more open on the bottom and create a point or steeple on the top. Specifically she does what is called a low steeple or cannon, where she holds this point at her waist level or slightly above her waist level with the point out toward the audience. In everyday interaction a person using the low steeple has a strong differing opinion and wants to shoot “cannon” at you. For Hilary I believe she is taking the offensive when making controversial points.
She is showing signs of voice strain. If you know it is not from mike problems or for speaking too much, voice strain occurs when someone speaks to long or two loads in a low register to show authority in their voice and also when someone is aggressive pushing their points at their audience.
There were little personal ticks in the video I watched of her on you/tube were Hilary Clinton announces run for President. Particularly interesting was something she did in what you would assume was a well planned, and you would assume well rehearsed and coached speech. As she says makes the statement, “...and let’s definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care. “ The statement is an affirmative positive statement,”American can have, but her head shakes back and forth in a no as she says “… every American can have..” rather than up and down. This is a subconscious "leakage" cue that signals she doesn’t believe that statement is true. In this same video she also presses her lips together to suppress or pull back from an angry grimace after she says, “George Bush.” This seemed like a planned little act rather than a natural catching of an inappropriately negative reference to the president. Her paralanguage and facial expressions shift from forced and false warmth to what seems more natural derision and sarcasm as she talks about Bush or the current administration.
One of the things that Hilary battles against as a female candidate is that men are uncomfortable around unsmiling women. Which explains why women typically smile more than men – Women maintain community by smiling and men maintain dominance when not smiling and when Hilary does not smile she is showing what many might read as inappropriate dominance.
Hilary Clinton Body Language
Representivtive Hilary Clinton steeples when she talks. This gesture is unusual for women to do. She takes her hands and clasps the fingers together so they are more open on the bottom and create a point or steeple on the top. Specifically she does what is called a low steeple or cannon, where she holds this point at her waist level or slightly above her waist level with the point out toward the audience. In everyday interaction a person using the low steeple has a strong differing opinion and wants to shoot “cannon” at you. For Hilary I believe she is taking the offensive when making controversial points.
She is showing signs of voice strain. If you know it is not from mike problems or for speaking too much, voice strain occurs when someone speaks to long or two loads in a low register to show authority in their voice and also when someone is aggressive pushing their points at their audience.
There were little personal ticks in the video I watched of her on you/tube were Hilary Clinton announces run for President. Particularly interesting was something she did in what you would assume was a well planned, and you would assume well rehearsed and coached speech. As she says makes the statement, “...and let’s definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care. “ The statement is an affirmative positive statement,”American can have, but her head shakes back and forth in a no as she says “… every American can have..” rather than up and down. This is a subconscious "leakage" cue that signals she doesn’t believe that statement is true. In this same video she also presses her lips together to suppress or pull back from an angry grimace after she says, “George Bush.” This seemed like a planned little act rather than a natural catching of an inappropriately negative reference to the president. Her paralanguage and facial expressions shift from forced and false warmth to what seems more natural derision and sarcasm as she talks about Bush or the current administration.
One of the things that Hilary battles against as a female candidate is that men are uncomfortable around unsmiling women. Which explains why women typically smile more than men – Women maintain community by smiling and men maintain dominance when not smiling and when Hilary does not smile she is showing what many might read as inappropriate dominance.
She is showing signs of voice strain. If you know it is not from mike problems or for speaking too much, voice strain occurs when someone speaks to long or two loads in a low register to show authority in their voice and also when someone is aggressive pushing their points at their audience.
There were little personal ticks in the video I watched of her on you/tube were Hilary Clinton announces run for President. Particularly interesting was something she did in what you would assume was a well planned, and you would assume well rehearsed and coached speech. As she says makes the statement, “...and let’s definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care. “ The statement is an affirmative positive statement,”American can have, but her head shakes back and forth in a no as she says “… every American can have..” rather than up and down. This is a subconscious "leakage" cue that signals she doesn’t believe that statement is true. In this same video she also presses her lips together to suppress or pull back from an angry grimace after she says, “George Bush.” This seemed like a planned little act rather than a natural catching of an inappropriately negative reference to the president. Her paralanguage and facial expressions shift from forced and false warmth to what seems more natural derision and sarcasm as she talks about Bush or the current administration.
One of the things that Hilary battles against as a female candidate is that men are uncomfortable around unsmiling women. Which explains why women typically smile more than men – Women maintain community by smiling and men maintain dominance when not smiling and when Hilary does not smile she is showing what many might read as inappropriate dominance.
Presidential Candidates...
While Hillary Clinton shook her head side to side no while making a positive statement once in speech, Mitt Romney does it often in interviews. He does it repeatedly in an interview with Hannity on Fox news. For example when saying, “ I don’t think people care a lot about which church you belong to he shook his head side to side indicating a no as he said, “I don’t think people care a lot…” When someone makes a positive definitive statement and shakes their head no it appears that they are lying. (This head shaking cue is one I taught in my interviews and interrogation techniques courses to law enforcement) So it looks like he actually believes they DO care a lot! He even does it on a video on his own website as he discusses what he believes. Like a twisted mouth shows your talking out of the side of your mouth this may be a habitual cue showing he is not sure what he believes.
He also like McCain in several of his interviews uses a “masking”, a tense fake smile to cover his displeasure at how the interview is going.
While many candidates, Giuliani, Clinton and Edwards use aggressive and powerful chopping motions as they speak Romney’s hands more often stay cupped and sweep out which makes him appear less definitive and aggressive and on the issues. He even does this in a video of his speech on topic he feels strongly about the Islamic Jihad.
He also like McCain in several of his interviews uses a “masking”, a tense fake smile to cover his displeasure at how the interview is going.
While many candidates, Giuliani, Clinton and Edwards use aggressive and powerful chopping motions as they speak Romney’s hands more often stay cupped and sweep out which makes him appear less definitive and aggressive and on the issues. He even does this in a video of his speech on topic he feels strongly about the Islamic Jihad.
Body Langauge - Obama and other interesting tidbits...
Here are some interesting body language comments from others:
Body language reveals the naked truth
By Allan Markin - Penticton Western News - February 28, 2008
We communicate with each other in many ways. I find our body language the most interesting, perhaps because our physical messages often occur without our realizing it.
Body language can tell us what a person is really like. I’ve been watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign for the Democratic nomination to become the next U.S. president, sure to happen unless the Democrats foul things up as they have done in the past. Remember the fiasco a few years ago when their super delegates chose Walter Mondale?
Now that Obama has taken the lead and is enjoying a surging campaign, Hillary’s body language has been showing signs of desperation. She still smiles sweetly, like somebody’s mom. Then, eyes aglow with disdain and fury, she launches into vituperative attacks on Obama, looking and sounding like a stern mother scolding a son who stayed out past curfew time and came home drunk.
Indeed, where once she looked directly at Obama when he was speaking, suggesting that she had real interest in what he was saying, now she turns away, as if to convey the message that he’s not worth listening to. This body language indicates arrogance, disrespect and feigned self-confidence — messages that will not bolster a faltering campaign.
Someone should tell her that such behaviour is not presidential. True leadership means being magnanimous and rising above small-minded petulance. Obama, to his credit, has been measured and calm in his responses. His body language continues to convey quiet confidence and poise. He looks presidential, even now when the heat on him has been turned up and the scandal-mongering that plagues American politics has emerged from the political slime.
Sometimes body language makes me angry. Recently I watched Elmer Mckay, former MP and cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney’s government, testifying before the Commons Ethics Committee regarding the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Mr. Mackay should be ashamed of his juvenile behaviour.
He slouched arrogantly in his chair like an unrepentant high school student in the principal’s office. He smirked. He played with his glasses. He shrugged. He smiled sweetly. His nonchalant attitude was quite disrespectful of the committee and its chair. I hope the affair becomes a full public inquiry when individuals like Mackay will be under oath and their arrogance won’t be allowed to slight the serious business of this country.
On the lighter side of things, let’s take a quick trip to Russia so I can share some of my observations of body language on Moscow streets. Beautiful young Russian women sure can walk. It’s worth the price of air fare just to watch them slide along the sidewalk, silky and stylish, like they were walking down the catwalk at a high-fashion house in Paris.
I have finally figured out what draws me to the body language of Russian women. Unlike North American women, who seem to prefer keeping their torso still during their peregrinations, when Russian women walk they lead with their pelvis, as if to declare to the whole world that Russian women don’t all look like tractors.
Body Language and the Democratic Debate by Dr Nick Morgan 2/1/08
What can the non-verbal communications from Senators Obama and Clinton tell us about the debate last night?
Overall, they performed well. They are two consummate professionals who waited respectfully while the other was talking, said their own bits with minimal fuss, and generally played nice. They were trying hard to get along, and mostly they did. Their non-verbal cues suggest that Obama is a big-picture thinker, impatient with details, and Clinton is a manager who loves to get down in the weeds of policy. Of course, their verbal messages say that too.
But there were a few revealing moments. When Senator Obama responded to the question about a "dream team" of the two of them as President and Veep, Senator Clinton listened hard, turning directly toward him for the first and only time that evening. When he refused to rule out the idea of the joint ticket, saying it was premature and presumptuous, she visibly relaxed, then moved toward him very slightly as he continued to answer.
Conclusion: the Clinton camp HAS thought about asking Obama to be the V-P, and it's still on the table. Depending, of course, on how things go. You heard it here first.
When the debate was finished, Obama stood up and helped Clinton with her chair. Depending on your perspective, this was either a) a nice, gentlemanly thing to do; b) a calculated, sexist put-down; or c)an unscripted attempt to take charge.
The only moment during the debate when Clinton showed real passion was on the immigration issue. She decried a Republican bill to criminalize any attempt to help an illegal alien in passionate terms: "That would have criminalized Jesus Christ and the Good Samaritan."
Conclusion: She's really hot about helping those less fortunate, and working through the system. She's a true product of her church and the system.
ELECTION TELLS (British) Date and Author Unknown
Politicians are getting more and more aware of the impact of how they say things rather than what they say. And we all respond more powerfully and subconsciously to body language than we realise. So where does that leave us when we have to make a decision about who's going to run the country for the next five years? That's right - confused. Do their policies and their personalities match up? Are we blinded to what they're really saying by how they're saying it? The truth about people's relationships and their thoughts is always evident in those actions that they can't control or which they don't know they're producing. Here's a handy guide to the election tells of the 3 main party leaders to help you decide when the wool is being pulled over your eyes!
Tony BlairTony is the consummate politician, difficult to fluster and smooth talking. But there are some interesting leaks and tells that he makes which reveal what he's really thinking.The mug shot - Tony likes to be seen holding a mug. It makes him look workmanlike, a man of the people.Finger puppet - When Tony is making a point emphatically he will often press his thumb onto his forefinger while talking. This is reflection of him symbolically taking control of an issue he's discussing. However, when he is anxious he will play with his little finger.Smile - In this election, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown can be seen frequently smiling and looking at each other while they are speaking. However, you can see from the way that Gordon bites his lip when Tony is challenged that he is secretly amused, trying to control a smile. You can also see when Gordon is speaking that Tony often has his mouth open, a sign that he would rather be doing the talking. Are they as united as they seem?
There are a bunch of House of Commons video clips of Blair at this site:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/video-pmqs-prime-ministers-questions-house-of-commons/
Body language reveals the naked truth
By Allan Markin - Penticton Western News - February 28, 2008
We communicate with each other in many ways. I find our body language the most interesting, perhaps because our physical messages often occur without our realizing it.
Body language can tell us what a person is really like. I’ve been watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign for the Democratic nomination to become the next U.S. president, sure to happen unless the Democrats foul things up as they have done in the past. Remember the fiasco a few years ago when their super delegates chose Walter Mondale?
Now that Obama has taken the lead and is enjoying a surging campaign, Hillary’s body language has been showing signs of desperation. She still smiles sweetly, like somebody’s mom. Then, eyes aglow with disdain and fury, she launches into vituperative attacks on Obama, looking and sounding like a stern mother scolding a son who stayed out past curfew time and came home drunk.
Indeed, where once she looked directly at Obama when he was speaking, suggesting that she had real interest in what he was saying, now she turns away, as if to convey the message that he’s not worth listening to. This body language indicates arrogance, disrespect and feigned self-confidence — messages that will not bolster a faltering campaign.
Someone should tell her that such behaviour is not presidential. True leadership means being magnanimous and rising above small-minded petulance. Obama, to his credit, has been measured and calm in his responses. His body language continues to convey quiet confidence and poise. He looks presidential, even now when the heat on him has been turned up and the scandal-mongering that plagues American politics has emerged from the political slime.
Sometimes body language makes me angry. Recently I watched Elmer Mckay, former MP and cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney’s government, testifying before the Commons Ethics Committee regarding the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Mr. Mackay should be ashamed of his juvenile behaviour.
He slouched arrogantly in his chair like an unrepentant high school student in the principal’s office. He smirked. He played with his glasses. He shrugged. He smiled sweetly. His nonchalant attitude was quite disrespectful of the committee and its chair. I hope the affair becomes a full public inquiry when individuals like Mackay will be under oath and their arrogance won’t be allowed to slight the serious business of this country.
On the lighter side of things, let’s take a quick trip to Russia so I can share some of my observations of body language on Moscow streets. Beautiful young Russian women sure can walk. It’s worth the price of air fare just to watch them slide along the sidewalk, silky and stylish, like they were walking down the catwalk at a high-fashion house in Paris.
I have finally figured out what draws me to the body language of Russian women. Unlike North American women, who seem to prefer keeping their torso still during their peregrinations, when Russian women walk they lead with their pelvis, as if to declare to the whole world that Russian women don’t all look like tractors.
Body Language and the Democratic Debate by Dr Nick Morgan 2/1/08
What can the non-verbal communications from Senators Obama and Clinton tell us about the debate last night?
Overall, they performed well. They are two consummate professionals who waited respectfully while the other was talking, said their own bits with minimal fuss, and generally played nice. They were trying hard to get along, and mostly they did. Their non-verbal cues suggest that Obama is a big-picture thinker, impatient with details, and Clinton is a manager who loves to get down in the weeds of policy. Of course, their verbal messages say that too.
But there were a few revealing moments. When Senator Obama responded to the question about a "dream team" of the two of them as President and Veep, Senator Clinton listened hard, turning directly toward him for the first and only time that evening. When he refused to rule out the idea of the joint ticket, saying it was premature and presumptuous, she visibly relaxed, then moved toward him very slightly as he continued to answer.
Conclusion: the Clinton camp HAS thought about asking Obama to be the V-P, and it's still on the table. Depending, of course, on how things go. You heard it here first.
When the debate was finished, Obama stood up and helped Clinton with her chair. Depending on your perspective, this was either a) a nice, gentlemanly thing to do; b) a calculated, sexist put-down; or c)an unscripted attempt to take charge.
The only moment during the debate when Clinton showed real passion was on the immigration issue. She decried a Republican bill to criminalize any attempt to help an illegal alien in passionate terms: "That would have criminalized Jesus Christ and the Good Samaritan."
Conclusion: She's really hot about helping those less fortunate, and working through the system. She's a true product of her church and the system.
ELECTION TELLS (British) Date and Author Unknown
Politicians are getting more and more aware of the impact of how they say things rather than what they say. And we all respond more powerfully and subconsciously to body language than we realise. So where does that leave us when we have to make a decision about who's going to run the country for the next five years? That's right - confused. Do their policies and their personalities match up? Are we blinded to what they're really saying by how they're saying it? The truth about people's relationships and their thoughts is always evident in those actions that they can't control or which they don't know they're producing. Here's a handy guide to the election tells of the 3 main party leaders to help you decide when the wool is being pulled over your eyes!
Tony BlairTony is the consummate politician, difficult to fluster and smooth talking. But there are some interesting leaks and tells that he makes which reveal what he's really thinking.The mug shot - Tony likes to be seen holding a mug. It makes him look workmanlike, a man of the people.Finger puppet - When Tony is making a point emphatically he will often press his thumb onto his forefinger while talking. This is reflection of him symbolically taking control of an issue he's discussing. However, when he is anxious he will play with his little finger.Smile - In this election, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown can be seen frequently smiling and looking at each other while they are speaking. However, you can see from the way that Gordon bites his lip when Tony is challenged that he is secretly amused, trying to control a smile. You can also see when Gordon is speaking that Tony often has his mouth open, a sign that he would rather be doing the talking. Are they as united as they seem?
There are a bunch of House of Commons video clips of Blair at this site:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/video-pmqs-prime-ministers-questions-house-of-commons/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)