The INSA Concept - Insa Consultancy
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The INSA Concept
developed by Herman Ilgen, Managing Partner of the Institute for Nonverbal
Strategy Analysis (INSA Method)
www.insa-consultancy.com
©INSA2020; nothing of the content of this document may be used for commercial purposes
without prior written consent by INSA. The intellectual property rights have been deposited
with the Benelux Office of Intellectual Property.
The INSA Concept links repetitive facial displays to behavioral tendencies and has been
developed by Herman Ilgen. The basis of the method is current scientific literature, research
by INSA in cooperation with the University of Amsterdam and professional practice in
negotiations and conflict situations. The concept and method are continually being tested in
the research executed by Herman Ilgen of INSA and professor Agneta Fischer of the
University of Amsterdam from 2011 onwards. The present INSA Concept and the INSA
Method is related to the work of authors like Nico Frijda, Alan Fridlund, James Russell and
Agneta Fischer, who have given important insights in the meaning of facial displays in human
interaction. The INSA Concept and the INSA Method are unique in that they focus on
repetitive facial displays in a dynamic interactive context and in that it shows the link
between those repetitive displays and behavioral tendencies. This has never been done
before.
1
A. Important elements of the INSA Concept, The INSA Model
1. Personal Nonverbal Repertoire (PNR)
Every individual has a consistent set of (highly) repetitive facial micromovements displayed
throughout different situations. INSA research shows this clearly and furthermore that the
PNR elements for any individual are significantly more frequent than other facial displays.
The Personal Nonverbal Repertoire (PNR) is displayed with more intensity and/or higher
frequency as (interactive) tension in a situation for an individual increases. Within the PNR
the relative frequency of the separate facial micromovements may vary situationally. But in
any situation the micromovements that are part of the PNR are statistically significantly
more frequent than other micromovements.
Sometimes facial displays are more (clearly) shown in one half of the face than the other
(one eyebrow raised, one lower eyelid tensed). INSA research does not indicate this
constitutes a relevant difference with showing the displays in both halves of the face.
2. Impulse and Regulation
Facial micromovements are divided into 2 categories, depending on their effect in
intensifying or de-intensifying the interaction with the interaction partner. Impulse
movements tend to intensify the interaction, Regulation movements de-intensify, visually
diminish or break off the interaction. This view is consistent with the views of Frijda (‘states
of action readiness’) and Fridlund. Below is the list of facial displays that INSA has found to
be frequent, with their coding according to the Facial Action Coding System (FACS, Ekman)
and their category:
Facial Display FACS Category
Inner Brow Raiser AU1 Impulse
Inner and Outer Brow Raiser AU1+2 Impulse
Brow Lowerer AU4 Impulse
Upper Lid Raiser AU5 Impulse
Cheek Raiser AU6 Impulse
Lid Tightener AU7 Impulse
Lip Corner Puller AU12 Impulse
Lips Tightener AU23 Regulation
Partially lowered eyelids (‘drooping’) AU41 Regulation
2
Blink AU45 Regulation
Eyes closing partially in blinking Partial Blink (not Regulation
listed in FACS)
Eye white visible underneath the iris AU63 Regulation
Split screen video material shows that individuals do not show a set patterned sequence of
Impulses and Regulations, but that the sequence is being influenced by what the interaction
partner shows.
Apart from the above list of frequent displays some other displays can be of interest
situationally:
Facial Display FACS Category
Upper Lip Raiser AU10 Impulse
Tongue Out AU19 Impulse
Lips Part AU25 Regulation
Jaw Sideways AU30 Impulse
Jaw Clencher AU31 Impulse
Swallowing AU80 Regulation
The combination of impulses and regulations show (cp. Frijda’s “states of action readiness” a
varying “intention” and course of action to change or continue a specific interaction.
Individuals do not show a one-on-one alternation of impulses and regulations. In analyzing
split-screen video material it can bes een that individuals react with their impulses or
regulations on the impulses and regulations of the interaction partner.
Furthermore, in interaction episodes may be seen in which both interaction partners show
either impulses from both sides or regulations from both sides. Impulse-impulse exchanges
appear to coincide with escalations or intensifications in the situations in the split screen
video material. Regulation-regulation exchanges on the other hand appear to coincide with
the situation de-escalating or de-intensifications.
In general it seems that individuals experiencing a lower level of tension show more
impulses and that individuals experiencing a higher level of tension show more regulations
(i.e. the need to diminish contact intensity).
The INSA research also shows that facial displays react differently to various kinds of tension.
This has been measured by varying the emotional load in the interactions and by varying the
social context.
3. PNR Typology and Strategies, the INSA Model
Based on literature (Frijda, Russell, Fridlund, Fischer, Jäncke, Kring & Sloan and others) we
relate PNR to behavioral tendencies. Nonverbal repertoires are linked to behavioral
3
repertoires. Consistent and frequent facial displays are related to structural behavioral
tendencies of an individual.
Frijda, Russell and the other authors have not focused on frequent facial displays, but their
work does shed a light on these. Both Frijda and Russell show the interactional tendency of
an individual’s facial displays. It is then logical that frequent facial displays will show the
frequent or preferred interactional tendency of that individual.
The INSA research has clearly shown the existence of PNR; the results of the correlations
between PNR and behavioral measurements are consistent with the findings of Frijda and
Russell. Also the structure INSA found in the nonverbal data leads to 4 basic PNRs consistent
with the Bi-dimensional Model of Russell.
Four basic PNRs and basic strategies
Strategy in the INSA Concept has an interactive and situational meaning; this is in line with
literature. We define strategy as: the repertoire of behavioral tendencies that an individual
will use structurally.
From INSA research, literature and professional practice it is possible to find per basic
stragey:
- Which qualities can be expected when the individual is relatively comfortable in the
situation
- Which behavioral problems may be expected when the individual is relatively
uncomfortable or tense in the situation
- Which are the interactional needs of the individual in the interaction; these are the
requirements to build contact with the individual in that situation.
Adapting: is related to partially lowered eyelids (drooping, AU41), white underneath the iris
(AU63) and also eyes not closing entirely in blinking (Partial Blink); sometimes the low
muscle tension in the face also causes the lips to stay parted and loose (AU25). This type is
called PNR Type 1.
Acting: is related to raising the eyebrows (AU1plus2) and raising the upper eyelids (AU5).
This type is called PNR Type 2.
4
Analyzing: is related to the tensing of the lower eyelid (AU7) oftentimes combined with
frowning (AU4). Sometimes raising the eyebrows in the middle (AU1) and tensing the lips
(AU23) can also be observed. This type is called PNR Type 3.
Affiliating: is related to raising the corners of the mouth (AU12) and raising the cheeks
(AU6). This type is called PNR Type 4.
The INSA Model strongly resembles the Bi-dimensonial Model of Russell:
5
The characteristics per PNR Type can be summarized as follows:
6
Combined PNR types and strategies
From the research INSA has executed with the University of Amsterdam 11 strategy types
emerge, looking at above average scores in 4 different situations: individuals displaying one
of the 4 basic varieties (Adapting, Acting, Analyzing, Affiliating), individuals combining 2
varieties and often shifting relative frequencies between them and individuals combing 3 or
all 4 varieties and often shifting relative frequencies between them. The combinations
between 2 strategies are numbered:
- type 2/3 for Acting-Analyzing
- type 1/2 for Adapting-Acting
- type 1/3 for Adapting-Analyzing
- type 1/4 for Adapting-Affiliating
- type 2/4 for Acting-Affiliating
- type 3/4 for Analyzing-Affiliating
- type 5 for any combination of at least 3 of the basic PNR types.
7
If the analysis of one of the combined types shows a clear emphasis on one of the
strategies this may be expressed by mentioning the situational emphasis as shown
below. These are to be regarded as purely situational; the INSA Method allows for 11
PNRs correlated to 11 strategy types, showing that individuals have a personal nonverbal
repertoire corresponding to a basic behavioral repertoire in terms of reflex behavior. In
the characteristics of PNR Type 5 this has already been shown above.
8
B. Interactive Impact according to the INSA Concept
With his Bi-dimensional Model Russell has shown that the observer interprets the other’s
facial displays along two dimensions: Arousal and Valence. This means that the impact of
facial displays is also established along these dimensions. How an individual will exactly
“define” this impact in the interaction at hand also depends (in accordance with the work of
Fischer and others) on the context, the motives of the individual, the nature of the
relationship. Patterson (Parallel Process Model) too has shown how personal and context
factors play a role in parallel in how an interaction evolves. The individual will in any case
what is the result of the impact; in Frijda’s words to which state of action readiness the
impact leads. In the state of action readiness context factors also play a role.
In sum literature shows that – although on the level of micromovements the exchange is
both subtle and rapid – the interational impact is more general in nature as it is equally
influenced by the context and the motives of the interactants.
INSA Concept and interaction
Both INSA Concept and INSA Model are in line with the ideas of Russell, Frijda and Fischer.
The split screen analyses of interactions Herman Ilgen peformed in 2003-2007 point in the
same direction. On the one hand there is a rapid and intense exchange of facial dislays and
on the other hand context factors influence the actual way the interactions evolve.
Nonverbal exchages do not see to be an entirely autonomous process; but neither is context
all-decisive. Patterson shows this in his parallel model.
INSA links structural combinations of facial displays tot he 4 “poles” of the Bi-dimensional
Model of Russell, and thus links structural behavioral tendencies to PNRs. Related to every
PNR there are behavioral qualities, problems and interactional needs, based on literature,
own research and professional practice. From iterature we can state that the 4 basic PNRs
also transmit this information inherently. In Frijda’s words: the state of action readiness
reflects what the individual wants to do; and this is being registered by the interatcion
partner along the 2 dimensions defined by Russell.
9
In practice the INSA Method also shows that combined PNR Types situationally show which
PNR element is the most prominent and thus what is the (unconscious) focus or need of the
individual in that situation. The idea of PNR means this is not fully situational but tends to
happen within the bandwidth of the PNR and the repertoire of behavioral tendencies of the
individual (his/her strategy).
This generally means the following (assuming the relevant elements are present in the PNR):
- If the individual needs more peace and attention to feelings in the interaction, or
he/she is impacted by the lack of it in the interaction, most probably the elements of
PNR Type 1 will become more prominent; comfort is sought by withdrawing from the
interaction, being less active, combined with a more yielding attitude;
- If the individual needs more space to move, more assertiveness and action from the
other, or he/she is impacted by the lack of this in the interaction, most probably the
elements of PNR Type 2 will become more prominent; comfort is sought in more
movement and action, in combination with testing the other’s boundaries.
- If the individual needs more mental grip, understanding, overview and control, or
experiences the lack of this most probably the elements of PNR Type 3 will become
more prominent. Comfort is being sought by (especially verbally) trying to get grip
and information, or trying to create it by formulating judgments.
- If the individual needs more contact in the relationship, or expereinces that the other
is distancing him/herself, most probably the elements of PNR Type 4 will become
more prominent; comfort is sought by more explicitly seeking contact by trying to
invite the other to make the same movement.
Professional practice also shows that the 4 basic PNR Types can evoke reciprocal tensions.
This is to be expected when looking at the Bi-dimensional Model of Russell as there are two
dimensions with respective extremes. That there is bound to be tension between PNR Types
1 and 2, respectively 3 and 4 is only logical. However also between PNR Types that are not
each others counterpart tensions arise, because the typical behaviors do not match with the
interactional needs of the other. For example the withdrawing behavioral tendency of the
PNR Type 1 does not allow for the grip a PNR Type 3 needs; subsequently the PNR Type 3
will try to obtain grip by verbal pressure or pass judgments; this in turn will make the PNR
Type 1 withdraw even more, because he/she misses the peace and atention to feelings
he/she needs.
The nonverbal stimuli may also be positive. People with the same PNR often experience a
sense of “rapport”. They mirror the same behavioral tendencies. Literature about mimicry
(e.g. Hess, Fischer) shows that this effect takes place, but it is also clear that the context
plays a role (e.g. intentions, the level of acquaintance); people with the same PNR may thus
experience ease in the interaction but they may equally ge tinto conflict, depending on the
context.
10In the matrix below the mutual stimuli and reactions of the 4 basic PNR Types are shown in a
conceise way. Background of the matrix is the presence of a certain level of tension, because
these are situations of relevance to the professional using the INSA Method.
PNR Type 1 PNR Type 2 PNR Type 3 PNR Type 4
PNR Type 1 Little progress and Quick falling silent in the face of Vagueness 1 irritates the 3; Superficial interaction; seeming
superficial interaction. dominance; no expressing of negative judgment and verbal friendliness of the 4 keeps the
Almost no escalation. emotions and withdrawing, sharpness lead to withdrawing 1 from quick withdrawal, but
Both withdraw. becomes immovable; passivity of the 1 and becoming does not lead to movement
stimulates the 2 to more pressure immovable. Lack of clarity either. Passivity of the 1
and impatience; 2 seems to get his makes the 3 becoming more irritates the 4 as the
way, but no commitment from the verbally agressive. Situation friendliness is not reciprocated.
1 decisive for the 3 getting his Stagnation
way (without commitment of
the 1) or for stagnation
PNR Type 2 Quickly takes the Competition on initiative and Quick initiative and dominance The 4 seems to be flexible to
initiative and dominates dominance; escalation is felt as versus negatively critical the 2., but the 2 misses the
as the 1 is passive; natura land short-lived; situation attitude; 2 becomes assertiveness he also seeks.
passivity of the 1 decisive for who backs down first. restless/unpredictable; 3 shows The 2 will create more pressure
stimulates the 2 to give stronger negative judgment and the 4 complies without
more pressure and be and vents emotions verbally; conviction.
more impatient; the 2 situation decisive for who backs
pushes the 1 aside down first
(without commitment of
the 1)
PNR Type 3 Vagueness 1 irritates the Quick initiative and dominance Battle of words, on content; The seeming friendliness of the
3; negative judgment and versus negatively critical attitude; 2 emotions expressed by 4 irritates the 3 as illogical and
verbal sharpness lead to becomes restless/unpredictable; 3 negative judgments; enduring manipulative. The 3 vents
withdrawing of the 1 and shows stronger negative judgment escalation until one falls silent negative judgments, but the 4
becoming immovable. and vents emotions verbally; (keeping his judgment to remains seemingly friendly.
Lack of clarity makes the situation decisive for who backs himself). Situation decisive for Situation decisive who backs
3 becoming more verbally down first who stops first. down first (sticking to judgment
agressive. Situation for 3, lacking conviction for 4)
decisive for the 3 getting
his way (without
commitment of the 1) or
for stagnation.
PNR Type 4 Superficial interaction; The 4 seems to be flexible to the 2, The seeming friendliness of the Superficial interaction with
seeming friendliness of but the 2 misses the assertiveness 4 irritates the 3 as illogical and seeming friendliness on both
the 4 keeps the 1 from he also seeks. manipulative. The 3 vents sides. Acceptation of weak
quick withdrawal, but negative judgments, but the 4 compromise or half-baked
does not lead to remains seemingly friendly. solution as a result.
11movement either. The 2 will create more pressure Situation decisive who backs
Passivity of the 1 irritates and the 4 complies without down first (sticking to judgment
the 4 as the friendliness is conviction. for 3, lacking conviction for 4).
not reciprocated.
Stagnation.
Between 2003-2007 Herman Ilgen conducted some research into the interactive effects of
PNRs, analyzing split-screen video materials of interactions. The below reflects the results of
this research and many years of practical professional experience in negotiations and
mediations. The below has also been tested in team analyses since 2011; the INSA forma for
team analysis is the Team Navigator.
The split screen videoclips show very quick and subtle action-reaction patterns even within
the timespan of a second. So conscious reactions are very unlikely or even impossible.
The PNR shows a continuous quick and intense exchange of nonverbal signals, that seems to
influence the individuals in the interaction on an unconscious level.
During escalations in the interaction it seems that impulses and regulations almost
conincide. Nonverbal escalation and actual escalation also seem to coincide. It is clear that
context plays a role in how an interaction evolves. For example the more powerful individual
in the interaction tends to show less PNR elements than the less powerful individual. Stress
or tension appears to influence the frequency and intensity of the PNR.
Literature
Bijttebier, P., Beck, I, Claes, L., & Vandereycken, W. (2009). Gray’s Reinforcement
Sensitivity Theory as a framework for research on personality-psychopathology
associations. Clinical Psychology Review 29, 421-430.
Borkenau, P. & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait Inferences: Sources of Validity at Zero
Acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, (4), 645-657.
Borkenau, P., Brecke, S., Möttig, C. & Paelecke, M. (2009). Extraversion is accurately
perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. Journal of Research in Personality 43, 703-
706.
Carver, C.S. & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Activation, and
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (2) 313-333.
12Connolly, J.J., Kavanagh, E.J. & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The Convergent validity between
Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15 (1) 110-117.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Evers, A,. Beersma, B.,Kluwer, & E.S., Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based
measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22 (6), 645–668.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on
integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 78, 889-905.
De Gelder, B. (2005), Nonconscious Emotions: New Findings and Perspectives on
Nonconscious Facial Expression Recognition and Its Voice and Whole-Body Contexts.
In L. Feldman Barrett, P.M. Niedenthal, & P. Winkielman (Eds), Emotion and
Consciousness (pp. 123-149). New York: The Guildford Press.
Ekman, P. , & Friesen, W.V. (1978). The Facial Action Coding System. Palo Alto CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ekman, P. , & Friesen, W.V. (2003). Unmasking the Face. Cambridge MA: Malor Books.
Elliot, A.J., & Thrash, T.M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach
and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 5, 804-818.
Evers, C., Hopp, H., Gross, J. J., Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S., & Mauss, I. B. (2014).
Emotion response coherence: A dual-process perspective. Biological psychology, 98,
43-49.
Fridlund, A.J. (1994). Human Facial Expression: An Evolutionary View. San Diego:
Academic Press.
13Frijda, N.H. (1969). Recognition of Emotion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 4 (pp. 167-270). New York: Academic Press.
Frijda, N.H., & Tcherkassof, A. (1997). Facial expressions as modes of action readiness. In
J.A. Russell & J.M. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), The Psychology of Facial Expression (pp.
103-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gifford, R. (2006). Personality and Nonverbal Behavior; A Complex Conundrum. In
Manusov, V. & Patterson, M.L.(Eds.), The Sage handbook of Nonverbal
Communication (pp. 159-179). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Goodfield, B.A. (1999). Insight and Action. London: University of Westminster Press.
Gray, J.R., Schaefer, A., Braver, T.S., & Most, S.B. (2005). Affect and the resolution of
cognitive control dilemmas. In L. Feldman Barrett, P.M. Niedenthal, & P. Winkielman
(Eds.), Emotion and Consciousness (pp. 67-96). New York: he Guildford Press.
Gross, J. J. (1998a). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review
of general psychology, 2, 271.
Gross, J. J. (1998b). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent
consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 224.
Gross, J.J. & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
Hess, U, Banse, R., Kappas, A. (1995), The Intensity of facial Expression is Determined by
Underlying Affective State and Social Situation, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 1995, vol 69, no. 2, 280-288.
14Hess, U, Adams Jr, R.B., & Kleck, R.E. (2009). The face is not an empty canvas: how facial
expressions interact with facial appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 364, 3497-3504.
Hess, U., & Blairy, S. ( 2001). Facial mimicry and emotional contagion to dynamic
emotional facial expressions and their influence on decoding accuracy. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 129-141.
Hess, U., & Fischer, A.H. (2014). Emotional mimicry: Why and when we mimic emotions.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 45-57.
Jakobs, E., Manstead, A. S., & Fischer, A. H. (2001). Social context effects on facial activity
in a negative emotional setting. Emotion, 1(1), 51.
Jäncke, L. (1993). Different facial EMG-reactions of extraverts and introverts to pictures with
positive, negative and neutral valence. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 113-
118.
Kring, A.M. & Sloan, D.M. (2007). The Facial Expression Coding System (FACES):
development, validation, and utility. Psychological Assessment 2007, 210-224.
Locke, K. D. (2010). Circumplex Measures of Interpersonal Constructs. In L. M. Horowitz &
S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology: Theory, Research,
Assessment, and Therapeutic Interventions. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., doi: 10.1002/9781118001868.ch19
Manstead, A.S.R, Fischer, A.H., Jakobs, E.B. (1999). The Emotional and Social Functions of
Facial Displays. In P. Philippot, R.S. Feldman & E.J. Coats (Eds.), The Social Context
of Nonverbal Behavior. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Mauersberger, H., Blaison, C., Kafetsios, K., Kessler, C. & Hess, U. (2015). Individual
Differences in Emotional Mimicry: Underlying Traits and Social Consequences.
European Journal of Personality, 29, 512-529.
15Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The tie
that binds? Coherence among emotion experience, behavior, and
physiology. Emotion, 5(2), 175.
McCrae, R.R, & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s
Circumplex and the Five-factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56, 4, 586-595.
Murphy, N.A. (2007). Appearing Smart: The Impression Management of Intelligence, person
Perception Accuracy, and behavior in Social Interaction. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 3, 325-339.
Naumann, L.P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P.J. & Gosling, S.D. (2009). Personality Judgments
Based on Physical Appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 35,
No. 12, 1661-1671.
Piderit, Th. (1886). Mimik und Physiognomik. Detmold: Verlag der Meyer’schen
Hofbuchhandlung.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O.P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item
short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 203-212.
Russell, J.A. (1997). Reading emotions from and into faces: resurrecting a dimensional-
contextual perspective. In J.A. Russell & J.M. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), The Psychology
of Facial Expression (pp. 295-320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: the interpersonal
domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.
16You can also read
