Skip to article
HPC  ·  Science Deep Dive 6 April 2026  ·  revised 2026-04-06

The Body Language Science Your Nervous System Already Knows.

Your motor cortex responds to another person's threat posture in 70 milliseconds, before you consciously see them, and this pre-conscious reading system predicts real-world outcomes with a medium effect size across 38 domains of human life. Here is what the science actually says, and what to do with it.

Section
Social
Reading time
22 min read
Sources
48 · reviewed

01The Myth That Would Not Die

The nervous system reads threat postures in 70 milliseconds, before you consciously see them

The most widely quoted statistic in the body language science literature is a fabrication. The claim that "93% of communication is nonverbal" traces to a single study by Albert Mehrabian in 1971: an experiment in which 137 undergraduates listened to a single word, "maybe," spoken in different tones.[13] Mehrabian's formula applied only to the communication of emotional attitudes through isolated stimuli. He has publicly stated that applying it to general communication is "misquoted and absurd."[42] Lapakko's 2007 analysis documented the proliferation of this urban legend across professional and popular media.[42]

The myth persists because people sense, correctly, that the body communicates something powerful. The intuition is sound; the number is wrong. The real science of nonverbal communication is harder to summarize than a percentage, because the system doing the reading is not your conscious mind. It is your motor cortex, your amygdala, and a network of subcortical circuits that process another person's body state before you finish forming a first impression.[3][4]

The question this article addresses is not "Is body language real?" That settled decades ago. The question is: what is your nervous system actually computing when it reads another person's posture, gaze, and movement, and how fast?

The history

Four decades of evidence give a clear answer: startlingly fast. Borgomaneri and colleagues demonstrated in 2015 that viewing a fearful body posture suppresses corticospinal excitability in the observer's hand muscles within 70–90 milliseconds.[3] That is faster than the earliest cortical face-processing signal, the N170 ERP component, which peaks at approximately 170 milliseconds.[26] The brain reads the body before it reads the face.

For most of the twentieth century, researchers treated body language as supplementary to facial expression. De Gelder's 2006 review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience overturned that assumption, demonstrating that emotional body language activates the amygdala, the superior temporal sulcus, and premotor cortex via pathways anatomically distinct from face-processing circuits.[4] The body is a parallel system; in conditions of threat, it is the faster one.

The nervous system is not waiting for you to decide what someone's body is saying. It has already decided. The conscious impression arrives second, shaped by a motor and autonomic response already underway.

02The Mechanism

The Dual-Pathway Architecture That Reads Bodies Before Minds

The brain does not read another person's body through a single pipeline. It uses two. The first is a subcortical fast path running through the superior colliculus, the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, and the amygdala, evolved for threat detection.[4] Based on primate recording data, this pathway is estimated to complete its circuit in 20–50 milliseconds, though direct human-timed evidence at sub-50 milliseconds remains limited.[4] What is not in question is that the amygdala responds to emotional body postures earlier than cortical visual areas, via a route that bypasses primary visual cortex entirely.[4]

The second is a cortical slow path through V1, the fusiform gyrus, the superior temporal sulcus (STS), and premotor cortex, operating at 150–300 milliseconds.[23] This is where meaning arrives. The STS, as Engell and Haxby demonstrated, is differentially activated by dynamic versus static faces and by gaze direction shifts, functioning as the brain's hub for biologically-driven social signal integration.[40] By the time the cortical path completes, the fast path has already triggered autonomic responses: shifts in heart rate, skin conductance, and hormonal state via the hypothalamus.[4]

SC · Pulvinar 01 fast-path relay Amygdala 02 threat detection Motor Cortex 03 corticospinal freeze Anterior Insula 04 felt sense

The dual-pathway architecture as a causal relay: a subcortical visual route (SC · Pulvinar) delivers threat signals to the amygdala in under 50 ms, bypassing primary visual cortex entirely, freezing motor output before conscious processing completes, with the anterior insula converting the autonomic residue into the felt sense about another person.

Diagram · HPC

Borgomaneri, Vitale, Gazzola, and Avenanti's 2015 TMS study provided the most precise causal measurement of the fast path's downstream effects. By delivering single magnetic pulses to the motor cortex at precise intervals after participants viewed fearful body postures, they demonstrated that corticospinal excitability in the hand muscles was selectively suppressed at 70–90 milliseconds.[3] No changes in intracortical facilitation were detected at this early window; the suppression was specific to corticospinal downstream projections.[3] The motor cortex freezes the body's action readiness before the visual system has finished processing what the eyes are seeing.

This is not a reflex in the mechanical sense. It is a computed response, the motor system inhibiting ongoing action upon detecting a threat signal. The companion 2014 study identified a second stage at 150–300 milliseconds, in which motor cortex activity shifts from freeze to action-tendency preparation.[23] The body reads another body, suppresses current movement, then prepares a new motor response, all before the person has consciously categorised the emotion.

The embodied simulation framework explains why this motor involvement is not incidental.[8] Perceiving emotion in another person recruits perceptual, somatovisceral, and motoric re-experiencing in the observer. When you see someone's shoulders drop in defeat, your own shoulder musculature subtly activates. That is not empathy as a feeling. It is empathy as a motor computation, the brain using its own body map to simulate the state it is reading.[22]

03Evidence

The Five Strongest Studies in Body Language Science

01The claim

The single load-bearing finding

The hero study finds r = .39 effect size.

Pooled estimate

r = .39 effect size

02How we measured

Scoring the nonverbal studies

Studies scored on design, sample, rigour, causality, replication, citations.

Body language research has a replication problem at its edges: the timing evidence rests on small TMS samples, and cultural universality findings depend heavily on whether stimuli are posed or spontaneous, so sample scope and pre-registration carry extra weight in this rubric.

Rubric weights

Design/30
Sample/20
Rigour/15
Causality/15
Replication/10
Citations/10

03The spread

Heterogeneity across 5 studies

Methodological quality across the ranked studies.

Rubric spread

86 → 64 /100

Highest to lowest rubric score across the ranked studies.

04What does not hold

Negative knowledge

What the evidence base does not support.

The deception detection literature offers another cautionary example. Hartwig and Bond's 2011 lens model meta-analysis found that average human lie detection accuracy is approximately 54%, barely above chance.[30] The commonly cited ~68% figure represents the theoretical ceiling of behavioral cue diagnosticity (R = .52), not a demonstrated human accuracy rate.[30] Even under optimal conditions, the diagnostic value of available cues limits accuracy to roughly two-thirds correct.

The studies

5 trials. One pooled answer.

Below: the anchor study in full; then the forest plot at scale; then the supporting trials in ranked order.

The Key Study Highest rubric · 86/100 · load-bearing

01Anchor

Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis

Ambady & Rosenthal Psychological Bulletin 1992 Meta-Analysis · 38 Outcome Domains · Predictive Validity

Nonverbal reading has measurable predictive validity, a quantifiable signal correlated with real-world outcomes across 38 domains.

Largest scope (44 studies, 38 outcome categories), highest citation count (~2,200+), and the sub-30-second finding is the article's central argument in a single number.

Rubric breakdown

Design27/30
Sample18/20
Rigour12/15
Causality10/15
Replication9/10
Citations10/10
Total 86/100

The strongest studies, ranked by methodological weight.

Each scored 0–100 against a six-criterion rubric, tagged by design and year; the anchor leads. No study in this set reaches the rubric-90 tier.

050100 01 Ambady & Rosenthal Meta-analysis · 1992 86 02 Elfenbein & Ambady Meta-analysis · 2002 82 03 Borgomaneri, Vitale & Gazzola 2015 79 04 De & Gelder 2006 74 05 Porges 2001 64 rubric score · out of 100
Anchor (Rank 1) Supporting
Rank Authors & title Journal · Year Finding Score

02

Elfenbein & Ambady

On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis

2002

Emotions were universally recognized above chance across all cultures; a systematic in-group advantage was found, smaller for groups with greater mutual exposure.

82/100

03

Borgomaneri, Vitale & Gazzola

Early changes in corticospinal excitability when seeing fearful body expressions

2015

Corticospinal excitability was selectively suppressed at 70–90 ms after viewing fearful body postures. No intracortical facilitation change at this window, the effect was specific to downstream motor projections.

79/100

04

De & Gelder

Towards the neurobiology of emotional body language

2006

Emotional body language activates amygdala, STS, and motor areas via pathways distinct from facial expression processing. Subcortical route estimated at 20–50 ms from primate recordings.

74/100

05

Porges

The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system

2001

The myelinated vagus is coupled to cranial nerves controlling facial expression, vocalization, and eye gaze, creating an integrated social engagement system.

64/100

04Stakes

The cost of nonverbal disconnection is not embarrassment. It is physiological.

When the body-reading system is degraded, the consequences extend into measurable health, cognitive, and relational damage.

01 System 01

Mortality & Isolation

Holt-Lunstad's 2015 meta-analysis of 3.4 million participants found that social isolation increases mortality by 29%, loneliness by 26%, and living alone by 32%.[7] The effect size is comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes per day, making nonverbal disconnection a public health risk of the first order.[19] These are not correlations driven by pre-existing illness; the results hold across gender, age, follow-up length, and world region.

29% The effect size is comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes per day
In practice

unexplained fatigue, withdrawal from social contact, sense of not being "seen"

02 System 02

Digital Degradation

Bailenson's 2021 theoretical framework and Fauville's 2021 survey of 9,787 participants established that video-mediated communication creates a distinct fatigue category, Zoom fatigue, driven by sustained close-up mutual gaze, constant self-monitoring, reduced movement, and nonverbal overload.[31][32] Women experience significantly higher Zoom fatigue, linked to greater nonverbal monitoring load.[32]

In practice

exhaustion after video calls, difficulty reading colleagues remotely, self-consciousness on camera

03
System 03

Clinical Misreading

Higher nonverbal sensitivity, as measured by Rosenthal's PONS test, predicts better physician-patient satisfaction, fewer diagnostic errors, and less severe psychopathology symptoms.[15] When clinicians cannot read patients' body language accurately, the therapeutic alliance degrades and patients underreport symptoms.[15] Patterson's 2023 analysis documented four systematic misconceptions about nonverbal communication that distort clinical and legal judgment.[18]

In practice

feeling unheard by doctors, escalation in therapy, misjudged in legal settings

04 System 04

Relational Erosion

Misreading nonverbal cues in close relationships predicts conflict escalation, reduced intimacy, and relationship dissolution.[34] The mechanism is not dramatic blowups but chronic micro-misreads: missing a partner's subtle distress signal, misinterpreting withdrawal as anger, confusing anxiety with disinterest.[43] Burgoon's research confirms that mindful attention to nonverbal cues predicts better conflict resolution and fewer false-negative readings of partner distress.[43]

In practice

recurring arguments about "nothing," partners feeling unseen, misattributed intentions

05Protocol

A 4-Step Nonverbal Calibration Protocol

Not a decoder ring, a calibration process: training the nervous system to read individuals, clusters, and internal signals.

The protocol, as a sequence.

Before Reading → During Interaction → Daily Practice → Ongoing

Before Reading 01 Baseline First During Interaction 02 Cluster Reading Daily Practice 03 Interoceptive Training Ongoing 04 Posture asState Regulation
01 Step 01 · Before Reading

Baseline First

Observe the person in a low-stakes context for 3–5 minutes before interpreting any signal. Catalogue resting posture, gesture frequency, eye-contact patterns, speech rate, and blink rate. All subsequent readings are departures from this individual baseline.[1]

Why

Ambady and Rosenthal's meta-analysis showed that sub-30-second observations carry predictive validity, but only when calibrated to the specific individual. Without a baseline, you read cultural or population norms, not the person.[1][2]

5min Observe the person in a low-stakes context for 3–5 minutes before interpreting…
Common mistake

Reading signals against a generic "body language dictionary" instead of against the individual's own resting state. Most misreadings originate from this error.

02 Step 02 · During Interaction

Cluster Reading

Attend to face, posture, and voice simultaneously, a signal is meaningful only when multiple channels converge. A single cue (arm-crossing, gaze aversion) is diagnostically worthless in isolation.[25][30]

Why

Van den Stock demonstrated that the body overrides the face in ambiguous conditions;[25] Hartwig and Bond found that the theoretical ceiling of cue diagnosticity requires cluster-level, not single-cue, analysis.[30]

Common mistake

Isolating one "tell", arm-crossing means defensiveness, touching the nose means lying, and ignoring contradicting signals in other channels.

03 Step 03 · Daily Practice

Interoceptive Training

Practice body-scan meditation for 8+ weeks to sharpen your ability to detect your own autonomic responses to others. The gut sensations, postural shifts, and tension changes you experience during social interaction are data from the fast path, not noise to be suppressed.[39][27]

Why

Bornemann's contemplative training study found significant improvements in body listening, the capacity to attend to body signals for insight.[39] Craig's interoceptive model identifies the anterior insula as the bridge between autonomic output and conscious social sense.[27]

Common mistake

Dismissing gut reactions as emotional bias rather than recognising them as information from the social nervous system.

04 Step 04 · Ongoing

Posture as State Regulation

Maintain upright, open posture during high-stakes social reading, not to project power, but to regulate your own cognitive state. Nair's 2015 RCT (N = 74) demonstrated that upright posture produces better mood, reduced self-focus, and faster speech rate under stress.[6]

Why

The mechanism is proprioceptive feedback, the body's posture sends signals to the brain that modulate emotional processing. This is well-evidenced for state regulation; the endocrine mechanism claimed by the original power posing study has not replicated.[6][9]

Common mistake

Adopting specific "power poses" to change hormone levels. Carney, lead author of the original 2010 study, publicly disavowed the hormonal claims.[9] Focus on posture for cognitive regulation, not endocrine manipulation.

06Verdict

The verdict.

Bottom line

Your nervous system already reads the room. The science is not about learning to read, it is about learning to calibrate the reader.

The body language science of four decades points to a single reframe: the nervous system reads other bodies through a dual-pathway architecture that computes threat, safety, and social state before conscious awareness, predicts real-world outcomes across 38 life domains with medium effect, is universally present but culturally calibrated, and degrades with measurable…

The whole argument, on one axis

Two paths. The body is read before the mind decides.

0 87.5 175 262.5 350 processing time (milliseconds) SUBCORTICAL FAST PATH · THREAT DETECTION 70 to 90 ms CORTICAL SLOW PATH · CONSCIOUS MEANING 150 to 300 ms
01Claim

Pre-conscious computation

The nervous system processes body language through a dual-pathway architecture that operates in 70–90 milliseconds, before conscious awareness, and predicts real-world outcomes with medium effect (r = .39) across 38 life domains. This is not intuition. It is a measurable neural computation.

Claim
02Consequence

Degradation is physiological

When the nonverbal reading system is impoverished, by isolation, digital mediation, or sensory loss, the consequences are not merely social but physiological: 29% increased mortality from isolation, measurable Zoom fatigue, clinical misdiagnosis, and relational erosion.

Consequence
03Lever

Calibration over codebooks

The system is trainable through individual baselining, cluster reading, interoceptive practice, and postural regulation, not through memorising body-language dictionaries. Eight weeks of targeted training produces structural brain changes in the nonverbal reading network.

Lever

Editorial confidence

High · 48 sources · Convergent meta-analytic evidence (Ambady & Rosenthal 1992, Elfenbein & Ambady 2002) · causal TMS experiments (Borgomaneri et al. 2015) · comprehensive neurobiological framework (De Gelder 2006) · replicated RCTs (Nair 2015, Auyeung 2015) · mortality meta-analysis (Holt-Lunstad 2015, N = 3.4 million)

- 30 -

07Bibliography

The bibliography.

48 sources · ~6h est. corpus read · 48 visible

RCT · 1 Meta · 5 Review · 7 Journal · 29 Book · 6
Type
Sort
  1. 01 Meta

    Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R1992

    Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis

    Psychological Bulletin111(2) · 256–274

    doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256
  2. 02 Meta

    Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N2002

    On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis

    Psychological Bulletin128(2) · 203–235

    doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.203
  3. 03 Journal

    Borgomaneri, S., Vitale, F., Gazzola, V., & Avenanti, A2015

    Early changes in corticospinal excitability when seeing fearful body expressions

    Scientific Reports

    doi: 10.1038/srep14122
  4. 04 Review

    De Gelder, B2006

    Towards the neurobiology of emotional body language

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience7(3) · 242–249

    doi: 10.1038/nrn1872
  5. 05 Journal

    Porges, S. W2001

    The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system

    International Journal of Psychophysiology42(2) · 123–146

    doi: 10.1016/s0167-8760(01)00162-3
  6. 06 RCT

    Nair, S., Sagar, M., Sollers, J., Consedine, N., & Broadbent, E2015

    Do slumped and upright postures affect stress responses? A randomized trial

    Health Psychology34(6) · 632–641

    doi: 10.1037/hea0000146
  7. 07 Meta

    Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D2015

    Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review

    Perspectives on Psychological Science10(2) · 227–237

    doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352
  8. 08 Journal

    Niedenthal, P. M2007

    Embodying emotion

    Science316(5827) · 1002–1005

    doi: 10.1126/science.1136930
  9. 09 Journal

    Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J2010

    Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance

    Psychological Science21(10) · 1363–1368

    doi: 10.1177/0956797610383437
  10. 10 Journal

    Porges, S. W2011

    The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, Self-Regulation

    New York: Norton

  11. 11 Book

    Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V1978

    Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement

    Palo Alto, "CA": Consulting Psychologists Press

  12. 12 Journal

    Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., Chan, A., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, I., Heider, K.... & Tzavaras, A1987

    Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53(4) · 712–717

    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.712
  13. 13 Journal

    Mehrabian, A1971

    Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes

    Belmont, "CA": Wadsworth

  14. 14 Book

    Van der Kolk, B. A2014

    The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma

    New York: Viking

  15. 15 Book

    Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., & Archer, D1979

    Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test

    Baltimore, "MD": Johns Hopkins University Press

  16. 16 Book

    Dunbar, R. I. M1996

    Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language

    Cambridge, "MA": Harvard University Press

  17. 17 Book

    Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L1993

    Emotional Contagion

    Cambridge, "UK": Cambridge University Press

  18. 18 Journal

    Patterson, M. L., Fridlund, A. J., & Crivelli, C2023

    Four misconceptions about nonverbal communication

    Perspectives on Psychological Science18(2) · 417–431

    doi: 10.1177/17456916221148142
  19. 19 Meta

    Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B2010

    Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review

    PLOS Medicine7(7)

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
  20. 20 Review

    Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L2004

    The functional architecture of human empathy

    Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews3(2) · 71–100

    doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187
  21. 21 Review

    Iacoboni, M2009

    Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons

    Annual Review of Psychology653–670

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163604
  22. 22 Review

    Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F2005

    Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion

    Personality and Social Psychology Review9(3) · 184–211

    doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1
  23. 23 Journal

    Borgomaneri, S., Gazzola, V., & Avenanti, A2014

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals two functionally distinct stages of motor cortex involvement during perception of emotional body language

    Brain Structure and Function220(2) · 931–946

    doi: 10.1007/s00429-014-0825-6
  24. 24 Journal

    Auyeung, B., Lombardo, M. V., Heinrichs, M., Chakrabarti, B., Sule, A., Deakin, J. B.... & Baron-Cohen, S2015

    Oxytocin increases eye contact during a real-time, naturalistic social interaction in males with and without autism

    Translational Psychiatry5(2)

    doi: 10.1038/tp.2014.146
  25. 25 Journal

    Van den Stock, J., Righart, R., & de Gelder, B2007

    Body expressions influence recognition of emotions in the face and voice

    Emotion7(3) · 487–494

    doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.487
  26. 26 Journal

    Meeren, H. K., van Heijnsbergen, C. C., & de Gelder, B2005

    Rapid perceptual integration of facial expression and emotional body language

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences102(45) · 6518–1652

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507650102
  27. 27 Review

    Craig, A. D2002

    How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience3(8) · 655–666

    doi: 10.1038/nrn894
  28. 28 Review

    Witkower, Z., & Tracy, J. L2019

    Bodily communication of emotion: Evidence for extrafacial behavioral expressions and available coding systems

    Emotion Review11(2) · 184–193

    doi: 10.1177/1754073919880601
  29. 29 Journal

    Kret, M. E., & De Dreu, C. K. W2017

    Pupil-mimicry conditions trust in partners: moderation by oxytocin and group membership

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B284(1850)

    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2554
  30. 30 Meta

    Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F2011

    Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments

    Psychological Bulletin137(4) · 643–659

    doi: 10.1037/a0023589
  31. 31 Journal

    Bailenson, J. N2021

    Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue

    Technology, Mind, and Behavior2(1)

    doi: 10.1037/tmb0000030
  32. 32 Journal

    Fauville, G., Luo, M., Queiroz, A. C. M., Bailenson, J. N., & Hancock, J2021

    Nonverbal mechanisms predict Zoom fatigue and explain why women experience higher levels than men

    PLOS ONE16(4)

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250887
  33. 33 Journal

    Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V1969

    The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding

    Semiotica1(1) · 49–98

    doi: 10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49
  34. 34 Journal

    Porges, S. W2007

    The polyvagal perspective

    Biological Psychology74(2) · 116–143

    doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.009
  35. 35 Journal

    Elfenbein, H. A2006

    Learning in emotion judgments: Training and the cross-cultural understanding of facial expressions

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior30(1) · 21–36

    doi: 10.1007/s10919-005-0002-y
  36. 36 Journal

    Löken, L. S., Wessberg, J., Morrison, I., McGlone, F., & Olausson, H2009

    Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans

    Nature Neuroscience12(5) · 547–548

    doi: 10.1038/nn.2312
  37. 37 Journal

    Morrison, I., Löken, L. S., & Olausson, H2010

    The skin as a social organ

    Experimental Brain Research204(3) · 305–314

    doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2007-y
  38. 38 Journal

    Elfenbein, H. A., Der Foo, M., White, J., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C2007

    Reading your counterpart: The benefit of emotion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior31(4) · 205–223

    doi: 10.1007/s10919-007-0033-7
  39. 39 Journal

    Bornemann, B., Herbert, B. M., Mehling, W. E., & Singer, T2015

    Differential changes in self-reported aspects of interoceptive awareness through 3 months of contemplative training

    Frontiers in Psychology

    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01504
  40. 40 Journal

    Engell, A. D., & Haxby, J. V2007

    Facial expression and gaze-direction in human superior temporal sulcus

    Neuropsychologia45(14) · 3234–3241

    doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.022
  41. 41 Book

    Kendon, A2004

    Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance

    Cambridge, "UK": Cambridge University Press

  42. 42 Journal

    Lapakko, D2007

    Communication is 93% nonverbal: An urban legend proliferates

    Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal7–19

  43. 43 Journal

    Burgoon, J. K., Berger, C. R., & Waldron, V. R2000

    Mindfulness and interpersonal communication

    Journal of Social Issues56(1) · 105–127

    doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00154
  44. 44 Journal

    Lussier-Desrochers, D., & Caouette, M2022

    The impact of low vision on social function: The potential importance of lost visual social cues

    Journal of Optometry15(3) · 180–186

    doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2022.01.001
  45. 45 Review

    Decety, J2011

    Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy

    Emotion Review3(1) · 92–108

    doi: 10.1177/1754073910374662
  46. 46 Journal

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience2013

    Non-verbal emotion communication training induces specific changes in brain function and structure

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

    doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00648
  47. 47 Journal

    Porges, S. W2003

    The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic contributions to social behavior

    Physiology & Behavior79(3) · 503–513

    doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(03)00156-2
  48. 48 Journal

    Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R1993

    Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology64(3) · 431–441

    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431

Keep reading

More from the Science Deep Dives

High-Performance Insights

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *