In 2008, Hillary Clinton’s misty-eyed moment at a New Hampshire diner made headlines. Some saw it as a rare glimpse of humanity; others dismissed it as calculated theater. For all their emotional power, tears can leave us guessing: are they genuine or strategic?

A new study published this month in PLOS One now reveals that whether we perceive someone’s tears as heartfelt or manipulative depends less on the tears themselves and more on the person shedding them and the situation they’re in.

“Our studies showed that tears are not universally seen as a sincere social signal, because their perceived genuineness depends on who is crying and in what situation,” said Monika Wróbel, a psychologist at the University of Łódź and lead author of the study.

The Science Behind the Sobs

The team conducted one of the most sweeping investigations into tear perception to date, analyzing responses from over 10,000 people across five countries: Poland, Norway, Canada, South Africa, and the UK. Participants were shown photos of people with and without digitally added tears. Each photo came with a brief backstory—some benign, others suggestive of manipulation.

One such scenario described a person talking to a receptionist while waiting to see a doctor (neutral). Another showed the same person trying to jump the queue by pulling at the receptionist’s heartstrings (manipulative). The researchers also varied facial features to signal perceived warmth—some faces appeared friendlier and more open, others colder or more distant.

The results show tears didn’t always make a person seem more honest. In fact, the opposite was often true.

“Tears increased perceived honesty for faces low in warmth, but decreased it for faces high in warmth,” the authors reported.

It turns out that crying bucks expectations in powerful ways. People who are not expected to cry—men, or those who seem emotionally distant—garner more trust when they do.

This isn’t a subtle effect. In photos where men cried, participants not only judged them as more honest, but they also felt more inclined to offer help. For women or warm-looking individuals, tears did little to boost credibility and actually sometimes reduced it.

When Crying Backfires

So what makes a tear look manipulative?

Context, it seems, is everything. Participants were far more skeptical of tears in situations where someone could benefit from emotional appeal, like trying to persuade or win favor.

“Tears might be more socially beneficial… when shed by people less expected to do so,” the authors wrote. “Possibly, when men or low-warmth people tear up, which is quite unexpected, observers assume that there must be a genuine reason to do so.”

In manipulative settings, people seemed to instinctively raise their guard. Rather than interpreting tears as emotional overload, they assumed the tears were part of the act.

This wariness extends even further when personality comes into play. Observers who scored high in psychopathy and Machiavellianism—traits associated with manipulation and low empathy—were consistently more likely to view all tears as dishonest.

Why This Matters

The findings have wide-reaching implications, from politics and criminal trials to everyday interpersonal dynamics. When a defendant cries in court or a politician tears up during a speech, our reactions may depend not just on the situation, but also on the speaker’s gender, face, and how closely they fit our stereotypes.

Crying isn’t read the same by everyone. Cultural norms also weigh in. The study found that participants from countries with lower societal trust, like South Africa and Poland, were more skeptical of tearful displays than those from higher-trust nations like Norway and Canada.

And while the images used were still photos with added tears (something the researchers acknowledge as a limitation), the patterns across thousands of responses were clear.

“The biggest challenge in studying the social effects of tears is choosing the right stimuli,” Wróbel explained. “Crying is a complex, multifaceted emotional expression that consists of not only tears but also gestures, vocalizations, or facial muscle movements. This calls for improved, more ecologically valid manipulations in the future.”

Tears don’t come with labels. And this research shows we don’t need them. We label them ourselves—based on context, culture, expectation, and our own biases.

It’s why one person’s heartbreak can strike us as honest, while another’s evokes suspicion. Why some cries compel comfort and others skepticism.