What is it about?

For security and justice professionals (e.g., police officers, lawyers, judges), the thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication represent important sources of knowledge. However, despite the scope of the scientific work carried out on this subject, professionals can turn to programs, methods, and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. The objective of this article is to examine (i) concepts of nonverbal communication conveyed by these programs, methods, and approaches, but also (ii) the consequences of their use (e.g., on the life or liberty of individuals). To achieve this objective, we describe the scope of scientific research on nonverbal communication. A program (SPOT; Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques), a method (the BAI; Behavior Analysis Interview) and an approach (synergology) that each run counter to the state of science are examined. Finally, we outline five hypotheses to explain why some organizations in the fields of security and justice are turning to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques. We conclude the article by inviting these organizations to work with the international community of scholars who have scientific expertise in nonverbal communication and lie (and truth) detection to implement evidence-based practices.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Despite the extent of scientific research on nonverbal communication, security and justice professionals in some jurisdictions have turned to programs, methods, and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. The consequences of the misuses of nonverbal communication are important enough to question the responsibility of organizations in the fields of security and justice that have used either SPOT, the BAI, or synergology.

Perspectives

Although some security and justice organizations are still turning to pseudoscience, others have already moved past programs, methods, and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. In a number of organizations, researchers are already working closely with security and justice professionals to implement evidence-based practices (e.g., Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, United Kingdom; High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, United States). Therefore, we hope that our article will inspire all organizations, regardless of the importance they currently attach to scientific research, to reflect more on the dangers of pseudoscience and the importance of science in security and justice contexts. In addition, we hope it will encourage security and justice organizations to start or continue working with the international community of scholars who have scientific expertise in nonverbal communication and lie (and truth) detection to develop evidence-based practices. We also hope that researchers will see our article as an invitation to increase opportunities to disseminate their scientific work, promote the scientific method, and engage with security and justice professionals to limit the use of pseudoscience.

Antonio L. Manzanero
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: The Analysis of Nonverbal Communication: The Dangers of Pseudoscience in Security and Justice Contexts, Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, April 2019, Colegio Oficial de Psicologos de Madrid,
DOI: 10.5093/apj2019a9.
You can read the full text:

Read

Resources

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page