The Analysis of Nonverbal Communication: The Dangers of Pseudoscience in Security and Justice Contexts

Abstract

<p>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. </p>

What Have We Learned About Cues to Deception? A Survey of Expert Opinions

“…Recently, Denault and colleagues (2020) published an essay warning against the dangers of using unscientific nonverbal cues to deception in applied contexts. Given the substantial number of coauthors on that piece, experts could likely unite to reject claims about deception cues that clearly have no basis in research and theory-such as synergology, an approach to deception detection that builds on the claim that an analysis of body gestures can accurately uncover unconscious mental processes (Denault et al, 2020). Debunking pseudoscience is an important role of researchers, particularly if the unwarranted claims still inform policy and training.…”

“…Such applications will inevitably reflect the limitations of the research that informs them. Infamously, the United States Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) "behavior detection" program-intended to detect deception and malintent at airport security checkpoints-was based heavily on microexpressions and leakage (Denault et al, 2020;Government Accountability Office, 2017, 2013, two explanatory mechanisms that fared quite poorly in the present survey in terms of expert support. The TSA's policies represent a particularly egregious example, but the problem may be much wider.…”