Recently, an increasing number of scholars have been raising alarms regarding the risks of pseudoscience in the interpretation of nonverbal behavior within the fields of justice and public safety.
In 2020, 51 authors (Denault et al., 2020) collaborated to survey these risks and drafted a comprehensive report. In my view, this study also serves as a manifesto on the vigilance we must maintain regarding the dissemination of scientific research and the misappropriation of its results in practical applications. For over a decade, I have dedicated myself to debunking the myths that have emerged from the misinterpretation of scientific findings.
In this work, the 51 authors explain that for public safety and justice professionals (e.g., police officers, lawyers, judges), the thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication represent vital sources of knowledge. However, despite the breadth of scientific work available, professionals often resort to programs, methods, and approaches that do not reflect the state of the science.
In the aforementioned article, they examined:
(1) the concepts of nonverbal communication conveyed by these programs and methods; and
(2) the consequences of their use (e.g., on an individual’s life or liberty).
To achieve these goals, they reviewed scientific research on nonverbal communication and examined, in detail:
- The SPOT Program (Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques);
- The BAI method (Behavior Analysis Interview);
- Synergology, which is a specific approach.
They also listed five hypotheses to explain why certain organizations in security and justice are turning to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques. Due to the informative nature of our outreach articles, we will not delve into detail on these topics here; they will be addressed in individual articles in the near future.
Identifying lies and catching liars is not easy
As I have been indicating for over a decade, this study highlights the difficulties in identifying deception through nonverbal observation. For more on this, please consult the following articles I have authored:
There is no single, definitive sign of a lie (2011)
White lies: do they really exist? (2018)
There is no such thing as an innocent lie! (2014)
Understanding Neuro-Linguistic Programming (2012)
Can you identify a lie by eye movement? (Original 2013, revised 2021)
Regarding these themes, the authors’ opinion (Denault et al., 2020, p.1) is as follows:
Deception cannot be detected at a glance, as is often claimed on the Internet. The belief that gaze aversion allows for lie detection is a widespread misconception (The Global Deception Research Team, 2006). Much like unrealistic public expectations regarding forensic science (Chin & Workewych, 2016), nonverbal communication has suffered from its popularity in television series (e.g., Lie to Me) and other popular media (Levine, Serota, & Shulman, 2010; Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010). Indeed, scholars with scientific expertise in deception (and truth) detection agree that there are no nonverbal behaviors present in all liars and absent in all truth-tellers. There are no nonverbal behaviors indicative of deception akin to Pinocchio’s nose (DePaulo et al., 2003; Vrij, 2008). Furthermore, when facial expressions and gestures are documented as having a link to lying, that link is typically weak (DePaulo et al., 2003; Vrij et al., 2017) and often mediated by situational variables (Sporer & Schwandt, 2006, 2007). In other words, while not a silver bullet, the analysis of an individual’s nonverbal behaviors can be based on knowledge published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In fact, research conducted by the international community of scholars with expertise in nonverbal communication can inform the understanding of a wide range of human behaviors (Burgoon et al., 2010; Knapp et al., 2014; Moore et al., 2014; Patterson, 2011).
Is the knowledge available to the public reliable?
In the training sessions I conduct, I promote a critical view in students regarding what they will encounter: courses offered by unqualified individuals and body language literature that is often merely a copy of previously published books. I also warn about the risks of using pseudoscience as an authority strategy in persuasive communication.
The study’s authors share the following opinion regarding the reliability of books and training (Denault et al., 2020, p.2):
Unfortunately, dubious concepts about nonverbal communication are widely disseminated, especially on the Internet and in books aimed at the general public, as well as in seminars and conferences (claims like: “body language never lies”). The use of such concepts can have negative and perhaps even disastrous consequences (Denault, 2015; Kozinski, 2015; Lilienfeld & Landfield, 2008). For example, security and justice professionals unfamiliar with the “peer review” process may be misled into believing that these questionable concepts are scientific, granting them a completely unjustified authority (Jupe & Denault, 2018). As we will demonstrate, reliance on such concepts is fundamentally flawed, as the decisions of security and justice professionals can be distorted, jeopardizing individuals’ lives or liberty. [Emphasis added]
Why do people consume pseudoscience? What are the risks?
The authors highlight several reasons:
The reasons for irrational beliefs have been the subject of extensive scientific literature. People’s critical thinking skills, political and religious ideologies, as well as cognitive abilities and scientific knowledge are some of these reasons (Bensley & Lilienfeld, 2017; Bensley, Lilienfeld, & Powell, 2014; Boudry, Blancke, & Pigliucci, 2015; Bronstein, Pennycook, Bear, Rand, & Cannon, 2018; Gauchat, 2012; Majima, 2015; Nisbet, Cooper, & Garrett, 2015; Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2015; Pennycook & Rand, 2018; Shen & Gromet, 2015). But why do some organizations in security and justice turn to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques? To an international scientific community that has published thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication, it may seem surprising that these organizations adopt programs, methods, and approaches that, at first glance, appear scientific but, in reality, are not. We offer five hypotheses as to why some organizations resort to pseudoscience.
We can synthesize these five reasons into the following list:
Organizations face real problems to solve. When someone claims to have developed a method that solves the problem, the temptation to test it is significant.
Not all decision-makers possess the skills to discern what truly constitutes scientific knowledge.
Many decision-makers ignore the importance of science.
The risks of pseudoscience are underestimated by the organizations that adopt it.
Part of the responsibility lies with the researchers themselves. As they argue (Denault et al., 2020, p.8):
Finally, when security and justice organizations have unrealistic expectations stemming from television series and other popular media, and turn to pseudoscience, part of the responsibility lies with the international scientific community (Colwell, Miller, Miller, & Lyons, 2006; Denault & Jupe, 2017). Indeed, “the scientific process does not stop when results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Broader communication is also involved, and this includes ensuring not only that information (including uncertainties) is understood but also that misinformation and errors are corrected when necessary” (Williamson, 2016, p. 171).
For over a decade, I have argued that TV series are for entertainment. I also maintain that the analysis of celebrities, politicians, and athletes—especially when performed by those without scientific training—is a form of entertainment.
These analyses often subject individuals to ridicule or speculate on their private emotions and behaviors. This is usually done by people without any real preparation.
A well-prepared individual with scientific and ethical knowledge does not perform public analyses. The Code of Ethics for Psychology, for instance, prohibits a psychologist from participating in behavioral analyses of specific individuals in the media. This strikes me as a repackaged version of 19th-century freak shows. Back then, people with deformities were exhibited; today, we have YouTube and social networks performing the same task.
I have also dedicated much time to clarifying myths and the risks of pseudoscience arising from scientific works. To dive deeper into my arguments and examples, see:
And regarding the most famous and globally spread myth—that 93% of communication is nonverbal:
Is the 93% nonverbal communication rule true?
Final words on the risks of pseudoscience in justice and public safety
The authors concluded their text masterfully, and I transcribe it here, in full agreement with their arguments (Denault et al., 2020, p.8):
While some security and justice organizations are still turning to pseudoscience, others have already moved away from programs, methods, and approaches that do not reflect the state of the art in the scientific field. In several organizations, researchers are already working in close collaboration with security and justice professionals to implement evidence-based practices (e.g., Center for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, UK; High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, USA). Therefore, we hope our article inspires all organizations, regardless of the importance they currently place on scientific research, to reflect more on the dangers of pseudoscience and the importance of science in security and justice contexts. Furthermore, we hope it encourages security and justice organizations to start or continue working with the international community of scholars who possess scientific expertise in nonverbal communication and deception (and truth) detection to develop evidence-based practices. We also hope that researchers 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.
Do not take on the risks of pseudoscience in your professional practice.
Happy reading,
Sergio Senna
References
Chin, J.M., & Workewych, L. (2016). The CSI effect. In M. Dubber (Ed.), Oxford handbooks online. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bensley. D. A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychological misconceptions: Recent scientific advances and unresolved issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 377-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417699026
Bensley, D. A., Lilienfeld, S., & Powell, L. A. (2014). A new measure of psychological misconceptions: Relations with academic background, critical thinking, and acceptance of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.009
Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, 28, 1177-1198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.971946
Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, G., & Cannon, T. D., (2018). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2010). Nonverbal communication. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Colwell, L. H., Miller, H. A., Miller, R. S., & Lyons, P. M. (2006). US police officers’knowledge regarding behaviors indicative of deception: Implications for eradicating erroneous beliefs through training. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 489-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160500254839
Denault, V. (2015). Communication non verbale et crédibilité des témoins [Nonverbal communication and the credibility of witnesses]. Cowansville, Montreal: Yvon Blais.
Denault, V., & Jupe, L. M. (2017). Justice at risk! An evaluation of a pseudoscientific analysis of a witness’ nonverbal behavior in the courtroom. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29, 221-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1358758
Denault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M., St-Yves, M., Dunbar, N. E., Hartwig, M., Sporer, S. L., Rioux-Turcotte, J., Jarry, J., Walsh, D., Otgaar, H., Viziteu, A., Talwar, V., Keatley, D. A., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Townson, C., Deslauriers-Varin, N., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patterson, M. L., . . . van Koppen, P. J. (2020). The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 30(1), 1–12.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225
Jupe, L. M., & Denault, V. (2018). Science or pseudoscience? A distinction that matters for police officers, lawyers and judges. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Knapp, M. L., Hall, J. A., & Horgan, T. G. (2014). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Kozinski, A. (2015). Criminal law 2.0. Georgetown Law Review, 44, iii-xliv
Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). The impact of Lie to Me on viewers’ actual ability to detect deception. Communication Research, 37, 847-856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362686
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Landfield, K. (2008). Science and pseudoscience in law enforcement: A user-friendly primer. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1215-1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808321526
Majima, Y. (2015). Belief in pseudoscience, cognitive style and science literacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 552-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3136
Moore, N.-J., Hickson, M., & Stacks, D. W. (2014). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 658(1), 36-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
Patterson, M. L. (2011). More than words: The power of nonverbal communication: Barcelona, España: Editorial Aresta.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549-563.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G., (2018). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
Shen, F. X., & Gromet, D. M. (2015). Red states, blue states, and brain states: Issue framing, partisanship, and the future of neurolaw in the United States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 86-101.
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 421-446. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1190
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1
The Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in
nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 11, 89-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610390861
Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., Fisher, R. P., Kassin, S. M., Morgan III, C. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2017). Psychological perspective on interrogation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 927-955. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706515
Williamson, P. (2016). Take the time and effort to correct misinformation. Nature, 540(7632), 171. https://doi.org/10.1038/540171a
This post is also available in pt_BR.