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. Análisis de la comunicación no verbal: los peligros de la pseudociencia en entornos de seguridad y justicia R E S U M E N Para los profesionales de la seguridad y la justicia (policías, abogados, jueces), los miles de artículos revisados por pares sobre comunicación no verbal representan fuentes importantes de conocimiento. Sin embargo, a pesar del alcance del trabajo científico realizado sobre este tema, los profesionales pueden recurrir a programas, métodos y enfoques que no reflejan el estado real de la ciencia. El objetivo de este artículo es examinar (i) los conceptos de comunicación no verbal transmitidos por estos programas, métodos y enfoques, pero también (ii) las consecuencias de su uso (por ejemplo, sobre la vida o la libertad de las personas). Para lograr estos objetivos, describimos el alcance de la investigación científica sobre la comunicación no verbal. Se examina un programa (SPOT: Evaluación de pasajeros mediante técnicas de observación), un método (BAI: Entrevista de análisis de conducta) y un enfoque (sinergología) que contradicen el estado de la ciencia. Finalmente, presentamos cinco hipótesis para explicar por qué algunas organizaciones en los campos de la seguridad y la justicia están recurriendo a la pseudociencia y a las técnicas pseudocientíficas. Concluimos el artículo invitando a estas organizaciones a trabajar con la comunidad académica internacional especializada en la investigación sobre comunicación no verbal y detección de mentiras (y verdad) para implementar prácticas basadas en la evidencia.

No abstract

No abstract

Interrogation techniques are well explored, but in Slovenia it has\ud remained unknown what interrogation techniques are used and\ud what the basic characteristics of suspect interrogations are. The\ud Slovenian interrogation manual proposes some coercive\ud interrogation techniques and neglects their weaknesses. The aim\ud of the current study was to examine Slovenian police officers’\ud beliefs as to the basic characteristics of their interrogations and\ud whether techniques proposed by the manual are used in practice\ud to begin to provide some insight into what actually happens in\ud such interrogations. A survey instrument was used to obtain selfreport\ud data from a sample of criminal investigators. From 86\ud completed questionnaires it was found that a typical interrogation\ud of a suspect lasts around 90 minutes and is not recorded.\ud Interviewers typically use three interrogation techniques namely (i)\ud conducting interrogations in isolation; (ii) identifying contradictions\ud in the suspect’s story; and (iii) confronting the suspect with\ud evidence. Findings suggest that some coercive interrogation\ud techniques are used in practice (e.g. offering moral justifications,\ud alluding to have evidence of guilt, good cop/bad cop routine, and\ud minimization). The study is the first insight into the practices of\ud Slovenian investigators when questioning suspects. Differences\ud among general, white-collar and organized crime investigators are\ud also discussed

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bev andorl asi es Allampolg ars agi Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert's report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community's standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case and is an exemplar of projective tests. We conclude that the Rorschach does not meet the proposed standards and that psychologists should abstain from using it in legal proceedings even in the absence of a clear judicial prohibition.