| 1. |
- Denault, V., et al.
(författare)
-
L’analyse de la communication non verbale: Les dangers de la pseudoscience en contextes de sécurité et de justice
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique et Scientifique. - 1424-4683. ; 73:1, s. 15-44
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- For security and justice professionals, 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. 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. © 2020, Polymedia Meichtry SA. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
- Vernham, Z., et al.
(författare)
-
Detecting Deception within Small Groups: A Literature Review
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Psychology. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 1664-1078. ; 7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Investigators often have multiple suspects to interview in order to determine whether they are guilty or innocent of a crime. Nevertheless, co-offending has been significantly neglected within the deception detection literature. The current review is the first of its kind to discuss co-offending and the importance of examining the detection of deception within groups. Groups of suspects can be interviewed separately (individual interviewing) or simultaneously (collective interviewing) and these differing interviewing styles are assessed throughout the review. The review emphasizes the differences between lone individuals and groups. It focuses on the theoretical implications of group deceit and the reasons why groups need to be understood in terms of investigative interviewing and deception detection if all types of crime-related incidents are to be recognized and dealt with appropriately. Group strategies, consistency within-and between-statements, joint memory, and group dynamics are referred to throughout the review and the importance of developing interview protocols specifically for groups is discussed. The review concludes by identifying the gaps in the literature and suggesting ideas for future research, highlighting that more research is required if we are to obtain a true understanding of the deception occurring within groups and how best to detect it.
|
|
| 3. |
- Vrij, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Collective interviewing of suspects
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. - 2211-3681. ; 1:4, s. 41-44
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When people are interviewed about possible wrongdoing that has been committed in groups, they typically are interviewed separately. Yet, in several settings it would be more intuitive and convenient to interview suspects together. Importantly, such collective interviews could yield verbal cues to deception. This is the first deception experiment to investigate collective interviewing. Twenty-one pairs of truth tellers and 22 pairs of liars were interviewed pair-wise about having had lunch together in a restaurant. Given that truth tellers adopt a “tell it all” strategy in the interviews while, in contrast, liars prefer to keep their stories simple, we predicted that pairs of truth tellers would (i) interrupt and (ii) correct each other more, and would (iii) add more information to each other’s answers than pairs of liars. The results supported these hypotheses. Theory-driven interventions to elicit more cues to deception through simultaneous interviewing are discussed.
|
|
