Search

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., 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., Fac. de Psicología, TRUE, pub

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., 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., Fac. de Psicología, TRUE, pub

Unsolicited sexual behaviors that constitute sexual violence appear to be commonplace in nightlife settings in many countries and bystander intervention might be a way to eliminate them. However, few researchers have investigated the barriers and facilitators that affect Australian bystanders’ likelihood to help, and these should be considered in the planning of bystander intervention programs. Using a grounded theory approach, we interviewed fourteen men and women about their perceptions of factors that might influence bystander behavior in Australian nightlife settings. The categories identified suggest that it is difficult for nightlife patrons to notice and identify sexual violence occurring around them. Further, nightlife patrons respect other patrons’ right to engage in sexual behavior and will not intervene unless the recipient has been harmed by the behavior. Patrons are, also, much more likely to help when the recipient is a friend or a woman. Traditional bystander intervention programs on their own might not sufficiently address these barriers. Programs will also need to address patrons’ perceptions of sexual violence and the prevailing social and gender norms in nightlife settings regarding sexual behavior.

A semi-structured interview guide that was used to conduct interviews exploring young Australian nightlife users' perceptions of factors that might influence bystander behaviour in Australian nightlife settings. The interview guide includes a vignette depicting an incident of sexual violence that commonly occurs in nightlife settings.

Many patrons in nightlife settings around the world experience and engage in behavior that some find distressing and others find a useful method of interacting with potential sexual partners. Some of these behaviors nevertheless meet the World Health Organizations’ definition of sexual violence. Recent research suggests the social norms in Australian nightlife settings might be encouraging patrons to engage in or tolerate sexual violence when it occurs, even though it violates their own personal norms. Our main aim was to clarify young Australian nightlife patrons’ personal and descriptive norms regarding three sexual behaviors (Kissing, Grabbing and Grinding), to identify their injunctive norms, and to investigate how gender and consent affected these norms. A further aim was to explore the relationships between the different types of social norms to understand how they work together to influence and perpetuate nightlife patrons’ perceptions of these behaviors. We used an anonymous online survey to collect data from 197 young Australian nightlife patrons. We found that both genders think these behaviors are significantly more unacceptable than they think their peers do and are less acceptable if performed by men, yet they believe these behaviors are typical of men.

Many patrons in nightlife settings around the world experience and engage in behavior that some find distressing and others find a useful method of interacting with potential sexual partners. Some of these behaviors nevertheless meet the World Health Organizations’ definition of sexual violence. Recent research suggests the social norms in Australian nightlife settings might be encouraging patrons to engage in or tolerate sexual violence when it occurs, even though it violates their own personal norms. Our main aim was to clarify young Australian nightlife patrons’ personal and descriptive norms regarding three sexual behaviors (Kissing, Grabbing and Grinding), to identify their injunctive norms, and to investigate how gender and consent affected these norms. A further aim was to explore the relationships between the different types of social norms to understand how they work together to influence and perpetuate nightlife patrons’ perceptions of these behaviors. We used an anonymous online survey to collect data from 197 young Australian nightlife patrons. We found that both genders think these behaviors are significantly more unacceptable than they think their peers do and are less acceptable if performed by men, yet they believe these behaviors are typical of men.

Law and ethics require that risk assessment should be cross-culturally valid and fair, but Australian research in this regard is underdeveloped. A logical first step in progressing the work required to build a strong evidence base on culturally sensitive risk assessment in Australia is to determine the expert views of those in the field. We interviewed 13 Australian evaluators who assess Indigenous sexual offenders’ recidivism risk to determine their perceptions of the risk assessment instruments they use and the attributes they believe evaluators doing cross-cultural assessments should have. Our central findings are that evaluators use the available instruments because they believe that the same factors predict sexual recidivism for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders, but that they do so cautiously knowing the limitations of the instruments. Evaluators nevertheless want more research data to guide them when they use the available instruments to assess people from cultures that differ from those of people in the normative sample. Participants acknowledge that the unique challenges of assessing Indigenous sexual offenders require non-Indigenous evaluators to be culturally competent and confident. These findings should be valuable to evaluators and those who train or supervise evaluators and/or intend to establish or improve the validity of risk instruments in Australia.