Malentendidos e ideas erróneas en la aplicación del comportamiento no verbal en el contexto jurídico-forense español

  1. Esteban Puente-López 1
  2. David Pina 2
  3. Ramón Arce 3
  1. 1 Universidad de Valladolid
    info

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

  2. 2 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

  3. 3 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Montrer des affiliations +
Revue:
Acción psicológica

ISSN: 1578-908X

Année de publication: 2023

Titre de la publication: Investigación aplicada en psicología jurídica y forense

Volumen: 20

Número: 2

Pages: 43-70

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Acción psicológica

Résumé

Antecedentes y objetivos. Tanto en la población general como en la especializada se mantienen determinadas creencias que relacionan el comportamiento no verbal (CVN) con la probabilidad de que una persona esté diciendo la verdad o mintiendo. Sin embargo, la evidencia señala que no existe ningún indicador o marcador no verbal que permita discriminar con precisión y fiabilidad entre un testimonio honesto y deshonesto, advirtiendo de la pseudocientificidad de estas técnicas. A pesar de ello, el empleo de los indicadores de CNV está ampliamente extendido en los ámbitos de seguridad y justicia. Por ello, el presente trabajo tiene por objeto analizar los errores, utilidad práctica y usos inadecuados que subyacen en la práctica actual del CVN en el contexto jurídico-forense español. Método. Se ha realizado tanto una revisión de la evidencia disponible en lo relativo al CNV, como del proceso legal y criterios científicos en el ámbito técnico forense de la aplicación de estas técnicas. Conclusiones. La evidencia respecto al uso de CNV en el contexto jurídico-forense, especialmente en la población española, es notablemente limitada. Además, no cumple con los estándares Daubert de admisibilidad de la prueba científica, lo que judicialmente la califica como pseudocientífica. Esto no solo se aplica a su uso en la detección de la mentira o el engaño, sino también en todas las prácticas en las que se ha refugiado la disciplina, como en procesos de credibilidad del testimonio en cualquier tipología de delito o en la valoración de la coherencia o congruencia emocional

Références bibliographiques

  • Arce, R. (2017). Análisis de contenido de las declaraciones de testigos: Evaluación de la validez científica y judicial de la hipótesis y la prueba [Content Analysis of Witness Statements: Assessing the Scientific and Judicial Validity of Hypothesis and Evidence]. Acción Psicológica, 14(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.14.1.21347
  • Arce, R. & Fariña, F. (2005). Peritación psicológica de la credibilidad del testimonio, la huella psíquica y la simulación: El Sistema de Evaluación Global (SEG) [Psychological Evidence in court on Statement Credibility, Psychological Injury and Malingering: The Global Evaluation System (GES)]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 26, 59–77. https://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/1247.pdf
  • Arce, R. & Fariña, F. (2006). Psicología del testimonio y evaluación cognitiva de la veracidad de testimonios y declaraciones [Psychology of Testimony and Cognitive Assessment of the Veracity of Testimony and Statements]. In J. C. Sierra, E. M. Jiménez, & G. Buela-Casal (Eds.), Psicología forense: Manual de técnicas y aplicaciones (pp. 563–601). Biblioteca Nueva.
  • Arce, R. & Fariña, F. (2015). Evaluación psicológico-forense de la credibilidad y daño psíquico mediante el Sistema de Evaluación Global [Psychological-Forensic Assessment of Credibility and Psychic Damage using the Global Assessment System]. In P. Rivas & G. L. Barrios (Ed.), Violencia de género: Perspectiva multidisciplinar y práctica forense (pp. 411–441). Thomson Aranzadi.
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Vilariño, M. (2010). Contrasting the Effectiveness of the CBCA in the Assessment of Credibility in Cases of Gender Violence. Psychosocial Intervention, 19(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2010v19n2a2
  • Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019). Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion from Human Facial Movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(1), 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930
  • Brennen, T. & Magnussen, S. (2020). Research On Non-Verbal Signs of Lies and Deceit: A Blind Alley. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 613410. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410
  • Busch, R. & McCarthy, S. (2022). The Emergence of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. In J. N. Lester & M. O'Reilly (Eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Critical Perspectives on Mental Health. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Carrasco-Ortiz, M. A. & Rubio-Garay, F. (Eds.). (2020). Psicología jurídica y forense. Volumen I: Aspectos psicológicos y legales básicos [Legal and Forensic Psychology. Volume I: Basic Psychological and Legal Aspects]. Sanz y Torres.
  • Crivelli, C. & Fridlund, A. J. (2019). Inside-out: From basic Emotions Theory to the Behavioral Ecology View. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43, 161–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00294-2
  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.
  • DeMatteo, D., Fishel, S., & Tansey, A. (2019). Expert Evidence: The (unfulfilled) Promise of Daubert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619894336
  • Denault, V. (2020). Misconceptions about Nonverbal Cues to Deception: A Covert Threat to the Justice system? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 573460. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573460
  • 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, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2019a9
  • DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
  • Dujo, V., González, D., & Graña, J. L. (2022). Manual de psicología forense en el ámbito laboral [Handbook of Forensic Psychology in the Workplace]. Pirámide.
  • Durán, J. I., & Fernández-Dols, J. M. (2021). Do Emotions Result in their Predicted Facial Expressions? A Meta-Analysis of Studies on the Link between Expression and Emotion. Emotion, 21(7), 1550–1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001015
  • Durán, J. I., Reisenzein, R., & Fernández-Dols, J. M. (2017). Coherence between Emotions and Facial Expressions: A Research Synthesis. In J. M. Fernández-Dols & J. A. Russell (Eds.), The Science of Facial Expression (pp. 107–129). Oxford University Press.
  • Ekman, P. (1992). An Argument for Basic Emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3-4), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068
  • Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception. Psychiatry, 32(1), 88-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1969.11023575
  • Erdodi, L. A. (2023). Multivariate Models of Performance Validity: The Erdodi Index Captures the Dual Nature of Non-Credible Responding (continuous and categorical). Assessment, 30(5), 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221101910
  • Fandiño, R., Basanta, J., Sanmarco, J., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2021). Evaluation of the Executive Functioning and Psychological Adjustment of Child to Parent Offenders: Epidemiology and Quantification of Harm. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 616855. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2021.616855
  • Faust, D. & Ahern, D. C. (2012). Clinical Judgment and Prediction. In D. Faust (Ed.), Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony: Based on the Original Work by Jay Ziskin (pp. 147–208). Oxford University Press.
  • Gancedo, Y., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., Vilariño, M., & Arce, R. (2021). Reality Monitoring: A Meta-analytical Review for Forensic Practice. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a10
  • Garb H. N. (2005). Clinical Judgment and Decision Making. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,1, 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143810
  • Greve, K. W. & Bianchini, K. J. (2004). Setting Empirical Cut-Offs on Psychometric Indicators of Negative Response Bias: A Methodological Commentary with Recommendations. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(4), 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2003.08.002
  • Girard, J. M., Cohn, J. F., Yin, L., & Morency, L. P. (2021). Reconsidering the Duchenne Smile: Formalizing and Testing Hypotheses about Eye Constriction and Positive Emotion. Affective Science, 2(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-020-00030-w
  • Hall, J. A., Horgan, T. G., & Murphy, N. A. (2019). Nonverbal Communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103145
  • Harris, C. R. & Alvarado, N. (2005). Facial Expressions, Smile Types, and Self-report during Humour, Tickle, and Pain. Cognition and Emotion, 19(5), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000472
  • Hartwig, M. & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2014). Lie Detection from multiple Cues: A Meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3052
  • Huss, M. T. (2014). Forensic Psychology (2nd ed.). Wiley.
  • Iverson, G.L. (2011). Positive Predictive Power. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 1968–1970). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1234
  • Köhnken, G., Manzanero, A. L., & Scott, M. T. (2015). Análisis de la validez de las declaraciones: Mitos y limitaciones [Statement Validity Analysis: Myths and Limitations]. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 25(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apj.2015.01.004
  • Krumhuber, E. G. & Manstead, A. S. (2009). Can Duchenne Smiles be Feigned? New Evidence on Felt and False Smiles. Emotion, 9(6), 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017844
  • Lange, R. T. & Lippa, S. M. (2017). Sensitivity and Specificity should never be Interpreted in Isolation without Consideration of other Clinical Utility Metrics. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(6-7), 1015–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1335438
  • Langleben, D. D. D. & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law, and Research Policy Collide. Psychology, Public policy, and Law, 19(2), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028841
  • Larrabee, G. J., Rohling, M. L., & Meyers, J. E. (2019). Use of Multiple Performance and Symptom Validity Measures: Determining the Optimal per Test Cutoff for Determination of Invalidity, Analysis of Skew, and Inter-test Correlations in Valid and Invalid Performance Groups. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(8), 1354–1372. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1614227
  • Larrabee, G. J. (2014). Aggregating across Multiple Indicators Improves the Detection of Malingering: Relationship to likelihood-ratios. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040701494987
  • Larrabee, G. J. (2022). Synthesizing Data to Reach Clinical Conclusion Regarding Validity Status. In R. W. Schroeder & P. K. Martin (Eds.), Validity Assessment in Clinical Neuropsychological Practice; Evaluating and Managing Noncredible Performance (pp. 193–210). The Guilford Press.
  • Levine, T. R. (2018). Ecological Validity and deception detection research design. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1411471
  • Levine, T. R., Clare, D. D., Green, T., Serota, K. B., & Park, H. S. (2014). The Effects of Truth-Lie Base Rate on Interactive Deception Detection Accuracy. Human Communication Research, 40, 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12027
  • Lippa S. M. (2018). Performance Validity Testing in Neuropsychology: A Clinical Guide, Critical Review, and Update on a rapidly Evolving Literature. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32(3), 391–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1406146
  • López-Pérez, R., Gordillo, F., Soto, J. E., Pérez, M. A., & Salomoni, C. (2016). Protocolo FEAP (Facial Expression Analysis Protocol). In R. M. López, F. Gordillo, & M. Grau (Eds.), Comportamiento no verbal (pp. 179–192). Pirámide.
  • Luke T. J. (2019). Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to Deception May Be Highly Exaggerated. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 646–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619838258
  • Matsumoto, D. & Hwang, H. C. (2018). Microexpressions Differentiate Truths from Lies about Future Malicious Intent. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02545
  • Matsumoto, D. & Hwang, H. C. (2020). Clusters of Nonverbal Behavior Differentiate Truths and Lies about Future Malicious Intent in Checkpoint Screening Interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 28(4), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1794999
  • Matsumoto, D. & Wilson, M. (2023). Behavioral Indicators of Deception and Associated Mental States: Scientific Myths and Realities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-023-00441-w
  • McDermott, R. (2012). Internal and External Validity. In J. Druckman, D. Greene, J. Kuklinski, & A, Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (pp. 27–40). Cambridge University Press.
  • Mehio-Sibai, A., Feinleib, M., Sibai, T. A., & Armenian, H. K. (2004). A Positive or a Negative Confounding Variable? A Simple Teaching AID for Clinicians and Students. Annals of Epidemiology, 15(6), 421–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2004.10.004.
  • Mitchell G. (2012). Revisiting Truth or Triviality: The External Validity of Research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611432343
  • Novo, M. & Seijo, D. (2010). Judicial Judgement-Making and legal Criteria of Testimonial Credibility. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2, 91–115. http://sepjf.webs.uvigo.es/index.php?option=com_docmanyx0026;task=doc_downloadyx0026;gid=26yx0026;Itemid=110yx0026;lang=en
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • Papa, A. & Bonanno, G. A. (2008). Smiling in the Face of Adversity: The Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Functions of Smiling. Emotion, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.1
  • Patterson, M. L., Fridlund, A. J., & Crivelli, C. (2023). Four Misconceptions about Nonverbal Communication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(6), 1388–1411. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221148142
  • Puente-López, E., Pina, D., López-Nicolás, R., Iguacel, I., & Arce, R. (2023). The Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29): A Systematic Review and Bivariate Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis. Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001209
  • Rogers, R., Tazi, K. Y., & Drogin, E. Y. (2023). Forensic Assessment Instruments: Their Reliability and Applicability to Criminal Forensic Issues. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 41(5) 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2613
  • Rosenfeld, B., Edens, J., & Lowmaster, S. (2011). Measure Development in Forensic Psychology. In B. Rosenfeld & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 26–42). Wiley.
  • Sporer, S. L. & Schwandt, B. (2006). Paraverbal Indicators of Deception: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 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
  • Schmidt, K. L., Bhattacharya, S., & Denlinger, R. (2009). Comparison of Deliberate and Spontaneous Facial Movement in Smiles and Eyebrow Raises. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-008-0058-6
  • Schmid Mast, M. & Hall, J. A. (2018). The Impact of Interpersonal Accuracy on Behavioral Outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418758437
  • Sentencia 253/2004 del TS, Sala de lo Penal, de 04 de marzo de 2004. https://t.ly/ebpPd
  • Sentencia 210/2014 del TS, Sala de lo Penal, de 14 de marzo de 2014. https://vlex.es/vid/abuso-sexual-victima-declaraciones-503438218
  • Sentencia 568/2016 del TS, Sala de lo Penal, de 28 de junio de 2016. https://vlex.es/vid/644865189
  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
  • Shreffler, J. & Huecker, M. R. (2023). Diagnostic Testing Accuracy: Sensitivity, Specificity, Predictive Values, and Likelihood Ratios. StatPearls.
  • Sierra, J. C., Jiménez, E. V., & Buela-Casal, G. (2006). Forensic Psychology: Manual of Techniques and Applications. Biblioteca Nueva.
  • Smith, G. E., Cerham, J. H., & Ivnik, R. J. (2003). Diagnostic Validity. In D. S. Tulsky, D. H. Saklofske, G. J. Chelune, R. K. Heaton, R. J. Ivnik, R. Bornstein, A. Prifitera, & M. F. Ledbetter (Eds.), Clinical Interpretation of the WAIS-III and WMS-III (pp. 273-301). Academic Press.
  • Steller, M. & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-Based Content Analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence (pp. 217–245). Springer.
  • Sweet, J. J., Heilbronner, R. L., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Rohling, M. L., Boone, K. B., Kirkwood, M. W., Schroeder, R. W., Suhr, J. A., & Conference Participants. (2021). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 Consensus Statement on Validity Assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN Consensus Conference Statement on Neuropsychological Assessment of Effort, Response Bias, and Malingering. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35(6), 1053–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036
  • 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
  • VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2015). APA Dictionary of Psychology (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.
  • Vrieze, S. I. & Grove, W. M. (2010). Multidimensional Assessment of Criminal Recidivism: Problems, Pitfalls, and Proposed Solutions. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019228
  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit (2nd ed.) Wiley.
  • Vrij, A. (2015). Verbal Lie Detection Tools: Statement Validity Analysis, Reality Monitoring, and Scientific Content Analysis. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches (pp. 3–35). Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Vrij A., Hartwig M., & Granhag P. A. (2019), Reading Lies: Non-verbal Communication and Deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 294–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135
La source de données: Dialnet