Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2010 | Page 29

FORENSICS JOURNAL

The Gap between Training and Research in the
Detection of Deception – Revisited
Edward R. Kemery, Ph.D.
(2004) argued that there is little research support for the widelytouted Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation (Reid Technique; Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2001). Upon further review,
as described below, it is argued that the gap between research and
practice in detecting deception is not as large as previously suggested.

ABSTRACT
In a recent article, Blair and Kooi (2004) argue that existing research
concerning detection of deception provides minimal support for the
Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation, the dominant
methodology currently taught to members of law enforcement. Conclusions offered by Blair and Kooi are predicated on a meta-analysis
of 1,338 statistical estimates of 158 cues to deception obtained from
120 independent samples (DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck,
Charlon, & Cooper, 2003). However, Blair and Kooi (2004) base
their pessimistic assessment of the viability of the Reid Technique on
a restricted interpretation of the technique and use only select information from DePaulo, et al. (2003). Using a broader interpretation of
the Reid Technique and the breadth of data provided by DePaulo et
al. (2003), this paper offers more promise for using the Reid Technique for detecting deception.

According to Trovillo (1939), interest in differentiating truth-telling
from lying dates back for centuries, and a variety of techniques have
been used to gauge truthfulness (Navarro & Schafer, 2001). While
numerous theories have been offered and studies conducted to identify valid ways for detecting deception, many rest on the premise that
deceptive subjects manifest observable physiological and behavioral
changes because lying causes anxiety.
That physiological reactions can be reliably measured and validly
reflect deception prompted creation of the polygraph machine (i.e.,
lie detector). In this procedure, a subject is connected to a device that
measures heart and respiration rate, breathing, blood pressure, and
galvanic skin response. A polygraph examiner then asks the subject
a series of questions to which the examiner knows the answer (i.e.,
baseline questions). A subject’s physiological reactions are recorded
and subsequently compared with those to questions of substance
to the investigation (Lykken, 1959). Manifest changes in subjects’
reactions to baseline questions and those measured after substantive
questions are viewed as indices of potential deception.

THE GAP BETWEEN TRAINING AND RESEARCH IN THE
DETECTION OF DECEPTION – REVISITED
“There is nothing more practical than a good theory” is a quote
from Kurt Lewin (1951), a noted behavioral scientist. Implicit in
this statement is that a good, solid theory, one based on sound,
scientific research will be of great value to those in the field w