Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

detection [emphasis in original]” (Iacono, 2000). Cacioppo and his colleagues
have stated that:
Little is gained, for instance, by simply generating an increasingly
lengthy list of correlates between specific psychological variables
and additional psychophysiological measures. A scientific theory
is a description of causal interrelations. Psychophysiological
correlations are not causal. Thus, in scientific theories,
psychophysiological correlations are monstrosities. (Cacioppo,
Tassinary, and Berntson, 2000, p. 20)
Unfortunately, without an underlying theory on which to base logical
inferences, observation of a pattern correlated with deception for a given sample
of the population gives little guidance as to when the above assumptions are valid.
The only recourse is exhaustive testing of all of the possible combinations of
factors, which is clearly an impractical undertaking.
Those who subscribe to the “system first” school of thought believe that
it is possible to develop a functional and useful system without waiting for the
development of an underlying theory that is universally accepted by the scientific
community. They reason it is not likely that such a theory will be developed in the
short term or that it will receive rapid peer review and acceptance by the scientific
community. Rather than wait for this to come to fruition, the deception detection
community would be better served by continuing to attempt to develop a device
that works, and then later determining why the device works.
The logic behind this school of thought comes from the process of scientific
understanding, that is, the cyclic process of developing hypotheses, making
observations, testing the hypotheses, drawing conclusions, and modifying the
hypotheses accordingly when they no longer support the dominant paradigm.
Methods that work have been developed throughout history in medicine and other
sciences in the absence of a correct theory, or with only a marginal understanding
of how and why they work. For example, when aspirin was first used a century
ago it was believed to have no effect on the heart, but it is now known that aspirin
benefits the heart, and why (Nordenberg, 1999).
Current Status
In its study of polygraphy, the National Research Council
concluded that:
One cannot have strong confidence in polygraph testing or any
other technique for the physiological detection of deception
without an adequate theoretical and scientific base. A solid
theoretical and scientific base can give confidence about the
robustness of a test across examinees and settings and against
the threat of countermeasures and can lead to its improvement
over time. (Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the
Polygraph, 2002, p. 3–27)
84