Citation

Denault V, Jupe LM. Front. Psychol. 2018; 9: e240.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Frontiers Research Foundation)

DOI

10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00240

PMID

29559937

PMCID

PMC5845618

Abstract

On July 20, 2017, under the pen of Kingsbury and Grover, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report on the evidence the Transportation Security Administration (hereafter “TSA”) provided to support behavioral indicators used “for identifying passengers who may pose a threat to aviation security” (p. 1). The report's conclusions were unequivocal:

In our review of all 178 sources TSA cited in support of its revised list of behavioral indicators, we found that 98% (175 of 178) of the sources do not provide valid evidence applicable to the specific indicators TSA identified them as supporting (Kingsbury and Grover, 2017, p. 5).

Whilst this report is just one example of how an organization developed and implemented practices that lack scientific evidence, such a report may also suggest an insufficient dialogue, initiated by research scientists, with practitioners to adequately promote scientific knowledge. In this opinion article, our aim is to offer some avenues for thought regarding the reasons why such a dialogue might sometimes appear to be deficient...

Language: en

Keywords

Transportation Security Administration; behavior; deception detection; evidence-based practices; nonverbal communication; security