Psychophysiological detection of deception and Preliminary Process Theory: A comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015)

Editorial

“…The fourth Commentary, by Patnaik and Kircher (2015), agrees with Palmatier and Rovner (2015a) on the similar underlying processes and patterns of physiological responses elicited in both the CQT and CIT. However, they do not find the proposed links to Preliminary Process Theory persuasive.…”

Rejoinder to commentary on Palmatier and Rovner (2015): Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity

“…We acknowledge that there are many unanswered questions regarding the PPT, such as those posed by Patnaik and Kircher (2015). To mention that a great deal more needs to be accomplished is almost cliché, especially regarding the PPT's potential as a valid construct for the CQT.…”

“…In fact, not a single commentary argues against the use of the polygraph to assess whether a person possesses information that is relevant to an issue important enough to be subjected to examination. Consequently, we believe that collectively this body of knowledge (Ben-Shakhar et al, 2015;Elaad, 2015;Ginton, 2015;Ogawa et al, 2015;Palmatier & Rovner, 2015;Patnaik & Kircher, 2015;Vrij, 2015b) can be summarized by addressing three substantive questions:…”

“…In fact, as applied scientists, we find that the submitted comments offer several compelling reasons as to why further research within a PPT context is a logical next step. For example, Patnaik and Kircher (2015, p. 23) conclude that:…”