The Eye Movement Myth: When Bad Science Enters the Interview Room — and Eventually the Courtroom

This article examines the long-standing claim that eye movement can reliably distinguish truth from deception during investigative interviews. It reviews the scientific research underlying this popular training concept, explains why studies have failed to support eye-direction patterns as valid deception indicators, and discusses the implications under the Daubert standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. The article explores how unsupported diagnostic shortcuts can contribute to confirmation bias, interview contamination, tunnel vision, and investigative error. It argues that investigators should replace behavioral myths with evidence-based methods focused on statement reliability, corroboration, and the systematic evaluation of verbal information.