Trial by polygraph: Scientific and juridical issues in lie detection

The present article examines two methods of polygraph-assisted lie detection: the Control Question Technique (CQT) and the Guilty Knowledge Technique (GKT). It presents the rationale for both, arguing that only the latter is well grounded in psychological theory. It then surveys the empirical support for claims of the polygraph's ability to detect deception, arguing that such support often comes from studies that are methodologically flawed by contamination of various sorts—especially studies of the CQT. The article then explores the legal implications of introducing polygraph test results, as presently gathered, into the criminal courtroom.

[1]  D. Dougherty,et al.  The validity of polygraph testing: Scientific analysis and public controversy. , 1985 .

[2]  Charles R. Honts,et al.  Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. , 1985, Journal of Applied Psychology.

[3]  M. T. Bradley,et al.  Innocence, information, and the guilty knowledge test in the detection of deception. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[4]  Benjamin Kleinmuntz,et al.  Lie detection in ancient and modern times: A call for contemporary scientific study. , 1984 .

[5]  Benjamin Kleinmuntz,et al.  A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection , 1984, Nature.

[6]  I. Lieblich,et al.  An Evaluation of Polygraphers' Judgments: A Review From a Decision Theoretic Perspective , 1982 .

[7]  I. Lieblich,et al.  The dichotomization theory for differential autonomic responsivity reconsidered. , 1982, Psychophysiology.

[8]  Gershon Ben-Shakhar,et al.  A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life situation. , 1982 .

[9]  B. Kleinmuntz,et al.  On the fallibility of lie detection. , 1982 .

[10]  M. Bar-Hillel,et al.  The irrational, the unreasonable, and the wrong , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  Benjamin Kleinmuntz,et al.  Statistical versus clinical lie detection. , 1981 .

[12]  M. Orne,et al.  Selective memory for social information, alertness, and physiological arousal in the detection of deception. , 1981, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  M. Zuckerman.  Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception , 1981 .

[14]  David T. Lykken,et al.  A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector , 1980 .

[15]  A. Cavoukian,et al.  The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court , 1980 .

[16]  M. E. Dawson.  Physiological detection of deception: measurement of responses to questions and answers during countermeasure maneuvers. , 1980, Psychophysiology.

[17]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  DETECTION OF DECEPTION IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT: A REVIEW AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS , 1979 .

[18]  R. Dawes.  Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[19]  M. Cook,et al.  Effects of attention, as indexed by subsequent memory, on electrodermal detection of information. , 1978, The Journal of applied psychology.

[20]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  I. Lieblich,et al.  Decision theory approach to the problem of polygraph interrogation. , 1978, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  D. C. Raskin,et al.  Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

[23]  W. Ploss.  Truth by Ordeal: The Growing Acceptance of Polygraphy , 1978 .

[24]  G. Ben-Shakhar,et al.  A further study of the dichotomization theory in detection of information. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

[25]  F. Horvath.  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. , 1977, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[27]  D. Lykken,et al.  Psychology and the lie detector industry. , 1974, The American psychologist.

[28]  F. Horvath,et al.  The Reliability of Polygraph Examiner Diagnosis of Truth and Deception , 1971 .

[29]  R. Simon,et al.  Quantifying Burdens of Proof: A View from the Bench, the Jury, and the Classroom , 1971 .

[30]  I. Lieblich,et al.  Guilty knowledge technique: application of signal detection measures. , 1970, The Journal of applied psychology.

[31]  P. J. Bersh.  A validation study of polygraph examiner judgments. , 1969, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  John Kaplan,et al.  Decision Theory and the Factfinding Process , 1968 .

[33]  P. Davidson,et al.  Validity of the guilty-knowledge technique: the effects of motivation. , 1968, The Journal of applied psychology.

[34]  A F Ax,et al.  A critique of Determinants of Emotional State by Schachter and Singer (1962). , 1967, Psychophysiology.

[35]  J. Sawyer,et al.  Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. , 1966, Psychological bulletin.

[36]  E. N. Sokolov,et al.  Perception and the Conditioned Reflex , 1965 .

[37]  J. Singer,et al.  Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. , 1962, Psychological review.

[38]  J SWETS,et al.  Decision processes in perception. , 1961, Psychological review.

[39]  J. Skolnick.  Scientific Theory and Scientific Evidence: An Analysis of Lie Detection , 1961 .

[40]  David T. Lykken,et al.  The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. , 1960 .

[41]  D. Lykken.  The GSR in the detection of guilt. , 1959 .

[42]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Psychological tests and personnel decisions , 1958 .

[43]  Paul E. Meehl,et al.  Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence , 1996 .