Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and the detection of deception: cardiovascular, electrodermal, and pupillary measures.

Subjects, half of whom committed a mock crime, were examined with both Control Question and Guilty Knowledge tests in an attempt to detect guilt or innocence. Skin resistance, heart rate, and pupil size were the physiological measures employed. Prior to the polygraph test the effectiveness of the physiological detection apparatus was demonstrated to each suhject. They were led to helieve they had been detected in either none, one, two or three of three trials in this demonstration. Subsequent detectability of subjects varied as a result of the manipulation with the Control Question test such that detectability increased as the level of demonstrated effectiveness increased. Results with the Guilty Knowiedge test were less clear. Another manipulation, threat of punishment, did not affect detection results but did alter heart rate change such that those threatened, whether guilty or innocent, received rank scores more in the guilt)’direction than those not threatened. Skin resistance was the most efficacious measure in both tests while pupil and heart measures varied in detection accuracy depending on the test employed.

[1]  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. , 1977 .

[2]  M. T. Bradley,et al.  DECEPTION, INFORMATION AND THE PUPILLARY RESPONSE , 1980 .

[3]  I. Lieblich,et al.  Effects of realistic stress and procedural interference in experimental lie detection. , 1966, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  F. K. Berrien,et al.  An exploratory study of pupillary responses during deception , 1943 .

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

[6]  David C. Raskin,et al.  Physiological measures and the detection of deception. , 1977, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  D. Lykken,et al.  The psychopath and the lie detector. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

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

[9]  I Heilveil Deception and pupil size. , 1976, Journal of clinical psychology.

[10]  Robert F. Stanners,et al.  The pupillary response as an indicator of arousal and cognition , 1979 .

[11]  Gordon H. Barland,et al.  An evaluation of field techniques in detection of deception. , 1975, Psychophysiology.

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

[13]  D. Lykken,et al.  The detection of deception. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

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

[15]  D. S. Holmes,et al.  Effects of repeated examinations on the ability to detect guilt with a polygraphic examination: A laboratory experiment with a real crime. , 1979 .

[16]  L. A. Gustafson,et al.  The effects of verbal responses on the laboratory detection of deception. , 1965, Psychophysiology.

[17]  R D Hare,et al.  Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population. , 1978, Psychophysiology.

[18]  D. C. Raskin,et al.  Truth and deception: a reply to Lykken. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

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

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