Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Part 1 Introduction
- Part 2 Lie-detection techniques
- 2 Discerning lies from truths: behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition
- 3 Statement Validity Analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’
- 4 Reality monitoring and detection of deception
- 5 The psychophysiological detection of deception
- Part 3 Special issues facing a lie-catcher
- Part 4 Enhancing lie-detection accuracy
- Part 5 Conclusions
- Index
- References
5 - The psychophysiological detection of deception
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Part 1 Introduction
- Part 2 Lie-detection techniques
- 2 Discerning lies from truths: behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition
- 3 Statement Validity Analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’
- 4 Reality monitoring and detection of deception
- 5 The psychophysiological detection of deception
- Part 3 Special issues facing a lie-catcher
- Part 4 Enhancing lie-detection accuracy
- Part 5 Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
The psychophysiological detection of deception: an applied psychology with a long history and wide application
The use of physiological measures to detect deception, known variously as the psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD), lie detection and the polygraph, has a history in psychological science that goes back to the end of the nineteenth century (Lombroso, 1895). Although applied interest in PDD was primarily an American phenomenon during most of the twentieth century, international application, research and interest has expanded rapidly in recent years (for reviews see Barland, 1988; Honts, Raskin and Kircher, 2002).
PDD is applied in a variety of settings for a variety of purposes. In some jurisdictions in the United States the results of PDD tests are admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. In many countries law enforcement uses PDD as an investigative tool to check the veracity of suspects and informants. PDD can also be used as a pre-employment screening tool to verify a person's credibility as part of the vetting process. In the United States, PDD use in the national security system to screen for persons engaged in hostile actions against the government is ubiquitous. Finally, a recent phenomenon in the United States is to use the polygraph as part of the release programme for convicted sex offenders. As a condition of release, convicted sex offenders are required to take and pass periodic polygraph tests concerning new sex offences or other prohibited behaviour.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts , pp. 103 - 124Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004
References
Alloway, W. R., and Honts, C. R. (2002, April). An information countermeasure has no effect on the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Park City, Utah
, and (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22. [Abstract]Google Scholar
, , and (1996). Effects of misinformation on the Concealed Knowledge Test. Psychophysiology, 33, S18. [Abstract]Google Scholar
American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard guide for PDD examination standards of practice. ASTM Designation: E 2062_00
, , and (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality?Current Directions In Psychological Science, 8, 3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barland, G. H. (1988). The polygraph test in the US and elsewhere. In A. Gale (ed.) The polygraph test: Lies, truth, and science (73–95). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Barland, G. H., Honts, C. R., and Barger, S. D. (1989). Studies of the accuracy of security screening polygraph examinations. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort McClellan, Alabama
Ben-Shakhar, G., and Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and applications in the detection of deception. New York: Springer
Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Crewson, P. E. (2001). A comparative analysis of polygraph with other screening and diagnostic tools. Report on Contract No. DABT60-01-P-3017 to the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute
Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Research Division Staff (1998). Psychophysiological detection of deception accuracy rates obtained using the Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES). Polygraph, 27, 68–73
, , and (1987). The validity of the positive control physiological detection of deception technique. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 46–50Google Scholar
(1990). Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 521–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup Organization (1984). Survey of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinions of polygraph test interpretations, Polygraph, 12, 153–65
, , , and (1982). A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 131–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002). Polygraphic examinations in Japan: Application of the guilty knowledge test in forensic investigations. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4, 16–27Google Scholar
(1991). The emperor's new clothes: Application of polygraph tests in the American workplace. Forensic Reports, 4, 91–116Google Scholar
(1994). The psychophysiological detection of deception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honts, C. R., and Amato, S. (2002). Countermeasures. In M. Kleiner (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (251–64). London: Academic
, , and (2001). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test. Polygraph, 30, 1–9Google Scholar
, , and (2004). Effects of outside issues on the Control Question Test. Journal of General Psychology, 151, 53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1996). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 33, 84–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1992). Polygraph admissibility: Changes and challenges. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 357–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1988). A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56–61Google Scholar
, , and (1987). Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 1, 241–7Google Scholar
, , and (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: the case for polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, and J. Sanders (eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony, Vol. II (pp. 446–83). St. Paul, MN: West
, , , and (1988). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 91–4Google Scholar
Honts, C. R., Thurber, S., Cvencek, D., and Alloway, W. (2002, March). General acceptance of the polygraph by the scientific community: Two surveys of professional attitudes. Paper presented at the American Psychology–Law Society biennial meeting, Austin, Texas
, , , and (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1977). The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1997a). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacono, W. G., and Lykken, D. T. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case against polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, and J. Sanders (eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony, Vol. II (pp. 483–538). St. Paul, MN: West
Kevin Lee, et al., v. Honorable Lourdes Martinez, et al., Case No. CS-2003-0026. (2003). Transcript of sworn testimony
, , and (1988). Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1988). Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1984). A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection. Nature, 308, 449–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krapohl, D. (2002). The polygraph in personnel screening. In M. Kleiner (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing, (pp. 217–36). London: Academic
Lombroso, C. (1895). L'Homme Criminel (2nd edn). Paris: Felix Alcan
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: Plenum Trade
Merckelbach, H., Smulders, F., Jelicic, M., and Meijer, E. (2003). Unpublished survey document distributed October 2003. University of Maastricht, the Netherlands
National Research Council (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
, , and (2002). Spontaneous countermeasures during polygraph examinations: An apparent exercise in futility. Polygraph, 31, 9–14Google Scholar
, and (1989). Psychopathy, threat and polygraph test accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 347–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1991). Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations? A Review of FBI case records. Crime Laboratory Digest, 20, 57–61Google Scholar
, and (1978). Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 15, 344–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1993). Validity of an expanded-issue (modified general question) polygraph technique in a simulated distributed-crime-roles context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 788–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1986). The polygraph in 1986: Scientific, professional, and legal issues surrounding applications and acceptance of polygraph evidence. Utah Law Review, 1986, 29–74Google Scholar
, and (1978). Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population. Psychophysiology, 15, 121–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, D. C., and Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 1–49). London: Academic
Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., and Horowitz, S. W. (1988). A study of the validity of polygraph examinations in criminal investigation (Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040). Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Psychology
(1986). The accuracy of physiological detection of deception for subjects with prior knowledge. Polygraph, 15, 1–39Google Scholar
Verschuere, B., (2003, October). Heart rate orienting to guilty knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Chicago, IL, USA
- 22
- Cited by