Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:27:01.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Fallibility of Lie Detection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Benjamin Kleinmuntz  and
Julian J. Szucko
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The polygraph's widespread use in the legal setting and elsewhere should be of concern to society, but especially to psychologists and lawyers. Since lying does not produce a measurable physiological response-and hence renders “lie detection” meaningless-the plausibility of the theory of so-called lie detection tests is questioned. Empirical evidence is presented that disputes the accuracy of testing and shows the high rate of false positive misclassification (e.g., misclassifying a truthful person as deceptive). An alternative procedure is recommended. This procedure, sometimes called the Guilty Knowledge Test, has some problems associated with its use and can be used only when particular information is available. However, it can be a significantly more accurate detector of guilt than the standard lie detection test.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Psychology and Law , 1982 , pp. 85 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Law and Society Association.

References

References

BACKSTER, Clive (1963) “Total Chart Minutes Concept,” 11 Law and Order 77.Google Scholar
BARLAND, Gordon and David C., RASKIN (1976) “Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Examinations of Criminal Suspects.” Report No. 76-1, Contract 75-NI-99-0001 U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
BELT, J. and P., HOLDEN (1978) “Polygraph Usage among Major U.S. Corporations,” 57 Personnel Journal 80.Google Scholar
BEN SHAKHAR, Gerson, Israel, LIEBLICH, and Sol, KUGELMASS (1970) “Guilty Knowledge Technique: Application of Signal Detection Measures,” 54 Journal of Applied Psychology 409.Google Scholar
BRUNSWIK, Egon (1952) The Conceptual Framework of Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CAVOUKIAN, Ann and Ronald J., HESLEGRAVE (1980) “The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court: Some Empirical Findings,” 4 Law and Human Behavior 117.Google Scholar
CIMMERMAN, Adrian (1981) “The Fay Case,” 8 Criminal Defense 7.Google Scholar
DAVIDSON, Phillip O. (1968) “Validity of the Guilty Knowledge Technique: The Effects of Motivation,” 52 Journal of Applied Psychology 62.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
GEISEN, Martin and Michael, ROLLISON (1980) “Guilty Knowledge Versus Innocent Associations: Effects of Trait Anxiety and Stimulus Context on Skin Conductance,” 14 Journal of Research in Personality 1.Google Scholar
GOLDBERG, Lewis R. (1970) “Man vs. Model of Man: A Rationale Plus Some Evidence, for a Method of Improving on Clinical Inferences,” 73 Psychological Bulletin 422.Google Scholar
GUSTAFSON, Lawrence and Martin T., ORNE (1963) “Effects of Heightened Motivation on the Detection of Deception,” 47 Journal of Applied Psychology 408.Google Scholar
GUSTAFSON, Lawrence (1964) “The Effects of Task and Method of Stimulus Presentation on the Detection of Deception,” 48 Journal of Applied Psychology 383.Google Scholar
GUSTAFSON, Lawrence (1965) “The Effects of Verbal Response on Laboratory Detection of Deception,” 48 Psychophysiology 10.Google Scholar
HAMMOND, Kenneth R. and David A., SUMMERS (1972) “Cognitive Control,” 79 Psychological Bulletin 58.Google Scholar
HAMMOND, Kenneth R., David A., SUMMERS, and Donald H., DEANE (1973) “Negative Effects of Outcome Feedback on Multiple-Cue Probability Learning,” 9 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30.Google Scholar
HORVATH, Frank (1973) “Verbal and Nonverbal Clues to Truth and Deception during Polygraph Examinations,” 1 Journal of Police Science and Administration 138.Google Scholar
HORVATH, Frank (1977) “The Effects of Selected Variables on Interpretation of Polygraph Records,” 62 Journal of Applied Psychology 127.Google Scholar
HORVATH, Frank and John E., REID (1971) “The Reliability of Polygraph Examiner Diagnosis of Truth and Deception,” 62 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 276.Google Scholar
HUNTER, Fred L. and Philip, ASH (1973) “The Accuracy and Consistency of Polygraph Examiners' Diagnoses,” 1 Journal of Police Science and Administration 370.Google Scholar
KLEINMUNTZ, Benjamin and Julian J., SZUCKO (1982) “Is the Lie Detector Valid?” 9 Criminal Defense 12.Google Scholar
KUGELMASS, Sol, Israel, LIEBLICH and Zeev, BERGMAN (1967) “The Role of ‘Lying’ in Psychophysiological Detection,” 3 Psychophysiology 312.Google Scholar
LACEY, John I. and Beatrice C., LACEY (1958) “Verification and Extension of the Principle of Autonomic Response-Stereotype,” 71 American Journal of Psychology 50.Google Scholar
LIEBLICH, Israel, Gerson BEN, SHAKHAR and Sol, KUGELMASS (1976) “Validity of the Guilty Knowledge Technique in a Prisoners Sample,” 61 Journal of Applied Psychology 89.Google Scholar
LYKKEN, David T. (1959) “The GSR in the Detection of Guilt,” 43 Journal of Applied Psychology 385.Google Scholar
LYKKEN, David T. (1960) “The Validity of the Guilty Knowledge Technique: The Effects of Faking,” 44 Journal of Applied Psychology 258.Google Scholar
LYKKEN, David T. (1974) “Psychology and the Lie Detector Industry,” 29 American Psychologist 725.Google Scholar
LYKKEN, David T. (1979) “The Detection of Deception,” 86 Psychological Bulletin 47.Google Scholar
LYKKEN, David T. (1981a) Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
LYKKEN, David T. (1981b) “Letter: To Tell the Truth,” Discover (February) 10.Google Scholar
LYKKEN, David T. (1981c) “The Lie Detector and the Law,” 8 Criminal Defense 19.Google Scholar
MEEHL, Paul E. and Albert, ROSEN (1955) “Antecedent Probability and the Efficiency of Psychometric Signs, Patterns, or Cutting Scores,” 52 Psychological Bulletin 194.Google Scholar
PETRINOVICH, Lewis (1980) “Probabilistic Functionalism: A Conception of Research Methods,” 34 American Psychologist 373.Google Scholar
PODLESNY, John A., and David C., RASKIN (1977) “Physiological Measures and the Detection of Deception,” 84 Psychological Bulletin 782.Google Scholar
PODLESNY, John A. (1978) “Effectiveness of Techniques and Physiological Measures in the Detection of Deception,” 15 Psychophysiology 344.Google Scholar
RASKIN, David C., Gordon H., BARLAND, and John A., PODLESNY (1978) Validity and Reliability of Detection of Deception.” National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
RASKIN, David C. and Robert D., HARE (1978) “Psychopathy and Detection of Deception in a Prison Population,” 15 Psychophysiology 126.Google Scholar
RASKIN, David C. and John A., PODLESNY (1979) “Truth and Deception: A Reply to Lykken,” 86 Psychological Bulletin 54.Google Scholar
REID, John E. and Fred E., INBAU (1977) Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (“Lie Detection”) Technique. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google ScholarPubMed
SINES, Lloyd K. (1959) “The Relative Contribution of Four Kinds of Data to Accuracy in Personality Assessment,” 23 Journal of Consulting Psychology 483.Google Scholar
SLOWIK, Stanley M. and Joseph P., BUCKLEY (1975) “Relative Accuracy of Polygraph Examiner Diagnoses from Respiration, Blood Pressure, and GSR Recordings,” 3 Journal of Police Science and Administration 303.Google Scholar
SZUCKO, Julian J. (1982) “A Field of Study of Human and Statistical Detection of Deception.” Submitted to Science.Google Scholar
SZUCKO, Julian J. and Benjamin, KLEINMUNTZ (1981) “Statistical Versus Clinical Lie Detection,” 36 American Psychologist 488.Google Scholar
WAID, William M., Emily Carota, ORNE, Mary R., COOK, and Martin T., ORNE (1978) “Effects of Attention, as Indexed by Subsequent Memory, on Electrodermal Detection of Information,” 63 Journal of Applied Psychology 728.Google Scholar
WICKLANDER, Douglas E. and Hunter, Fred L. (1975) “The Influence of Auxiliary Sources of Information in Polygraph Diagnoses,” 3 Journal of Police Science and Administration 405.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

McMorris v. Israel, 643 F.2d 458, 1981.Google Scholar
People v. Houser, 85 Cal App 2d 686, 193 P2d 937, 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Reeder, 65 Cal App 3d 235, 135 Cal Rptr 421, 1976.Google Scholar
State v. Souel, 53 Ohio St. 2d 123, 372 NE2d 1318, 1978.Google Scholar
State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis 2d 730, 216 NW2d 8, 1974.Google Scholar
United States v. Penick, CA 7 III, 496 F2d 1105, cert den 419 U.S. 897, 42 L Ed 2d 141, 95 S Ct 177, 1974.Google Scholar
United States v. Ridling, DC Mich, 350 F Supp 90, 1972.Google Scholar
White v. State, 381 NE2d 481, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis v. State, 374 NE2d 520, 1978.Google Scholar