The psychophysiological detection of deception

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490071.005

5 - The psychophysiological detection of deception

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Charles R. Honts

Edited by

Pär Anders Granhag and

Leif A. Strömwall

Show author details

Charles R. Honts: Affiliation:
Boise State University, USA
Pär Anders Granhag: Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
Leif A. Strömwall: Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden

Book contents

Get access

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 - 124

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490071.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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

Amato, S. L., and Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22. [Abstract]Google Scholar

Amato-Henderson, S. L., Honts, C. R., and Plaud, J. J. (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

Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., and Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality?Current Directions In Psychological Science, 8, 3–9CrossRef Google 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

Bell, B. G., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., and Kircher, J. C. (1999). The Utah numerical scoring system. Polygraph, 28, 1–9Google Scholar

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

Driscoll, L. N., Honts, C. R., and Jones, D. (1987). The validity of the positive control physiological detection of deception technique. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 46–50Google Scholar

Elaad, E. (1990). Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 521–9CrossRef Google 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

Ginton, A., Netzer, D., Elaad, E., and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1982). A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 131–7CrossRef Google Scholar

Hira, S., and Furumitsu, I. (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

Honts, C. R. (1991). The emperor's new clothes: Application of polygraph tests in the American workplace. Forensic Reports, 4, 91–116Google Scholar

Honts, C. R. (1994). The psychophysiological detection of deception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 77–82CrossRef Google Scholar

Honts, C. R. (1996). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309–24CrossRef Google Scholar

Honts, C. R., and Amato, S. (2002). Countermeasures. In M. Kleiner (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (251–64). London: Academic

Honts, C. R., Amato, S., and Gordon, A. K. (2001). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test. Polygraph, 30, 1–9Google Scholar

Honts, C. R., Amato, S., and Gordon, A. K. (2004). Effects of outside issues on the Control Question Test. Journal of General Psychology, 151, 53–74CrossRef Google Scholar

Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., Winbush, M., and Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 33, 84–92CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., and Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177–87CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Honts, C. R., and Perry, M. V. (1992). Polygraph admissibility: Changes and challenges. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 357–79CrossRef Google Scholar

Honts, C. R., and Raskin, D. C. (1988). A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56–61Google Scholar

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (1987). Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 1, 241–7Google Scholar

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., and Kircher, J. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252–9CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., and Hodes, R. L. (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

Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., and Raskin, D. C. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108–15CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Horvath, F. S. (1977). The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127–36CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Iacono, W. G., and Lykken, D. T. (1997a). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426–33CrossRef Google 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

Kircher, J. C., Horowitz, S. W., and Raskin, D. C. (1988). Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 79–90CrossRef Google Scholar

Kircher, J. C., and Raskin, D. C. (1988). Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 291–302CrossRef Google Scholar

Kleinmuntz, B., and Szucko, J. (1984). A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection. Nature, 308, 449–50CrossRef Google 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

Otter-Henderson, K., Honts, C. R., and Amato, S. L. (2002). Spontaneous countermeasures during polygraph examinations: An apparent exercise in futility. Polygraph, 31, 9–14Google Scholar

Patrick, C. J., and Iacono, W. G. (1989). Psychopathy, threat and polygraph test accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 347–55CrossRef Google Scholar

Patrick, C. J., and Iacono, W. G. (1991). Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229–38CrossRef Google Scholar

Podlesny, J. A. (1993). Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations? A Review of FBI case records. Crime Laboratory Digest, 20, 57–61Google Scholar

Podlesny, J. A., and Raskin, D. C. (1978). Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 15, 344–58CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Podlesny, J. A., and Truslow, C. M. (1993). Validity of an expanded-issue (modified general question) polygraph technique in a simulated distributed-crime-roles context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 788–97CrossRef Google Scholar

Raskin, D. C. (1986). The polygraph in 1986: Scientific, professional, and legal issues surrounding applications and acceptance of polygraph evidence. Utah Law Review, 1986, 29–74Google Scholar

Raskin, D. C., and Hare, R. D. (1978). Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population. Psychophysiology, 15, 121–36CrossRef Google 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

Rovner, L. I. (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