Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique

Abstract

A review of results obtained from standard guilty and innocent treatment conditions in 14 mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique revealed accuracies ranging from chance to 100% correct. The present study examined several factors that may have contributed to the observed variability in detection rates across studies. Those included sampling error, differences in the populations from which subjects were drawn (Subjects), differences in the nature of incentives provided to subjects for passing the polygraph test (Incentives), and differences in the methods for diagnosing truth or deception (Decision Policy). A meta-analysis revealed that approximately 24% of the variance in detection rates could be attributed to sampling error, and detection rates were correlated with types of Subjects (r=.61). Incentives (r=.73), and Decision Policies (r=.67). The highest diagnostic accuracies were obtained from nonstudent subject samples, when both guilty and innocent subjects were offered monetary incentives to convince the examiner of their innocence, and when conventional field methods were used for interpreting the physiological recordings and diagnosing truth and deception. Together, differences in Subjects, Incentives, and Decision Policies may account for as much as 65% of the observed variance in detection rates. The present findings highlight the importance of conducting mock crime experiments that closely approximate field conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Psychological Association (1981).Ethical Principles of Psychologists. Washington, D.C.

  2. Ben-Shakhar, G., Lieblich, I., & Kugelmass, S. (1975). Detection of information and GSR habituation: An attempt to derive detection efficiency from two habituation curves.Psychophysiology, 12, 283–288.

  3. Barland, G. H., & Raskin, D. C. (1975). An evaluation of field techniques in detection of deception.Psychophysiology, 12, 321–330.

  4. Bradley, M. T., & Ainsworth, D. (1984). Alcohol and psychophysiological detection of deception.Psychophysiology, 21, 63–71.

  5. Bradley, M. T., & Janisse, M. P. (1981) Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and the detection of deception: Cardiovascular, electrodermal, and pupillary measures,Psychophysiology, 18, 307–315.

  6. Dawson, M. E. (1980). Physiological detection of deception: Measurement of responses to questions and answers during countermeasure maneuvers.Psychophysiology, 17, 8–17.

  7. Ekman, P. (1985).Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the market place, politics and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

  8. Gatchel, R. J., Smith, J. E., & Kaplan, N. M. (1984). The effect of propranolol on polygraphic detection of deception. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Ginton, A., Netzer, D., & Elaad, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1982). A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life situation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 131–137.

  10. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research.Educational Research, 5, 3–8.

  11. Hammond, D. L. (1980). The responding of normals, alcoholics and psychopaths in a laboratory lie-detection experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology.

  12. Heckel, R. V., Brokaw, J. R., Salzberg, H. C., & Wiggins, S. L. (1962). Polygraphic variations in reactivity between delusional, nondelusional, and control groups in a crime situation.Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 53, 380–383.

  13. Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177–187.

  14. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1983). Detection of deception: Effectiveness of physical countermeasures under high motivation conditions.Psychophysiology, 20, 446–447.

  15. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982).Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

  16. Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1982a). Cross-validation of a computerized diagnostic procedure for detection of deception.Psychophysiology, 19, 568–569 (Abstract).

  17. Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1982b). Is there a “specific lie pattern” of autonomic responses?Psychophysiology 19, 569 (Abstract).

  18. Lykken, D. T. (1974). Psychology and the lie detector industry.American Psychologist, 29, 725–739.

  19. Lykken, D. T. (1981).A Tremor in the Blood, New York: McGraw-Hill.

  20. Office of Technology Assessment (1983).Scientific validity of polygraph testing: A research review and evaluation. OTA-TM-H-15. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  21. Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Polhman, J. T. (1986). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter.Psychological Bulletin, 97, 274–285.

  22. Podlesny, J. A., & Raskin, D. C. (1977). Physiological measures and the detection of deception.Psychological Bulletin, 84, 782–799.

  23. Podlesny, J. A., & Raskin, D. C. (1978). Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception.Psychophysiology, 15, 344–359.

  24. Raskin, D. C. (1979). Orienting and defensive reflexes in the detection of deception. In H. D. Kimmel, E. H. van Olst, & J. F. Orlebeke (Eds.),The orienting reflex in humans, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 587–605.

  25. Raskin, D. C. (1982). The scientific basis of polygraph techniques and their uses in the judicial process. In: A. Trankell (Ed.),Reconstructing the past. Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

  26. Raskin, D. C. (in press). Methodological issues in estimating polygraph accuracy in field applications.Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science.

  27. Raskin, D. C., Barland, G. H., & Podlesney, J. A. (1978).Validity and Reliability of Detection of Deception. (Stock Number 027-000-09692-2 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  28. Raskin, D. C., & Hare, R. D. (1978). Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population.Psychophysiology, 15, 126–136.

  29. Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E. (1966).Truth and deception: The polygraph technique. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co.

  30. Rovner, L. I., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1978). Effects of information and practice on detection of deception.Psychophysiology, 16, 198 (Abstract).

  31. Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1981). Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings.American Psychologist, 36, 1128–1137.

  32. Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.American Psychologist, 32, 752–760.

  33. Szucko, J. J., & Kleinmuntz, D. (1981). Statistical versus clinical lie detection.American Psychologist, 36, 488–496.

  34. Widacki, J., & Horvath, F. (1978). An experimental investigation of the relative validity and utility of the polygraph technique and three other common methods of criminal investigation.Journal of Forensic Sciences, 23, 596–601.

Download references

Author information

About this article

Cite this article

Kircher, J.C., Horowitz, S.W. & Raskin, D.C. Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique. Law Hum Behav 12, 79–90 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064275

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social Psychology
  • Diagnostic Accuracy
  • Treatment Condition
  • Field Condition
  • Detection Rate