Pojdi na slovensko stran članka / Go to the article page in Slovene
Scientific review of psychophysiological detection of deceit
Igor Areh & Kaja Jaklin
Full text (pdf) | Views: 135 | Written in Slovene. | Published: October 4, 2016
https://doi.org/10.20419/2016.25.451 | Cited By: CrossRef (0)
Abstract: Psychophysiological detection of deceit has been in the centre of attention in the recent decade, which correlates with heightened security challenges of a modern world. The article provides scientific discussion about polygraph that is used in criminal investigation. Two most employed polygraph techniques are critically presented, examined and compared: the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). Theoretical foundations, objectivity and standardization of testing procedures, ethical and practical issues are analysed. Proponents of the Comparison Question Test have not been successful in their efforts to resolve fundamental problems and limitations with which the technique is challenged. It remains unstandardized and unscientific, separated from science and mainly without attempts to escape from the dead-end. The most influential theoretical backgrounds of CQT technique are examined; however, none of them represents a satisfactory scientific foundation of the technique. Without being scientifically grounded in a verifiable theory, it remains controversial and caught into self-sufficiency, mostly supported by methodologically questionable research findings gained by proponents. To the contrary, the Concealed Information Test is associated with fast development, particularly in the field of neurology, and is considered to be less disputed and to be partly supported by a sound scientific ground. Applying the Concealed Question Test, somewhat naïve and disputable detection of lies typical of the Comparison Question Test is replaced by a search for information that lies concealed in the suspects’ memory. However, the Concealed Information Test also has been challenged by serious deficiencies, which bring forward a question about justification of the use of the polygraph.
Keywords: polygraph, Comparison Question Test (CQT), Concealed Information Test (CIT), deceit, objectivity
Cite:
Areh, I., & Jaklin, K. (2016). Znanstveni premislek o psihofiziološkem ugotavljanju zavajanja [Scientific review of psychophysiological detection of deceit]. Psihološka obzorja, 25, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.20419/2016.25.451
Reference list
American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Pridobljeno s strani: https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
Areh, I. (2011). Forenzična psihologija: Predstavitev, pričanje in ugotavljanje laži [Forensic psychology: Presentation, testimony and lie detection]. Ljubljana, Slovenija: Univerza v Mariboru.
Areh, I., Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2015). Police interrogation practice in Slovenia. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 1–15.
Areh, I., Zgaga, S., & Flander, B. (2016). Police interrogation of suspects in Slovenia. V D. Walsh, G. E. Oxburgh, A. D. Redlich in T. Myklebust (ur.), International developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation (str. 204–214). London, Združeno kraljestvo: Routledge.
Barry, R. J. (2009). Habituation of the orienting reflex and the development of Preliminary Process Theory. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 235–242. CrossRef
Bashore, T. R., & Rapp, P. E. (1993). Are there alternatives to traditional polygraph procedures? Psychological Bulletin, 113, 3–22. CrossRef
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2012). Current research and potential applications of the Concealed Information Test: An overview. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(342). CrossRef
Ben-Shakhar, G., Gamer, M., Iacono, W., Meijer, E., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Preliminary Process Theory does not validate the Comparison Question Test: A comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015). International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(1), 16–19. CrossRef
Ben-Shakhar, G., Gati, I., & Salamon N. (1995). Generalization of the orienting response to significant stimuli: The roles of common and distinctive stimulus component. Psychophysiology, 32, 36–42. CrossRef
Ben-Shakhar, G., Verschuere, B., & Meijer, E. (2011). Epilogue: Current status and future develpments in CIT research and practice. V B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar in E. Meijer (ur.), Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test (str. 303–309). Cambridge, Združeno kraljestvo: Cambridge University Press.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253–267. CrossRef
Bradley, M. M. (2009). Natural selective attention: Orienting and emotion. Psychophysiology, 46(1), 1–11. CrossRef
British Psychological Society (2004). A review of the current scientific status and fields of application of polygraphic deception detection: Final report from the BPS Working Party. Pridobljeno s strani: http://www.bps.org.uk
Bull, R. (1988). What is the lie-detection test? V A. Gale (ur.), The polygraph test: Lies, truth and science (str. 10–19). London, Združeno kraljestvo: Sage.
Canter, D., & Žukauskiene, R. (2008). Psychology and law: Bridging the gap (psychology, crime and law) . Abingdin, Združeno kraljestvo: Routledge.
Carroll, D. (1988). How accurate is polygraph lie detection? V A. Gale (ur.), The polygraph test: Lies, truth and science (str. 20–28). London, Združeno kraljestvo: Sage.
Cialdini B. R. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4. izd.). Needham Heights, MA, ZDA: Allyn and Bacon.
Davis, R. C. (1961). Physiological responses as a means of evaluating information. V A. Biderman in H. Zimmer (ur.), Manipulation of human behavior (str. 142–168). New York, NY, ZDA: Wiley.
Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups – partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 18, 287–293.
Elaad, E. (2013). Effects of goal- and task-oriented motivation in the guilty action test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88, 82–90. CrossRef
Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994). The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners' decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 279–292. CrossRef
Farwell, L. A. (2012). Brain fingerprinting: A comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 6, 115–154. CrossRef
Farwell, L. A., & Smith, S. S. (2001). Using brain MERMER testing to detect concealed knowledge despite efforts to conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(1), 1–9. CrossRef
Fiedler, K., Schmid, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313–324. CrossRef
Flander, B. (2004). Poligraf [Polygraph]. Pravna praksa [Legal Practice], 23(2), 13–14.
Furedy, J. J., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991). The roles of deception, intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psychophysiological detection of guilty knowledge. Psychophysiology, 28, 163–171. CrossRef
Ganapati M. T., Haveripeth P. D., & Ramadurg M. S. (2013). Scientific and legal procedure of polygraph test. Journal of Bio Innovation, 2(1), 5–16.
Ganis, G., Rosenfeld, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A., & Schendan, H. E. (2011). Lying in the scanner: Covert countermeasures disrupt deception detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage, 55, 312–319. CrossRef
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L., & Hartwig, M. (2007). The SUE technique: The way to interview to detect deception. Forensic Update, 88, 25–29.
Handler, M., Honts, C. R., Krapohl, D. J., Nelson, R., & Griffin, S. (2009). Integration of pre-employment polygraph screening into the police selection process. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24, 69–86. CrossRef
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619. CrossRef
Honts, C. R. (1987). Interpreting research on polygraph countermeasures. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 204–209.
Honts, C. R. (2004). The psychophysiological detection of deception. V P. Granhag and L. Stromwall (ur.), Detection of deception in forensic contexts (str. 103–123). Cambridge, Združeno kraljestvo: Cambridge University Press.
Honts, C. R., & Alloway W. R. (2007). Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 311–320. CrossRef
Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (2002). The scientific status of re-search on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. V D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks in J. Sanders (ur.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony: Vol. 2 (str. 446–483). St Paul, MN, ZDA: West.
Iacono, W. G. (2000). The detection of deception. V J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary in G. G. Berntson (ur.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2. izd., str. 772–793). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case against polygraph tests. V D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks in J. Sanders (ur.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony, Vol.2 (str. 483–538). St. Paul, MN, ZDA: West.
Jensen, T. M., Shafer, K., Roby, C. Y., & Roby, J. L. (2014). Sexual history disclosure polygraph outcomes: Do juvenile and adult sex offenders differ? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 1–17.
Kassin, S. M. (2008). Confession evidence common-sense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1309–1322. CrossRef
Kebbell, M., Alison, L., & Hurren, E. (2008). Sex offenders' perceptions of the effectiveness and fairness of humanity, dominance, and displaying an understanding of cognitive distortions in police interviews: A vignette study. Psychology, Crime and Law, 14, 435–449. CrossRef
Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. R. (2002). Computer methods for the psychophysiological detection of deception. V M. Kleiner (ur.), Handbook of polygraph testing (str. 287–326). San Diego, CA, ZDA: Academic Press.
Kleiner, M. (2002). Physiological detection of deception in psychological perspectives: A theoretical proposal. V M. Keliner (ur.), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (str. 127–182). London, Združeno kraljestvo: Academic Press.
Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the 'detection of the truth'. V P. A. Granhag in L. A. Stromwall (ur.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (str. 41–63). Cambridge, Združeno kraljestvo: Cambridge University Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Davidson, R. J., Hugdahl, K., Lovallo, W. R., Spiegel, D., & Rose, R. (2002). Bridging psychology and biology: The analysis of individuals in groups. American Psychologist, 57, 341–351. CrossRef
Krapohl, D. J., McCloughan, J. B., & Senter, S. M. (2009). How to use the Concealed Information Test. Polygraph, 38(1), 34–49.
Larson, J. A. (1922). Modification of the Marston Deception Test. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 12, 390–399. CrossRef
LeDoux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 209–235.CrossRef
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388. CrossRef
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York, NY, ZDA: Plenum Press.
Masip, J., Herrero, C., Garrido, E., & Barba, A. (2011). Is the behaviour analysis interview just common sense? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 593–604. CrossRef
Meijer, E. H., Selle, N. K., Elber, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2014). Memory detection with the Concealed Information Test: A meta-analysis of skin conductance, respiration, heart rate, and P300 data. Psychophysiology, 51, 879–904. CrossRef
Meijer, E. H., & Verschuere, B. (2010). The polygraph and the detection of deception. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10, 325–338. CrossRef
Nakayama M. (2002). Practical use of the concealed information test for criminal investigation in Japan. V M. Kleiner (ur.), Handbook of polygraph testing (str. 49–86). London, Združeno kraljestvo: Academic Press.
National Research Council (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC, ZDA: The National Academies Press.
Osugi, A. (2011). Daily application of the Concealed Information Test: Japan. V B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar in E. Meijer (ur.), Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test (str. 253–275). Cambridge, Združeno kraljestvo: Cambridge University Press.
Palmatier, J. J., & Rovner, L. (2015). Credibility assessment: Preliminary process theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 95(1), 3–13. CrossRef
Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (1991a). A comparison of field and laboratory polygraphs in the detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 28, 632–638. CrossRef
Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (1991b). Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229–238. CrossRef
Pavlov, I. P. (1927/2003). Conditioned reflexes. Mineola, NY, ZDA: Dover Publications.
Peth, J., Vossel, G., & Gamer, M. (2012). Emotional arousal modulates the encoding of crime/related details and corresponding physiological responses in Concealed Information Test. Psychophysiology, 49, 381–390. CrossRef
Podlesny, J. A. (1993). Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations? A review of FBI case records. Crime Laboratory Digest, 20, 57–61.
Rachul, C., & Zarzeczny, A. (2012). The rise of neuroskepticism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35, 77–81. CrossRef
Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. V M. Kleiner (ur.), Handbook of polygraph testing (str. 1–47). San Diego, CA, ZDA: Academic Press.
Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E. (1977). Truth and deception, the polygraph technique (2. izd.). Baltimore, MD, ZDA: Williams & Wilkins.
Rosenfeld, J. P., Ben-Shakhar, G., & Ganis, G. (2012). Detection of concealed stored memories with psychophysiological and neuroimaging methods. V L. Nadeland in W. P. Sinnott-Armstrong (ur.), Memory and law (str. 263–305). Oxford, Združeno kraljestvo: Oxford University Press.
Rosenfeld, J. P., Shue, E., & Singer, E. (2007). Single versus multiple blocks of P30based concealed information tests for self-referring versus incidentally obtained information. Biological Psychology, 74, 396–404. CrossRef
Saxe, L. (1991). Science and the GKT Polygraph: A theoretical critique. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26, 223–231. CrossRef
Schmid, N. (1993). Strafprozessrecht: Eine Einführung auf der Grundlage des Strafprozessrechtes des Kantons Zürich und des Bundes. Zürich, Švica: Schulthess.
Selič, P. (2009). Preverjene poligrafske tehnike – analiza [Analytical review of validated polygraph techniques]. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo [Journal of Criminal Investigation and Criminology], 60, 332–343.
Senior, C., Haggard, P., & Oates, J. (2011). A discussion paper: Neuroethics and the British Psychological Society Research Ethics Code. General Guidelines and Policy Documents, British Psychological Society. Pridobljeno s strain: http://www.bps.org.uk
Senter, S. M., Weatherman, D., Krapohl, D. J., & Horvath, F. (2010). Psychological set or differential salience: A proposal for reconciling theory and terminology in polygraph testing. Polygraph, 39, 109–117.
Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. Oxford, Združeno kraljestvo: Pergamon Press.
Vigluicci, V. V. (2009). Calculating credibility: State V. Sharma and the future of polygraph admissibility in Ohio and beyond. Akron Law Review, 42, 319–354.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, Združeno kraljestvo: John Wiley & Sons.
Walczyk, J. J., Igou, F. P., Dixon, A. P., & Tcholakain, T. (2013). Advancing lie detection by inducing cognitive load on liars: A review of relevant theories and techniques guided by lessons from polygraph-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(14). CrossRef
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R., (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.CrossRef
White, A. E. (2010). The lie of fMRI: An examination of the ethics of a market in lie detection using functional magnetic resonance imaging. HEC Forum: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Hospitals' Ethical and Legal Issues, 22, 253–266. CrossRef
