Should Blind Evaluation of Polygraph Charts Be a Mandatory Procedure in Evidentiary Examinations?

• Authors: Marcin Gołaszewski

Abstracts

EN

The article considers the advantages of blind interpretation of polygraph charts in the context of subjectivity in polygraph examinations. The purpose of this article is to provoke a discussion on the inclusion of blind scoring in evidentiary examinations as a standard procedure. Resorting to such a method should curb the impact of cognitive bias on interpreting test data as it has been proved empirically that information on the case facts and the examinee, provided to the examiner before the examination, may influence the subsequent interpretation of the charts.

Keywords

EN

polygraph; charts; subjectivity; blind evaluation; evidentiary examinations

• Publisher: Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego
• Journal: European Polygraph
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 1 (55)
• Pages: 17-30

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Marcin Gołaszewski

• Polskie Towarzystwo Badań Poligraficznych

References

• Ansley N. (1999), Development of Deception Criteria Prior to 1950. Polygraph, 28 (1).
• Barland G.H. (1972), The Reliability of Polygraph Chart Evaluations. Polygraph, 1 (4).
• Barland G.H., Raskin D.C. (1971), An Experimental Study of Field Techniques in “Lie Detection”, presentation delivered to Society for Psychophysiological Research, St. Louis, 24.10.1971; reprinted in: Psychophysiology, 9, 1972.
• Bersh P. (1969), A Validation Study of Polygraph Examiner Judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53.
• Bond C.F., DePaulo B.M. (2006), Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10.
• Dror I.E., Charlton D., Pèron A.E. (2006), Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156.
• Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1994), The Effects of Prior Expectations and Outcome Knowledge on Polygraph Examiner’s Decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7.
• Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1998), The Role of Prior Expectations in Polygraph Examiners Decisions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 4.
• Ginton A. (2019), Basic vs. Applied Psychology perspectives lead to diff erent implications from the same data; reevaluating the impact of prior expectations on polygraph outcomes, “Social Sciences & Humanities Open”, 1, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337417831_Basic_vs_Applied_Psychology_perspectives_lead_to_diff erent_implications_from_the_same_data_reevaluating_the_impact_of_prior_expectations_on_polygraph_outcomes (accessed: 30.05.2022).
• Gougler M., Nelson R., Handler M., Krapohl D.J., Shaw P., Bierman L. (2011), Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques.
• Report Prepared for the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors. Polygraph Special Edition, 40 (4).
• Hartwig M., Bond C.F. (2011), Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 13.
• Holmes W.D. (1957), Th e degree of objectivity in chart interpretation, In: V.A. Leo nard, Academy Lectures on Lie-detection, vol. II, Ch. Th omas, Springfi eld.
• Honts C.R. (1996), Criterion Development and Validity of the Control Question Test in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology, 123.
• Honts C.R., Raskin D.C. (1988), A Field Study of the Directed Lie Control Question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16 (1).
• Horvath F. (1977), The Effects of Selected Variables on Interpretation of Polygraph Records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (2).
• Horvath F., Reid J. (1971), Th e reliability of polygraph examiner diagnosis of truth and deception. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62 (1).
• Kassin S.M., Dror I.E., Kukucka J. (2013), The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2 (1).
• Krapohl D.J., Dutton D.W. (2018), Believing is Seeing: Th e Infl uence of Expectations on Blind Scoring of Polygraph Data. Polygraph, 47 (2).
• Kubis J.F. (1962), Studies in lie-detection computer feasibility considerations, Fordham University, New York 1962 (RADC-TR-62-205, Project No. 5534, AF 30 (602)–2270, prepared for Rome Air Development Center, Air Force Systems Command, USAF Griffi ss AFB, New York.
• Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology. Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verifi cation – Lie Detection, J.A.M. Publications, New York.
• Orne M.T. (1973), Implications of Laboratory Research for the Detection of Deception. Polygraph, 2 (3).
• Patrick C.J., Iacono W.G. (1991), Validity of the Control Question Polygraph Test. The Problem of Sampling Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2).
• Raskin D.C., Kircher J.C., Honts C.R., Horowitz S.W. (1988), A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigations. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, Salt Lake City.
• Reid J., Inbau F. (1977), Truth and Deception. Th e polygraph (lie-detector) technique, William & Wilkins, Baltimore.
• Shurany T., Matte J.A., Stein E. (2009), Influence of Case Facts on Blind Scorers of Polygraph Tests. European Polygraph, Vol. 3, No. 3–4 (9–10).
• Vrij A. (2008), Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, Second Edition, Wiley.
• Wicklander D.E., Hunter F.L. (1975), The influence of auxiliary sources of information in polygraph diagnosis. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3 (4).
• Wilson C.M. (1950), Should graphs be released or shown after test? ISDD Bulletin, 3 (3),
• Widacki J. (ed., 2018), Kierunki rozwoju instrumentalnej i nieinstrumentalnej detekcji kłamstwa. Problemy kryminalistyczne, etyczne i prawne, Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, Kraków.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/EP-2022-0002

Biblioteka Nauki

2131845