Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception 4th Edition, 2022

• Authors: Donald Krapohl , Mark Handler , Michael Lynch

Abstracts

EN

Since the first edition of this reference was published 25 years ago much has taken place in the polygraph field, progress which has continued in the decade since the last edition of the Terminology Reference. The transition from analog to digital polygraph is now complete, the polygraph profession has accomplished the shift from authority-based practices to those that are evidence-based, concepts and terms adopted by the polygraph field are substantially more mainstream, new credibility assessment technologies have appeared while others have disappeared, and much to the surprise of critics and detractors, predictions of the demise of the polygraph have proven to be premature. In this fourth edition of the Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception we strived to capture these changes. We have updated the references, added new terms, removed others, and included images for some terms to help readers understand them better. We hope readers appreciate these updates. And finally, we sadly report the passing of our friend, colleague and contributor to previous editions of this work, Shirley Sturm in 2020. Shirley was one of the greats in the polygraph field. She was the first woman President of the American Polygraph Association, a teacher, a coveted mentor, and a fiercely independent thinker. We and the rest of the polygraph field will miss Shirley, her sense of humor, her passion for polygraph, her concern for her fellow practitioners, her commitment to the field. There was always only one Shirley Sturm and we were fortunate to have known her. Because of her lasting contribution to our shared field of endeavor we dedicate this edition of the Terminology Reference to Shirley Sturm.

Keywords

EN

Terminology Reference; analog; digital; polygraph; fourth edition

• Publisher: Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego
• Journal: European Polygraph
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 2(58)
• Pages: 11-149

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Donald Krapohl

author

Mark Handler

author

Michael Lynch

References

• Abrams S. (1977), A survey of attitudes on the guilt complex technique, Polygraph, 6(1), 123–124.
• Abrams S. (1984), The penile plethysmograph: A new transducer used for detection and therapy with sexual deviation cases, Polygraph, 13(2), 198–201.
• Abrams S. (1991), The directed lie control question, Polygraph, 20(1), 26–31.
• Abrams S. (1999), A response to Honts on the issue of the discussion of questions between charts, Polygraph, 28(3), 223–228.
• Amsel T.T. (1999), Exclusive or nonexclusive comparison questions: A comparative field study, Polygraph, 28(4), 273–283.
• Backster C. (1963a), Anticlimax dampening concept, Military Police Journal, Oct, 22–23.
• Backster C. (1963b), Total chart minutes concept, Law and Order, 11(10), 77–79.
• Backster C. (1963c), Standardized polygraph notepack and technique guide: Backster zone comparison technique, Backster: New York.
• Backster C. (1964), Outside “super-dampening” factor, Military Police Journal, Jan, 20–21.
• Backster C. (2001a), Comments on Krapohl & Ryan “Belated look at symptomatic questions”, Polygraph, 30(3), 213–215.
• Backster C. (2001b), A response to Donald Krapohl’s assessment of the Total Chart Minutes Concept, Journal of the American Association of Police Polygraphists, 1, 32–34.
• Barland G.H., Honts C.R. & Barger S.D. (1989), The validity of detection of deception for multiple issues, Psychophysiology, 26(4a Supplement), 13 (Abstract).
• Barland G.H., Raskin & D.C. (1975), Psychopathy and detection of deception in criminal suspects, Psychophysiology, 12, 224 (Abstract).
• Battelle Memorial Institute (2007), Efficacy of prototype credibility assessment technologies: PCASS fi nal report, Prepared for the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment.GS-23F-0011L. Ref No. MC- RRT-06-0036.
• Bell B.G., Raskin D.C., Honts C.R. & Kircher J.C. (1999), The Utah Numerical Scoring System, Polygraph, 28(1), 1–9.
• Ben-Shakhar G. (1977), A further study of the dichotomization theory in detection of information, Psychophysiology, 14(4), 408–413.
• Benussi V. (1914), Die atmungssymptome der lüge (The respiratory symptoms of lying), Archiv fuer die Gesamte Psychologie, 31, 244–273.
• Blackwell N.J. (1998), PolyScore 3.3 and psychophysiological detection of deception examiner rates of accuracy when scoring examination fr om actual criminal investigations, DTIC AD Number A355504/PAA. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft.McClellan, AL. Printed in Polygraph, 28(2) 149–175.
• Blalock B. (2009), Capitalizing on technology to increase standardization and reliability in a polygraph examination, Polygraph, 38(2), 154–166.
• Blalock B., Cushman B. & Nelson R. (2009), A replication and validation study on an empirically based manual scoring system, Polygraph, 38(4), 281–288.
• Bradley M.T. & Janisse M.P. (1981), Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and the detection of deception: Cardiovascular, electrodermal, and pupillary measures, Psychophysiology,18(3), 307–315.
• Burtt H.E. (1918), A pneumograph for inspiration-expiration ratios, Psychological Bulletin, 15(10), 325–328.
• Burtt H.E. (1921), Th e inspiration/expiration ratio during truth and falsehood, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 1–23.
• Butta M.R., Hong M.J., Kim Y. & Hong K. (2015), Single-trial lie detection using combined fNIRS-polygraph system, Frontiers in Psychology, 6:707, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00709
• Capps M.H. (1991), Predictive value of the sacrifice relevant, Polygraph, 20(1), 1–6.
• Capps M.H, Knill B.L. & Evans R.K. (1993), Effectiveness of the symptomatic questions, Polygraph, 22(4), 285–298.
• Capps M.H. & Ansley A. (1992), Comparison of two scoring scales, Polygraph, 21(1), 39–43.
• Cooley-Towell S., Pasini-Hill D. & Patrick D. (2000), The value of the post-conviction polygraph: The importance of sanctions, Polygraph, 29(1), 6–19.
• Damphousse K.R., Pointon L., Upchurch D. & Moore R.K. (2007), Assessing the validity of voice stress analysis tools in a jail setting, Final report to the US Department of Justice. University of Oklahoma.
• Darrow C.W. (1932), The behavior research photopolygraph, Journal of General Psychology, 7, 215–219.
• Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579, 125 1.Ed 2d 469.
• Dawson M.E. (1980), Physiological detection of deception: Measurement of responses to questions and answers during countermeasure maneuvers, Psychophysiology, 17(1), 8–17.
• Dollins A.B., Cestaro V.L. & Pettit D.J. (1998), Efficacy of repeated psychophysiological detection of deception testing, Journal of Forensic Science, 43(5), 1016–1023.
• Dollins A.B., Krapohl D.J. & Dutton D.W. (1999), A comparison of computer programs designed to evaluate psychophysiological detection of deception examinations: Bakeoff 1, Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. Jackson, SC. DoDPI99-R-0001,DTIC # ADA 379990.
• Driscoll L.N., Honts C.R. & Jones D. (1987), The validity of the positive control physiological detection of deception technique, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(1), 46–50.
• Dutton D.W. (2000), Guide for performing the objective scoring system, Polygraph, 29(2), 177–184.
• Dutton D.W. (2000), Introduction, Polygraph, 29(1), 1–5.
• Easterbrook J.A. (1959), The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior, Psychological Review, 66, 183–201.
• Ekman P. (1992), Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage, W.W. Norton & Co.: New York.
• Elaad E. & Ben-Shakhar G. (1991), Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11(2), 99–108.
• Elkins A., Bolob E., Nunamaker J., Burgoon J. & Derrick D. (2014, Oct), Appriasing the AVATAR for Automatic Border Control. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/questions/reponses_qe/2019/002653/P9_RE(2019)002653(ANN3)_XL.pdf
• English K., Pullen S. & Jones L. (eds.) (1996), Managing adult sex off enders: A containment approach, American Probation and Parole Association: Lexington, KY.
• Farwell L.A. & Donchin E. (1988), Event-related potentials in interrogative polygraphy: Analysis using bootstrapping, Psychophysiology, 25(4), 445 (Abstract).
• Farwell L.A. & Donchin E. (1991), The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy (“lie detection”) with event-related brain potentials, Psychophysiology, 28(5), 531–547.
• Fleiss J.L. (1971), Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters, Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382.
• Gardner J.W. (1937), An experimental study of the Luria technique for detecting mental conflict, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(6), 495–506.
• Gastwirth J.L. (1987), The statistical precision of medical screening procedures: Applications to polygraph and AIDS antibody test data, Statistical Science, 2(3), 213–238.
• Geddes L.A. (1974), What does the photoplethysmograph indicate?, Polygraph, 3(2), 167–176.
• Ginton A. (2009), Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) strength – A new concept in PDD that reframes the notion of psychological set and the role of attention in CQT polygraph, Polygraph, 38(3), 204–217.
• Gordon N.J. (1999), The Academy for Scientific Investigative Training’s horizontal scoring system and examiner’s algorithm system for chart interpretation, Polygraph, 28(1), 56–64.
• Gordon N.J. & Cochetti P.M. (1982), The positive control concept and technique, Polygraph, 11(4), 330–342.
• Gordon N.J. & Cochetti P.M. (1987), The horizontal scoring system, Polygraph, 16(2), 116–125.
• Gordon N.J., Fleisher W.L., Morsie H., Habib W. & Salah K. (2000), A field validity study of the Integrated Zone Comparison Technique, Polygraph, 29(3), 220–225.
• Gordon J.J, Mohamed F.B., Faro S.H., Platek S.M., Ahmad H. & Williams J.M. (2005), Integrated zone comparison polygraph technique accuracy with scoring algorithms, Physiology & Behavior, 87(2), 251–254.
• Green D.M. & Swets J.A. (1988), Signal detection theory and psychophysics, Peninsula Publishing: Los Altos, CA.
• Handler M. (2006), Utah Probable Lie Comparison Test, Polygraph, 35(3), 139–149.
• Handler M. (2010), An EDA primer for polygraph examiners, Polygraph, 39(2), 68–108.
• Handler M. & Honts C.R. (2007), Psychophysiological mechanisms in deception detection: A theoretical overview, Polygraph, 36 (4), 221–232.
• Handler M. & Krapohl D.J. (2007), The use and benefits of the photoelectric plethysmograph in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 36(1), 18–25.
• Handler M. & Nelson R. (2007), Polygraph terms for the 21st Century, Polygraph, 36(3), 157–164.
• Handler M. & Nelson R. (2008), The Utah approach to comparison question polygraph testing, European Polygraph, 2(2).
• Handler M., Nelson R. & Blalock B. (2008), A focused polygraph technique for PCSOT and law enforcement screening programs, Polygraph, 37(2). 100–111.
• Handler M., Nelson R., Krapohl D.J. & Honts C.R. (2010), An EDA primer for polygraph examiners, Polygraph, 39(2), 68–108.
• Handler M., Reicherter J., Nelson R. & Fausett C. (2009), A respiration primer for polygraph examiners, Polygraph, 38(2) 130–144.
• Handler M. & Reicherter J. (2008), Respiratory blood pressure fluctuations observed during polygraph examinations, Polygraph, 37(4), 256–262.
• Handler M., Rovner L. & Nelson R. (2008), The concept of allostasis in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 37(3), 228–233.
• Handler M.D., Shaw P. & Gougler M., (2010), Some thoughts about feelings: A study of the role of cognition and emotion in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 39(3), 139–154.
• Harnsberger J.D., Hollien H., Martin M.D. & Hollien K.A. (2009), Stress and deception in speech: Evaluating Layered Voice Analysis, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(3), 642–650.
• Harrell J.P. & Clark V.R. (1985), Cardiac responses to psychological tasks: Impedance cardiographic studies, Biological Psychology, 20(4), 261–283.
• Harwell E. (2000), A Comparison of 3- and 7-position scoring scales with field examinations, Polygraph, 29(2), 195–197.
• Heil P., Ahlmeyer S., McCullar B. & McKee B. (2000), Integration of polygraph testing with sexual off enders in the Colorado Department of Corrections, Polygraph, 29(1), 26–35.
• Holden E.J. (2000), Pre- and post-conviction polygraph: Building blocks for the future – Procedures, principles and practices, Polygraph, 29(1), 69–115.
• Hollien H. & Harnsberger J. (2006), The use of voice security evaluations, The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 7(2), 74–78.
• Honts C.R. (1987), Interpreting research on polygraph countermeasures, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(3), 204–209.
• Honts C.R. (1999), The discussion of questions between list repetitions (charts) is associated with increased test accuracy, Polygraph, 28(2), 117–123.
• Honts C.R. (2000), A brief note on the misleading and the inaccurate: A rejoinder to Matte (2000) with critical comments on Matte and Reuss (1999), Polygraph, 29(4), 321–325.
• Honts C.R. (1996), Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application, Journal of General Psychology, 123(4), 309–324.
• Honts C.R. & Amato S.L. (2002), Countermeasures. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing, pp. 151–264. Academic Press: London.
• Honts C.R., Amato S.L. & Gordon A. (2000), Validity of outside-issue questions in the control question test. Final report to the DoD Polygraph Institute, Grant no. N00014-98-1-0725. DTIC # ADA 376666.
• Honts C.R. & Devitt M.K. (1992), Bootstrap decision making for polygraph examinations. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. McClellan, AL. DoDPI92-R-0002.
• Honts C.R. & Driscoll L.N. (1987), An evaluation of the reliability and validity of rank order and standard numerical scoring of polygraph charts, Polygraph, 16(4), 241–257.
• Honts C.R., Raskin D.C. & Kircher J.C. (1994), Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 252–259.
• Honts C.R. & Schweinle W. (2009), Information gain in psychophysiological detection of detection in forensic and screening settings, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, 161–172.
• Horowitz S.W., Kircher J.C., Honts C.R. & Raskin D.C. (1997), The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception, Psychophysiology, 34(1), 108–115.
• Horvath F.S. (1972), The polygraph silent answer test, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Police Science, 63(2), 285–293. Reprinted in Polygraph, 11(1), 100–113.
• Horvath F.S. (1977), The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 127–136.
• Horvath F.S. (1978), An experimental comparison of the psychological stress evaluator and the galvanic skin response in detection of deception, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 338–344.
• Horvath F.S. (1979), Effect of different motivational instructions on detection of deception with the psychological stress evaluator and the galvanic skin response, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 323–330.
• Horvath F.S. (1988), The utility of control questions and the effects of two control question types infield polygraph techniques, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 198–209.
• Horvath F.S. (1994), The value and effectiveness of the sacrifice relevant question: An empirical assessment, Polygraph, 23(4), 261–279.
• Horvath F.S. & Palmatier J.J. (2008), Effect of two types of control questions and two question formats on the outcomes of polygraph examinations, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 889–899.
• Howland D.P. (1981), Positive control question technique pre-test interview and chart interpretation, Polygraph, 10(1), 37–41.
• Iacono W.G. (1991), Can we determine the accuracy of the polygraph tests? In: J.R. Jennings, P.K. Ackles & M.G.H. Coles (eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology, 4, 202–208. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London.
• Ishida J. & Sevilla C.M. (1981), The friendly polygrapher concept and admissibility, Polygraph, 10(3), 175-178.
• Jones E.E. & Sigall H. (1971), The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude, Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 349–364.
• Karpman B. (1949), Lying – A minor inquiry into the ethics of neurotic and psychopathic behavior, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 40(2), 135–157.
• Kircher J.C., Kristjansson S.D., Gardner M.K. & Webb A. (2005), Human and computer decision-making in the psychophysiological detection of deception. Final report to the U.S. Department of Defense. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.
• Kircher J.C., Packard T., Bell B.G. & Bernhardt P.C. (2003), Effects of deception on tonic autonomic arousal, Polygraph, 32(3), 166–187.
• Kircher J.C. & Raskin D.C. (1983), Clinical versus statistical lie detection revisited – through a lens sharply, Psychophysiology, 20(4), 452.
• Kircher J.C. & Raskin D.C. (1987), Comment: Base rates and the statistical precision of polygraph tests in various applications, Statistical Science, 2(3), 226–238.
• Kircher J.C. & Raskin D.C. (1988), Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 291–302.
• Kircher J.C., Raskin D.C. & Honts C.R. (1984), Electrodermal habituation in the detection of deception, Psychophysiology, 21(5), 585 (Abstract).
• Kircher J.C., Raskin D.C., Honts C.R. & Horowitz S.W. (1995), Lens model analysis of decision making by fi eld polygraph examiners, Psychophysiology, 32 S1, S45 (Abstract).
• Kircher J.C., Woltz D.J., Bell B.G. & Bernhardt P.C. (2006), Effects of audiovisual presentations of test questions during Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph examinations and new measures, Polygraph, 35(1), 25–54.
• Kozel F.A., Johnson K.A., Grenesko E.L., Laken S.J., Koze S., Lu X., Pollina D., Ryan A. & George M.S. (2009), Functional MRI detection of deception aft er committing a mock sabotage crime, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(1), 220–231.
• Krapohl D.J. (1996), A taxonomy of polygraph countermeasures, Polygraph, 25(1), 35–56.
• Krapohl D.J. (1998), A comparison of 3- and 7- position scoring scales with laboratory data, Polygraph, 27(3), 210–218.
• Krapohl D.J. (2020), A brief comment on the inhalation/exhalation ratios in polygraph scoring, Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice, 49(2), 79–81.
• Krapohl D.J. (2000, Oct), An assessment of the Total Chart Minutes Concept with field data, Journal of the American Association of Police Polygraphists, 4, 31–37.
• Krapohl D.J. (2001), A brief rejoinder to Matte and Grove regarding “psychological set”, Polygraph, 30(3), 203–205.
• Krapohl D.J. (2005), Polygraph decision rules for evidentiary and paired-testing (Marin Protocol) applications, Polygraph, 34(3) 184–192.
• Krapohl D.J. & Cushman B. (2006), Comparison of evidentiary and investigative decision rules: A replication. Polygraph, 35(1), 55–63.
• Krapohl D.J., Dutton D.W. & Ryan A.H. (2001), The Rank Order Scoring System: Replication and extension with field data, Polygraph, 30(3), 172–181.
• Krapohl D.J., Gordon N.J. & Lombardi C. (2008). Accuracy demonstration of the Horizontal Scoring System using fi eld cases conducted with the Federal Zone Comparison Technique, Polygraph, 37(4). 263–268.
• Krapohl D.J., Grubin D., Benson T. & Morris B. (2020), Modification of the AFMGQT to accommodate single-issue screening: The British One-issue Screening Test, Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: Journal of Science and Field Practice, 49(2), 176–183.
• Krapohl D.J. & McManus B. (1999), An objective method for manually scoring polygraph data, Polygraph, 28(3), 209–222.
• Krapohl D.J., McCloughan J.B. & Senter S.M. (2006), How to use the Concealed Information Test, Polygraph, 35(3), 123–138.
• Krapohl D.J. & Norris W.F. (2000), An exploratory study of traditional and objective scoring systems with MGQT field cases. Polygraph, 29(2), 185–194.
• Krapohl D.J. & Ryan A.H. (2001), A belated look at symptomatic questions, Polygraph, 30(3), 206–212.
• Krapohl D.J., Shull K.W. & Ryan A.H. (2002, July), Does the confession criterion in case selection inflate polygraph accuracy estimates?, Forensic Science Communications.
• Krapohl D.J. & Stern B.A. (2003), Principles of multiple-issue polygraph screening a model for applicant, post-conviction off ender, and counterintelligence testing, Polygraph, 32(4), 201–210.
• Krapohl D.J. & Trimarco J.R. (2005), Credibility assessment methods for the new century, National Academy Associate, 7(1), 8–9, 24, 32.
• Lacey J.I. (1967), Somatic response patterning and stress: Some revisions of activation theory. In: M.H. Appley & Trumbull (eds.), Psychological Stress. Appleton-Century-Croft s: New York.
• Landis C. & Wiley L.E. (1926), Changes of blood pressure and respiration during deception, Journal of Comparative Psychology, 61(1), 1–19.
• Larson J.A. (1923), The cardio-pneumo-psychogram in deception, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6(6), 420–454.
• Li F., Zhu H., Xu J., Gao Q., Guo H., Wu S., Li X. & He S. (2018), Lie detection using fNIRS monitoring of inhibition-related brain regions discriminates infrequent but not frequent liars, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12:71, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00071
• Luria A.R. (1930), Th e method of recording movements in crime detection, Zeitschrift Fuer Angewandte Psychologie, 35, 139–183. (Text in German).
• Lykken D.T. (1959), The GSR in the detection of guilt, Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388. Reprinted in 1979 in Polygraph, 7(2), 123–128.
• Lykken D.T. (1998), A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. Plenum Trade: New York.
• Lynch B.E. & Henry D.R. (1979), A validity study of the psychological stress evaluator, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 11(1), 89–94.
• MacLaren V. & Taukulis H. (2000), Forensic identification with event related potentials, Polygraph, 29(4), 330–343.
• MacLaren V. (2001), A qualitative review of the Guilty Knowledge Test, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 674–683.
• Mangan D.J., Armitage T.E. & Adams G.C. (2008), A field study on the validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique, Physiology & Behavior, 95, 17–23.
• Marey P.E.J. (1885), Méthode Graphique Dans Les Sciences Expérimentales Et Principalement En Physiologie Et En Médecine. G. Masson: Paris.
• Marin J. (2000), He said/She said: Polygraph evidence in court, Polygraph, 29(4), 299–304.
• Marin J. (2001), The exclusionary standard and the “Litigation Certificate” program, Polygraph, 30(4), 288–293.
• Marston W.M. (1917), Systolic blood pressure symptoms of deception, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2(2), 117–163. Reprinted in Polygraph, 14(4), 289–320.
• Marston W.M. (1938), The lie detector test. Richard R. Smith: New York. Matte J.A. (1976), A polygraph control question validation procedure, Polygraph, 5(2), 170–177.
• Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph: Scientific truth verification – Lie detection, J.A.M Publications: Williamsville, NY.
• Matte J.A. (2000), Examination and cross-examination of experts in forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph, J.A.M. Publications: Williamsville, NY.
• Matte J.A. (2001), Comments on Krapohl & Ryan criticism of Capps, Knill & Evans research, Polygraph, 30(3), 216–217.
• Matte J.A. (2002), 2002 supplement – Forensic psychophysiology using the polygraph, J.A.M. Publications: Williamsville, NY.
• Matte J.A. & Grove R.N. (2001), Psychological set: Its origin, theory and application, Polygraph, 30(3), 196–202.
• Matte J.A. & Reuss R.M. (1989), A field validation study of the Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique, Polygraph, 18(4), 187–202.
• Matte J.A. & Reuss R.M. (1998), An analysis of the psychodynamics of the directed-lie control question in the control question technique, Polygraph, 27(1), 56–67.
• Matte J.A. & Reuss R.M. (1990), A field study of the “friendly polygraphist” concept, Polygraph, 19(1), 1–8.
• Meehl P.E. & Rosen A. (1955), Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, and cutting scores, Psychological Bulletin, 52(3), 194–216.
• Meiron E., Krapohl D.J. & Ashkenazi T. (2008), An assessment of the Backster “Either- Or” rule in polygraph scoring, Polygraph, 37(4), 240–249.
• Miller J.C. (1994), Cardiovascular indices of guilty knowledge. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Ft. McClellan, AL. DoDPI94-R-0016. DTIC AD Number A305954.
• Minor P. (1985), The modified relevant/irrelevant (MRI) technique. Paper presented at the 20th annual seminar of the American Polygraph Association, Reno, NV.
• Mosso A. (1896), Fear. Translated from the fifth edition of the Italian by E. Lough and F. Kiesow. Longsmans, Green and Co.: London.
• Murphy K.R. (1987), Detecting infrequent deception, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 611–614.
• Nelson R., Krapohl D. & Handler M. (2008), Brute-force comparison: A Monte Carlo study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and human polygraph scorers, Polygraph, 37(3), 185–215.
• Ohnishi K., Matsuno K., Arasuna M. & Suzuki A. (1976), The objective analysis of physiological indices in the field detection of deception, Reports of the National Institute of Police Science, 29, 181–188.
• Orne M.T. (1973), Implications of laboratory research for the detection of deception, Polygraph, 2(3), 169–199.
• Osugi A. (2011), Daily application of the Concealed Information Test: Japan. In: Verschuere, Ben-Shakhar & Meijer (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test. Cambridge University Press: New York.
• O’Sullivan M. (2003), The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy who cried wolf effect, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1316–1327.
• Patrick C.J. & Iacono W.G. (1989), Psychopathy, threat and polygraph test accuracy, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 347–355.
• 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), 229–238.
• Pavlidis I., Eberhardt N.L. & Levine J.A. (2002), Seeing through the face of deception, Nature, 415, 3.
• Petty R. & Cacioppo J. (1981), Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches, William C. Brown: Dubuque, IA.
• Podlesny J.A. (1993), Is the guilty knowledge polygraph technique applicable in criminal investigations?: A review of FBI case records, Crime Laboratory Digest, 20(3), 57–61.
• Podlesny J.A. & Raskin D.C. (1978), Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception, Psychophysiology, 15, 344–358.
• Podlesny J.A. & 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(5), 788–797. Reprinted in Polygraph, 23(3), 195–218.
• Pollina D.A., Horvath F., Denver J.W., Dollins A.B. & Brown T.E. (2008), Development of technologies and test formats for credibility assessment. In: A.M. Columbus (ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, 58, 1–36.
• Pollina D. & Ryan A.H. (2003), The relationship between facial skin surface temperature reactivity and traditional polygraph measures used in the psychophysiological detection of deception: A preliminary investigation. DoD Polygraph Institute, Ft. Jackson, SC. DoDPI02-R-0007. DTIC AD Number: ADA414911.
• Pollina D. (2006), Emerging methods and measures for detecting stress and deception: Thermal imaging, Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 7(2), 108– 115.
• Raskin D.C. (1976), Reliability of chart interpretation and sources of error in polygraph examinations. Report No. 76-3, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice (Contract No. 75-NI-99-0001). Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
• Raskin D.C. & Hare R.D. (1978), Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population, Psychophysiology, 15, 126–136.
• Raskin D.C. & Honts C.R. (2002), The comparison question test. In: M. Kleiner’s (ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing, pp. 1–47. Academic Press: London.
• Raskin D.C., Kircher J.C., Honts C.R. & Horowitz S.W. (1988), A study of the validity of polygraph examinations in criminal investigation. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, Grant No. 85- IJ-CX-0040.
• Reali S.F. (1978), Reali’s positive control technique: A new concept of polygraph procedures, Polygraph, 7(4), 281–285.
• Reid J.E. & Inbau F.E. (1977), Truth and deception: The polygraph (“lie detector”) technique, (2nd ed.). Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD.
• Reed S. (1994), A new psychophysiological detection of deception examination for security screening, Psychophysiology, 31(Supplement 1), S80, (Abstract).
• Rosenfeld J.P. (1998), Event-related potentials in detection of deception, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 30(1), 27. (Abstract).
• Rothwell J., Bandar Z., O’Shea J.D. & McLean D. (2006), Silent talker: A new computer-based system for the analysis of facial cues to deception, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(6). 757–777.
• Ruch F.L. (1948), Psychology and Life, Scott Foresman: Chicago.
• Runkel J.E. (1936), Luria’s motor method and word association in the study of deception, Journal of General Psychology, 15, 23–37.
• Senter S.M. & Dollins A.B. (2002), New decision rule development: Exploration of a two-stage approach. (DoDPI01-R-0006). Fort Jackson, SC: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
• Senter S.M., Waller J. & Krapohl D.J. (2008), Air Force Modified General Question Test validation study, Polygraph, 37(3), 174–184.
• Senter S.M., Waller J. & Krapohl D.J. (2009), Validation studies for the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System (PCASS), Polygraph, 38(2), 115–129.
• Senter S.M., Weatherman D., Krapohl D.J. & Horvath F.S. (2010), Psychological set or differential salience: A proposal for reconciling theory and terminology in polygraph testing, Polygraph, 39(2), 109–1 17.
• Shurany T., Stein E. & Brand E. (2009), A field study on the validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique, European Polygraph, 1(7), 5–23.
• Stern B.A. & Krapohl D.J. (2003), The infamous James Alphonso Frye, Polygraph, 32(3), 188–199.
• Summers W.G. (1939), Science can get the confession, Fordham Law Review, 8, 334– 354.
• Swets J.A. (1995), Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Swets J.A., Dawes R.M. & Monahan J. (2000), Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(1), 1–26.
• Swinford J. (1999), Manually scoring polygraph charts utilizing the seven-position numerical analysis scale at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Polygraph, 28(1), 10–27.
• Th orndike E.L. (1920), A constant error on psychological rating, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.
• Tian F., Sharma V., Kozel F.A. & Liu H. (2009), Functional near-infrared spectroscopy to investigate hemodynamic responses to deception in the prefrontal cortex, Brain Research, 120–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.09.085
• Timm H.W. (1982), Analyzing deception from respiration patterns, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10(1), 47–51.
• Timm H.W. (1991), Effect of posthypnotic suggestions on the accuracy of preemployment polygraph testing, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(5), 1521–1535.
• Trovillo P.V. (1939), A history of lie detection, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29(6), 848–881 and 30(1), 104–119. Reprinted in Polygraph, 1, 46–74 and 151–160.
• Van Herk M. (1990), Numerical evaluation: Seven point scale +/-6 and possible alternatives: A discussion, The Newsletter of the Canadian Association of Police Polygraphists, 7(3), 28–47.
• Vendemia J.M.C. (2002), Hobson’s choice: The relationship between consequences and the comparison question, Polygraph, 31(1), 20–25.
• Veraguth S. (1906), Das psycho-galvanische Refl exphänomen, Monatsschrift für Psychiatrie und Neurologie, Bd. XXI, Heft 5.
• Verschuere B., Ben-Shakhar G. & Meijer E. (2011), Memory detection: Theory and application of the Concealed Information Test, Cambridge University Press: New York.
• Waller J.F. (2001), A concise history of the comparison question, Polygraph, 30(3), 92–195.
• Weaver R.S. (1985), Effects of differing numerical chart evaluation systems on polygraph examination results, Polygraph, 14(1), 34–42.
• Webb A.K., Honts C.R., Kircher J.C., Bernhardt P. & Cook A.E. (2009), Effectiveness of pupil diameter in a probable-lie comparison question test for deception, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 279–292.
• Webb A.K., Hacker D.J., Osher D., Cook A.E., Woltz D.J., Kristjansson S. & Kircher J.C. (2009), Eye movements and pupil size reveal deception in computer administered questionnaires, Foundations of Augmented Cognition, Neuroergonomics and Operational Neuroscience: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5638, 553–562.
• Weir R.J. (1976), Some principles of question selection and sequencing for Relevant-Irrelevant testing, Polygraph, 5(3), 207–222.
• Winter J. (1936), Comparison of the cardio-pneumo-psychograph and association methods in the detection of lying in cases of theft among college students, Journal of Applied Psychology, 20(2), 243–248.
• Yankee W.J. (1992), A case for forensic psychophysiology and other changes in terminology. Paper presented to Advisory Committee, Director of Counterintelligence; and to the DASD(CI&SCM). Reprinted in Polygraph, 23(3), 188–194.
• Yankee W.J. (1995), The current status of research in forensic psycho-physiology and its application in the psychophysiological detection of deception, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(1), 63–68.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/EP-2023-0006

Biblioteka Nauki

27781083