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

Gołaszewski, Marcin

doi:10.2478/ep-2022-0002

Abstract

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.

References

Ansley N. (1999), Development of Deception Criteria Prior to 1950. Polygraph, 28 (1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barland G.H. (1972), The Reliability of Polygraph Chart Evaluations. Polygraph, 1 (4).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bersh P. (1969), A Validation Study of Polygraph Examiner Judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53.10.1037/h00280235366311
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bond C.F., DePaulo B.M. (2006), Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dror I.E., Charlton D., Pèron A.E. (2006), Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156.10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.01716325362
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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, 7.10.1002/bdm.3960070405
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1998), The Role of Prior Expectations in Polygraph Examiners Decisions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 4.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ginton A. (2019), Basic vs. Applied Psychology perspectives lead to different 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_different_implications_from_the_same_data_reevaluating_the_impact_of_prior_expectations_on_polygraph_outcomes (accessed: 30.05.2022).10.1016/j.ssaho.2019.100005
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartwig M., Bond C.F. (2011), Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 13.10.1037/a002358921707129
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holmes W.D. (1957), The degree of objectivity in chart interpretation, In: V.A. Leonard, Academy Lectures on Lie-detection, vol. II, Ch. Thomas, Springfield.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Honts C.R. (1996), Criterion Development and Validity of the Control Question Test in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology, 123.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Honts C.R., Raskin D.C. (1988), A Field Study of the Directed Lie Control Question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16 (1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Horvath F. (1977), The Effects of Selected Variables on Interpretation of Polygraph Records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (2).10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.127
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Horvath F., Reid J. (1971), The reliability of polygraph examiner diagnosis of truth and deception. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62 (1).10.2307/1141892
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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).10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krapohl D.J., Dutton D.W. (2018), Believing is Seeing: The Influence of Expectations on Blind Scoring of Polygraph Data. Polygraph, 47 (2).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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 Griffiss AFB, New York.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology. Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification – Lie Detection, J.A.M. Publications, New York.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Orne M.T. (1973), Implications of Laboratory Research for the Detection of Deception. Polygraph, 2 (3).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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).10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.229
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reid J., Inbau F. (1977), Truth and Deception. The polygraph (lie-detector) technique, William & Wilkins, Baltimore.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vrij A. (2008), Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, Second Edition, Wiley.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wilson C.M. (1950), Should graphs be released or shown after test? ISDD Bulletin, 3 (3),
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Widacki J. (ed., 2018), Kierunki rozwoju instrumentalnej i nieinstrumentalnej detekcji kłamstwa. Problemy kryminalistyczne, etyczne i prawne, Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, Kraków.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

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

Abstract

Paradigm

My account