Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Should Blind Evaluation of Polygraph Charts Be a Mandatory Procedure in Evidentiary Examinations? Cover

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

Open Access
|Oct 2022

References

  1. Ansley N. (1999), Development of Deception Criteria Prior to 1950. Polygraph, 28 (1).
  2. Barland G.H. (1972), The Reliability of Polygraph Chart Evaluations. Polygraph, 1 (4).
  3. 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.
  4. Bersh P. (1969), A Validation Study of Polygraph Examiner Judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53.10.1037/h00280235366311
  5. Bond C.F., DePaulo B.M. (2006), Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. (1998), The Role of Prior Expectations in Polygraph Examiners Decisions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 4.
  9. 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
  10. 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).
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. Honts C.R. (1996), Criterion Development and Validity of the Control Question Test in Field Application. Journal of General Psychology, 123.
  14. Honts C.R., Raskin D.C. (1988), A Field Study of the Directed Lie Control Question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16 (1).
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Krapohl D.J., Dutton D.W. (2018), Believing is Seeing: The Influence of Expectations on Blind Scoring of Polygraph Data. Polygraph, 47 (2).
  19. 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.
  20. Matte J.A. (1996), Forensic Psychophysiology. Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification – Lie Detection, J.A.M. Publications, New York.
  21. Orne M.T. (1973), Implications of Laboratory Research for the Detection of Deception. Polygraph, 2 (3).
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. Reid J., Inbau F. (1977), Truth and Deception. The polygraph (lie-detector) technique, William & Wilkins, Baltimore.
  25. 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).
  26. Vrij A. (2008), Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities, Second Edition, Wiley.
  27. 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).
  28. Wilson C.M. (1950), Should graphs be released or shown after test? ISDD Bulletin, 3 (3),
  29. Widacki J. (ed., 2018), Kierunki rozwoju instrumentalnej i nieinstrumentalnej detekcji kłamstwa. Problemy kryminalistyczne, etyczne i prawne, Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, Kraków.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ep-2022-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2380-0550 | Journal ISSN: 1898-5238
Language: English
Page range: 17 - 30
Published on: Oct 21, 2022
Published by: Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2022 Marcin Gołaszewski, published by Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.