Premium
A Comparison of Field and Laboratory Polygraphs in the Detection of Deception
Author(s) -
Patrick Christopher J.,
Iacono William G.
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
psychophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.661
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1469-8986
pISSN - 0048-5772
DOI - 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01006.x
Subject(s) - deception , psychology , field (mathematics) , lie detection , social psychology , cognitive psychology , mathematics , pure mathematics
This study compared the effectiveness of field and laboratory polygraphs in discriminating guilty and innocent subjects tested using the Control Question Technique (CQT). Subjects were 48 prisoners examined regarding a mock theft in a peer threat context; physiological responses were recorded simultaneously on a Lafayette field polygraph and a Sensor Medics laboratory polygraph. Overall hit rates were essentially the same whether classifications were based on quantitative measures from the laboratory polygraph or on numerical scores from the field polygraph (i.e., 73% and 79%, respectively), and in both cases the best discriminating measures were electrodermal activity and indices of respiration suppression. Further analyses revealed that errors of classification were mostly due to the failure of the available measures to differentiate between relevant and control questions for innocent subjects. These results indicate that the CQT is susceptible to false positive errors when subjects are tested under field‐like circumstances, a problem that is not likely to be eliminated by refinements in instrumentation and scoring.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom