Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why (some) Americans believe in the lie detector while others believe in the guilty knowledge test

  • Symposium: On The Validity Of The Polygraph
  • Published:
Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The accuracy of polygraphic lie detection in real life applications is very little better than chance. Yet, at least in the United States, many agencies and the polygraphers themselves have great faith in the technique. The reasons why polygraph examiners, and their clients, genuinely believe in the myth of the polygraph are explained and illustrated. A more plausible method of polygraphic interrogation, the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), is described and it is shown how the GKT, but not the lie test, might have resolved doubts about the case of Demjanjuk, the alleged “Ivan the Terrible.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balloun, K.S. & Holmes, D.S. (1979). Effects of repeated examinations on the ability to detect guilt with a polygraphic examination: A laboratory experiment with a real crime.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 316–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barland, G. & Raskin, D. (1976). Validity and reliability of polygraph examinations of criminal suspects. (Report 76-1, Contract 75 NI-99-0001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M.T. & Warfield, J.F. (1974). Innocence, information, and the guilty knowledge test in the detection of deception.Psychophysiology, 21, 683–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimerman, A. (1981). “They’ll let me go tomorrow”: The Fay case.Criminal Defense, 8, 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, P.O. (1968). Validity of the guilty-knowledge technique: The effects of motivation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 62–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giesen, M. & Rollison, M.A. (1980). Guilty knowledge versus innocent associations: Effects of trait anxiety and stimulus context on skin conductance.Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, F. (1977). The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, W.G., Boisvenu, G.A., & Fleming, J.A. (1984). Effects of diazepam and methylphenidate on the electrodermal detection of guilty knowledge.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 289–299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, W.G. & Patrick, C.J. (1987). What psychologists should know about lie detection. In A.K. Hess & I.B. Weiner (Eds.)Handbook of forensic psychology. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, W.G. & Patrick, C.J. (1988). Polygraph techniques. In R. Rogers (Ed.),Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz, B. & Szucko, J.J. (1984). A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection.Nature, 308, 449–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D.T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt.Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D.T. (1981a).A Tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D.T. (1981b). The law and the lie detector.Criminal Defense, 8, 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D.T. (1988). The case against polygraphy. In A. Gale (Ed.).The polygraph test: Lies, truth, and science. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M.B (1975). The American polygraph as the party affirming legal and social justice.Polygraph, 4, 154–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K.E. (1989). Movement recording chairs: A necessity?Polygraph, 18, 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podlesny, J.A. & Raskin, D. (1978). Effectiveness of techniques and physiological measures in the detection of deception.Psychophysiology, 15, 344–359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J.E. & Inbau, F.E. (1977).Truth and deception: The polygraph (“lie detector”) Technique, 2nd Ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, R.M., Breen, J.P., Watanabi, T. & Perry, B.S. (1981). Effect of feedback of physiological information on responses to innocent associations and guilty knowledge.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 677–681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Toronto Police (undated).Your Rights When Asked to Take a Polygraph Examination. Handout used by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department during the 1980s.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Elliott Hall, University of Minnesota, 55455, Minneapolis, MN

    David T. Lykken

Authors
  1. David T. Lykken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lykken, D.T. Why (some) Americans believe in the lie detector while others believe in the guilty knowledge test. Integr. psych. behav. 26, 214–222 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02912513

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02912513

Keywords

Search

Navigation