The validity of the Lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 426-433

  Iacono, W G ^a   Lykken, D T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031533424     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.426     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abrams, S. (1989). The complete polygraph handbook. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
2. Amato, S. L. (1993). A survey of the Society for Psychophysiological Research regarding the polygraph: Opinions and interpretations. Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Dakota.
3. Amato, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1993). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR [Abstract]. Psychophysiology, 31, S22.
4. Ansley, N. (1983). A compendium of polygraphy validity. Polygraph, 12, 53-61.
5. Ben-Shakar, G., & Furedy, J. J. (1991). Theories and applications in the deception of detection. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 C. Ct. Supp. 2786 (1993).
7. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
8. Faigman, D. L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 960-979.
9. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (1997). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MN: West.
10. Federal Rules of Evidence. (1984). St. Paul, MN: West. Frye v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 1013, 1014 (App. D. C. 1923).
11. Gallup Organization. (1984). Survey of members of the American Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinion of polygraph test interpretation. Polygraph, 13, 153-165.
12. Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.
13. Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 177-187.
14. Honts, C. R., & Quick, B. D. (1996). The polygraph in 1995: Progress in science and the law. North Dakota Law Review, 71, 987-1020.
15. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D., & Kircher, J. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252-259.
16. Iacono, W. G., & Patrick, C. J. (1988). Assessing deception: Polygraph techniques. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessinent of malingering and deception (pp. 205-233). New York: Guilford Press.
17. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P.C., & Smith, V.L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
18. Lykken, D. T. (1981). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19. Raskin, D. (1986). The polygraph in 1986: Scientific, professional and legal issues surrounding applications and acceptance of polygraph evidence. Utah Law Review, 1, 29-74.
20. Raskin, D. (1989). Polygraph techniques for the detection of deception. In D. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 247-296). New York: Springer.
21. Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (in press). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MN: West.
22. Reid, J. E. (1947). A revised questioning technique in lie-detection tests. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 37, 542-547.
23. Reid, J. E., & Inbau, F. E. (1977). Truth and deception: The polygraph ("lie detector") technique (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
24. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: Wiley.
25. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. ( 1983). Scientific validity of polygraph testing: A research review and evaluation (Report No. OTA-TM-H-15). Washington, DC: Author.