Polygraph testimony and juror judgments: A comparison of the guilty knowledge test and the control question test

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 16, 1997, Pages 1421-1437

  Myers, Bryan ^a   Arbuthnot, Jack ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031575138     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01606.x     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Bashore, T. R., & Rapp, P. E. (1993). Are there alternatives to traditional polygraph procedures? Psychological Bulletin, 113, 3-22.
2. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.
3. Carlson, S. C., Pasano, M. S., & Jannuzzo, J. A. (1977). The effect of lie detector evidence on jury deliberations: An empirical study. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5, 148-154.
4. Cavoukian, A., & Heselgrave, R. J. (1980). The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court: Some empirical findings. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 117-131.
5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
6. 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.
7. Federal Rules of Evidence, Public Law 93-595 (1975).
8. Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. App. 1923).
9. Giannelli, P. C. (1980). The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States, a half-century later. Columbia Law Review, 80, 1197-1250.
10. Honts, C. R., & Perry, M. V. (1992). Polygraph admissibility: Changes and challenges. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 357-379.
11. Kamisar, Y., LaFave, W. R., & Israel, J. H. (1990). Basic criminal procedure: Cases, comments, and questions. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
12. Koffler, J. (1957). The lie detector - A critical appraisal of the technique as a potential undermining factor in the judicial process. New York Law Forum, 123(3), 138-146.
13. Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 385-388.
14. Lykken, D. T. (1981). A tremor in the blood. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
15. Lykken, D. T. (1985). The probity of the polygraph. In S. M. Kassin & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 95-123). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-31.
17. Markwart, A., & Lynch, B. (1979). The effect of polygraph evidence on mock jury decision-making. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, 324-332.
18. Morris, R. A. (1989). The admissibility of evidence derived from hypnosis and polygraphy. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 333-353). New York, NY: Springer.
19. Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1996). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentence recommendations of mock jurors. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio University, Athens, OH.
20. Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (1989). Psychopathy, threat, and polygraph test accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 347-355.
21. Paulos, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.
22. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
23. Saxe, L., Dougherty, D., & Cross, T. P. (1985). The validity of polygraph tests: Scientific analysis and public policy. American Psychologist, 40, 355-366.
24. Spanos, N. P., Dubreuil, S. C., & Gwynn, M. I. (1991). The effects of expert testimony concerning rape on the verdicts and beliefs of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 11, 37-52.
25. Spanos, N. P., Myers, B., DuBreuil, S. C., & Pawlak, A. E. (1992-1993). The effects of polygraphy and eyewitness testimony on the beliefs and decisions of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 12, 103-113.
26. U.S. v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1975).
27. Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739-752.
28. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.