The court of public opinion: Lay perceptions of polygraph testing

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 509-523

  Myers, Bryan ^a   Latter, Rachel ^b   Abdollahi Arena, M Kathrine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^b ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Admissibility; Jurors; Polygraph tests

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HUMAN; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICHANNEL RECORDER; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIE DETECTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33747058523     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9041-0     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. 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 Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Dakota.
2. Bornstein, B. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-92.
3. Brown v. Darcey (1986). 783 F.2d 1389.
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. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
6. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cross, T. P., & Saxe, L. (1992). A critique of the validity of polygraph testing in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 19-33.
8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 125 L. Ed. 2d 469.
9. Frye v. United States, (1923). 293 F. 1013.
10. Gallup Organization. (1984). Survey of members of the American Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinion of polygraph test interpretation. Polygraph, 13, 153-165.
11. Goodwin, R. J. (2000). The hidden significance of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael: A compass for problems of definition and procedure created by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Baylor Law Review, 52, 603-646.
12. Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2001). Psychophysiological credibility assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 87-99.
13. Iacono, W. G. (2001). Forensic "lie detection": Procedures without scientific basis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 75-86.
14. Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997a). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case against polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 582-618). St. Paul, MN: West.
15. Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997b). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.
16. Iacono, W. G., & Patrick, C. J. (1999). Polygraph (lie detector) testing: The state of the art. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
17. Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. V. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).
18. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.
19. Markwart, A., & Lynch, B. E. (1979). The effect of polygraph evidence on mock juror decision-making. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, 324-332.
20. McCall, J. R. (1996). Misconceptions and reevaluation - polygraph admissibility after Rock and Daubert. University of Illinois Law Review, 363, 364-422.
21. Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1997). Polygraph testimony and juror judgments: A comparison of the guilty knowledge test and the Control Question Test. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1421-1437.
22. Myers, B., Rosol, A., & Boelter, E. (2003). Polygraph evidence and juror judgments: The effects of corroborating evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 948-962.
23. Peeples, L. C., Bell, S. P., & Guiffre, T. M. (1997). Exculpatory polygraphs in the courtroom: How the truth may not set you free. Cumberland Law Review, 28, 77.
24. People v. Leone (1969). 255 N.E. 2d 696, 700.
25. Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). 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 (pp. 160-174). St. Paul, MN: West.
26. Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409-431.
27. Rosol, A., Myers, B., Barrios, F., & Davis, S. Effects of expert polygraph testimony on jurors' verdicts in a child sexual assault trial. Poster presentation at the annual conference of the American Psychological Society, Miami FL, June 2000.
28. Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 203-223.
29. Saxe, L., Dougherty, D., & Cross, T. P. (1985). The validity of polygraph tests: Scientific analysis and public policy. American Psychologist, 40, 355-366.
30. Spanos, N. P., Myers, B., Dubreuil, S. C., & Pawlak, A. E. (1992-1993). The effects of polygraph and eyewitness testimony on the beliefs and decisions of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 12, 103-113.
31. State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 246 N.W. 314 (1933).
32. State v. Grier (1983). 300 S.E. 2d 351, 356 (N. C.).
33. United States v. Addison (1974). 498 F.2d 741, 744 (D.C. Cir.).
34. United States v. Alexander (1975). 526 F. 2d 161, 168 (8th Cir.).
35. United States v. Scheffer (1998). 140 L. Ed. 2d 413.
36. United States v. Frank Javier Cordoba (1998). 991 F. Supp. 1199.
37. United States v. David Crumby (1995). 895 F. Supp. 1354.
38. United States v. Piccononna (1989). 885 F 2d 1529, 1535 (11th Cir.).