Comparison of Polygraph Data Obtained From Individuals Involved in Mock Crimes and Actual Criminal Investigations.

Abstract

In a preliminary attempt to determine the generalizability of data from laboratory mock-crime studies, the authors examined the similarities and differences among the cardiovascular, electrodermal, and respiration responses of deceptive and nondeceptive individuals elicited to crime-relevant and crime-irrelevant questions. Participants in the laboratory group were randomly assigned to nondeceptive (n = 28) or deceptive (n = 27) treatment groups, and a mock-crime scenario was used. The field participants were confirmed nondeceptive (n = 28) or deceptive (n = 39) criminal suspects who underwent polygraph examinations between 1993 and 1997. The results indicated that there were salient differences between field and similarly obtained laboratory polygraph response measures. However, accuracy of laboratory participants' classifications using logistic regression analysis was not significantly different from field participants' classification accuracy.

Successful detection of verbal and visual concealed knowledge using an RT‐based paradigm

“…Although this conclusion is based on consistently larger effect sizes in laboratory settings than in the field, examining the influence of this difference on detection efficiency is less common. However, a recent study by Pollina, Dollins, Senter, Krapohl, and Ryan (2004) replicated this effect size difference, but showed that it did not influence test accuracy or diagnosticity. Similarly, Ben-Shakhar and Elaad (2003) conducted a large meta-analysis of GKT studies and found a significant difference in effect size when 'highly motivated' participants (d ¼ 1.76) were compared to those with 'low motivation' (d ¼ 1.34), but not on their respective test efficiencies (a ¼ .82 and .80, respectively).…”

Finger pulse waveform length in the detection of concealed information

“…Hence, they were not exposed to the real threat confronting suspects undergoing real GKT examinations. This may lead on the one hand to the desire of guilty examinees, who believe that the GKT is designed to detect deception, to ''win the game'' by increasing attention to the relevant questions (Pollina et al, 2004). On the other hand, this may lead to a neglect of the relevant items, which are related to unreal crimes.…”

What if I Get Busted? Deception, Choice, and Decision-Making in Social Interaction

“…This might be because the choice of whether to perform a morally sanctioned act of deception in a game and the more morally loaded choice of whether to break a promise, involve different social phenomena – rejection (van Beest and Williams, 2006) and guilt respectively. Nevertheless, it is challenging to evoke and accurately assess guilt associated with deception in real-life interrogations (Bashore and Rapp, 1993; Pollina et al, 2004), let alone in experimental settings.…”