 |
| AI image of a person taking a Polygraph test |
Researchers have long investigated the validity and reliability of polygraph tests as tools for detecting deception. These tests work by measuring physiological indicators—such as blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity—that are thought to correlate with the emotional arousal often associated with lying. However, a substantial body of research has revealed that these responses are not uniquely linked to deception; they can also be triggered by stress, anxiety, or other emotional states not related to dishonesty (National Research Council, 2003).
In controlled laboratory settings, polygraph tests have sometimes demonstrated moderate levels of accuracy, suggesting that under ideal circumstances they might differentiate between truth-telling and lying to some degree better than chance. Nonetheless, when these tests are applied in real-world or forensic settings, their accuracy tends to diminish markedly. Factors such as the examinee’s emotional state, countermeasures that individuals might deliberately employ, and the inherently variable nature of physiological reactions can lead to both false positives (where truthful individuals are classified as deceptive) and false negatives (where deceptive individuals are not detected) (National Research Council, 2003; Vrij, 2008).
Consequently, many researchers and legal professionals caution against overreliance on polygraph results as definitive evidence of deception. Given that the underlying physiological measures are not uniquely diagnostic of lying, polygraph tests are increasingly viewed as a supplementary tool rather than an infallible detector of dishonesty, particularly in high-stakes contexts such as criminal investigations or employment screening (National Research Council, 2003; Vrij, 2008).
References
National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Some recent reports:
Recent studies continue to shed light on the complex issues surrounding the use of polygraph tests for detecting deception. For example, one study titled *Assessing the Reliability and Evidentiary Value of Polygraph Tests* (2024) highlights that, although polygraph tests may sometimes distinguish between truthful and deceptive responses under controlled conditions, the physiological indicators they measure (such as heart rate, respiration, and skin conductivity) can also be influenced by factors like stress, anxiety, or other non-deceptive emotional states. These factors contribute to the occurrence of both false positives and false negatives, thereby challenging the tests’ reliability when employed in real‐world contexts (Assessing the reliability and evidentiary value of polygraph tests, 2024).
Another resource, *The Effectiveness and Future of Polygraph Testing* (n.d.), reviews current methodological advancements and technological improvements aimed at increasing polygraph accuracy. While this study acknowledges that newer techniques and enhanced data analysis may yield incremental improvements, it also emphasizes that issues related to contextual variability and examinee countermeasures remain significant obstacles in achieving consistent and definitive results. These challenges limit the widespread acceptance of polygraph evidence in forensic and occupational screening scenarios (The effectiveness and future of polygraph testing, n.d.).
A third study, *Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment* (n.d.), focuses on the specific application of polygraph tests in forensic settings. It discusses how examiner expertise, procedural consistency, and the inherent variability of human physiological responses play crucial roles in the overall interpretability of polygraph outcomes. The study concludes that while polygraph tests can offer supplementary insights, they should not be solely relied upon as conclusive indicators of deception due to their inherent limitations (Polygraph & forensic credibility assessment, n.d.).
Collectively, these recent studies underscore that although polygraph tests might provide useful supplementary information, their accuracy is compromised by various uncontrollable factors. As a result, caution is advised when considering polygraph evidence as a decisive tool for detecting dishonesty.
References
Assessing the reliability and evidentiary value of polygraph tests. (2024). Retrieved May 13, 2025, from [https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/6/31809.pdf](https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/6/31809.pdf)
The effectiveness and future of polygraph testing. (n.d.). Retrieved May 13, 2025, from [https://www.ebpsociety.org/blog/education/444-the-effectiveness-and-future-of-polygraph-testing](https://www.ebpsociety.org/blog/education/444-the-effectiveness-and-future-of-polygraph-testing)
Polygraph & forensic credibility assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved May 13, 2025, from [https://polygraph.org/docs/journal_50_2_preview2.pdf](https://polygraph.org/docs/journal_50_2_preview2.pdf)
Reference for clinicians on understanding assessment
Buy Applied Statistics for Counselors
Resource Links:
All Measures A – Z Test Index
NOTICE:
The information about scales and measures is provided for clinicians and researchers based on professional publications. The links to authors, materials, and references can change. You may be able to locate details by contacting the main author of the original article or another author on the article list.
Post Author
Geoffrey W. Sutton PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology who publishes book and articles about clinical and social psychology including the psychology of religion. Website: www.suttong.com
Books available on AMAZON and the GOOGLE STORE
Connections
FACEBOOK Geoff W. Sutton
PINTEREST www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton
Read many published articles and book samples on:
ResearchGate Geoffrey W Sutton
Comments
Post a Comment