In order to frame a scientific discussion about the polygraph, we consider the role of this method of detecting deception in American culture and compare it with methods of detecting deception that have been accepted in other cultures. The polygraph, perhaps more than any other apparently humane interrogation technique, arouses strong emotions. There is a mystique surrounding the polygraph that may account for much of its usefulness: that is, a culturally shared belief that the polygraph device is nearly infallible. Practitioners believe that criminals sometimes prefer to admit their crimes and that potential spies sometimes avoid certain job positions rather than face a polygraph examination, which they expect will reveal the truth about them. The mystique shows in other ways, too. People accused of crimes voluntarily submit to polygraph tests and publicize “passing” results because they believe a polygraph test can confer credibility that they cannot get otherwise. In popular culture and media, the polygraph device is often represented as a magic mind-reading machine. These facts reflect the widespread mystique or belief that the polygraph test is a highly valid technique for detecting deception—despite the continuing lack of consensus in the scientific community about the validity of polygraph testing.

Ritualized lie detection techniques in many groups, societies, and cultures through the ages share several characteristics that help create a mystique that enables the techniques to be effective. Lie detection rituals involve a socially certified administrator (an examiner or interrogator) and some device or procedure that purportedly can objectively and publicly identify lying on the part of the examinee. The administrator—in some cultures, a priest or shaman—has completed a secret or semi-secret training process. The keeping of the secrets of the ritual within a small, select group adds to the mystique (e.g., the belief that keepers of the secrets have good reason not to publicize them and should be trusted), and, consequently, adds to the power of the technique. The belief structure of the endorsing society includes beliefs about the special powers of the officials authorized to perform the ritual and about the ritual’s ability to divine or elicit concealed truths. The examinee, as a member of the society or culture, generally accepts the importance of the lie detection ritual and believes that it is very accurate. Hence, if he or she is telling the truth, there is little or no reason to fear the examination, but if he or she is lying, there is reason to fear it. Many procedures and techniques have been used in lie detection rituals, including ones that in our society would

Front Matter (R1-R18)

Executive Summary (1-10)

1 Lie Detection and the Polygraph (11-28)

2 Validity and Its Measurement (29-64)

3 The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing (65-105)

4 Evidence from Polygraph Research: Qualitative Assessment (106-120)

5 Evidence from Polygraph Research: Quantitative Assessment (121-153)

6 Alternative Techniques and Technologies (154-177)

7 Uses of Polygraph Tests (178-211)

8 Conclusions and Recommendations (212-231)

References (232-252)

Appendix A: Polygraph Questioning and Techniques (253-258)

Appendix B: Use of Polygraph Screening in the U.S. Department of Energy and Other Federal Agencies (259-279)

Appendix C: The Wen Ho Lee Case and the Polygraph (280-285)

Appendix D: Physiological Processes Measured by the Polygraph (286-290)

Appendix E: Historical Notes on the Modern Polygraph (291-297)

Appendix F: Computerized Scoring of Polygraph Data (298-322)

Appendix G: Process for Systematic Review of Polygraph Validation Studies (323-339)

Appendix H: Quantitative Assessment of Polygraph Test Accuracy (340-353)

Appendix I: False Positive Index Values for Polygraph Testing (354-357)

Appendix J: Decision Analysis of Polygraph Security Screening (358-363)

Appendix K: Combining Information Sources in Medical Diagnosis and Security Screening (364-374)

Appendix L: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff (375-380)

Index (381-398)