Control‐question (CQ) and guilty‐knowledge (GK) techniques for the detection of deception were studied in a mock theft context. Subjects from the local community received $5 for participation, and both guilty and innocent subjects were motivated with a $10 bonus for a truthful outcome on the polygraph examination. They were instructed to deny the theft when they were examined by experimenters who were blind with respect to their guilt or innocence. Eight physiological channels were recorded. Blind numerical field evaluations with an inconclusive zone produced 94% and 83% correct decisions for two different types of CQ tests and 89% correct decisions for GK tests. Control questions were more effective than guilt‐complex questions, and exclusive control questions were more effective than nonexclusive control questions. Behavioral observations were relatively ineffective in differentiating guilty and innocent subjects. Quantitative analyses of the CQ and GK data revealed significant discrimination between guilty and innocent subjects with a variety of electrodermal and cardiovascular measures. The results support the conclusion that certain techniques and physiological measures can be very useful for the detection of deception in a laboratory mock‐crime context.

The effectiveness of detection of deception was evaluated with a sample of 48 prisoners, half of whom were diagnosed psychopaths. Half of each group were “guilty” of taking $20 in a mock crime and half were “innocent.” An examiner who had no knowledge of the guilt or innocence of each subject conducted a field‐type interview followed by a control question polygraph examination. Electrodermal, respiration, and cardiovascular activity was recorded, and field (semi‐objective) and quantitative evaluations of the physiological responses were made. Field evaluations by the examiner produced 88% correct, 4% wrong, and 8% inconclusives. Excluding inconclusives, there were 96% correct decisions. Using blind quantitative scoring and field evaluations, significant discrimination between “guilty” and “innocent” subjects was obtained for a variety of electrodermal, respiration, and cardiovascular measures. Psychopaths were as easily detected as nonpsychopaths, and psychopaths showed evidence of stronger electrodermal responses and heart rate decelerations. The effectiveness of control question techniques in differentiating truth and deception was demonstrated in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic criminals in a mock crime situation, and the generalizability of the results to the field situation is discussed.

Laboratory research on physiological measures for detecting deception is reviewed and evaluated. The general problems encountered in making inferences about truth and deception from physiological recordings are described, and various methods for designing tests of deception are explained and evaluated in light of these problems. The review concludes that a number of cardiovascular, electrodermal, and respiratory measures have been shown to be effective in discriminating between truth and deception. Other promising measures are identified, along with suggestions for conducting laboratory research that will be maximally generalizable to field applications of detection of deception.Deception may be defined as an act or state designed to conceal or distort the truth for the purpose of misleading others. Psychophysiological detection of deception (FDD) is a method of determining if a subject is attempting deception and analyzes physiological activity manifested by that subject in response to a series of questions or other stimuli presented to him. In the typical real-life (field) situation, one or more persons are suspected of having committed certain acts or of having possession of information concerning a crime or similar incident. All of the suspects have denied involvement, and the problem is to determine which, if any, of the suspects are attempting deception. The goal of FDD is to achieve a high degree of accuracy of inferences concerning a subject's deceptive status.

No abstract

No abstract