Historical of Lie Detection

Social psychology defines deception as: “a communicator’s deliberate attempt to foster a belief or
understanding in others which the recipient considers to be untrue” (DePaulo et al., 2003). Similarly,
dictionaries use these very features to define lying and deception. For example, according to the Oxford
Dictionary of English (Stevenson & Soanes, 2010), deception is “a statement that deviates from or
perverts the truth”. Deception is a pervasive, and some would argue a necessary, phenomenon in human
communication, yet its very action stirs up moral indignation and rage. As a result, for as long as there
have been lies, there have been methods of lie detection. The concept of lying and the ability to do so
have reached a new level with technological advances that have moved lie detection from the realm of
fire and water to EEGs, FACS and functional MRIs. But the question remains as to whether human
beings are better equipped to detect lying than centuries ago. Are the public, legal and scientific
communities’ obsessions with finding liars actually yielding better results, or are they merely
sugarcoating the same techniques with fancy machinery? This article will attempt to provide a general
overview of the literature and thinking to date about the concept of historical and contemporary
detection of lying. This will provide an introduction for a historical and critical review of lie detection
techniques primarily in, but not limited to, Western culture
Lie Detection

Lie detection is a part of numerous criminal, medical or legal professions. Police officers
are challenged by deception especially in the determination of facts in crimes that have been
committed. Judges and lawyers seek justice in legal disputes and medical specialist demand
the truth for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of patients. The following part is
an overview of the most commonly used methods of lie detection.
Christine Blasey Ford (2006) reported that one of the first methods to prove
the veracity of a statement uttered by the accused was described in China
circa 1000 BC. The person suspected of lying was required to fill his/her
mouth with a handful of dry rice. After a while, s/he was to spit out the rice.
If the expectorated rice remained dry, the suspect was found guilty of fraud.
This method was based on the physiological principle and the assumption that
experiencing fear and anxiety is accompanied by decreased salivation and a
dry mouth.
What is the example of trial by ordeal?
Persons accused of cheating in contracts or lying might be asked to prove their
innocence by ordeal of fire as an ultimate test. Two examples of such an ordeal
include the accused having to pass through fire, or having molten metal poured on
his chest. There were about 30 of these kinds of fiery tests in all.
By combat

Main article: Trial by combat

Ordeal by combat took place between two parties in a dispute, either two
individuals, or between an individual and a government or other organization.
They, or, under certain conditions, a designated "champion" acting on their
behalf, would fight, and the loser of the fight or the party represented by the
losing champion was deemed guilty or liable. Champions could be used by one
or both parties in an individual versus individual dispute, and could represent the
individual in a trial by an organization; an organization or state government by its
nature had to be represented by a single combatant selected as champion,
although there are numerous cases of high-ranking nobility, state officials and
even monarchs volunteering to serve as champion.
Ordeal by fire was one form of torture. The ordeal of fire typically required that the
accused walk a certain distance, usually 9 feet (2.7 metres) or a certain number of
paces, usually 3, over red-hot ploughshares or holding a red-hot iron. Innocence
was sometimes established by a complete lack of injury, but it was more common
for the wound to be bandaged and re-examined 3 days later by a priest, who would
pronounce that God had intervened to heal it, or that it was merely festering—in
which case the suspect would be exiled or put to death. One famous story about
the ordeal of ploughshares concerns the Anglo-Saxon King Edward the Confessor's
mother, Emma of Normandy. According to legend, she was accused of adultery with Bishop Ælfwine of
Winchester, but proved her innocence by walking barefoot unharmed over burning ploughshares
4
The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing Evidence relevant to the validity of polygraph testing can
come from two main sources: basic scientific knowledge about the processes the polygraph measures
and the factors influencing those processes, and applied research that assesses the criterion validity or
accuracy of polygraph tests in particular settings. This chapter considers the first kind of evidence; the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.

We begin by discussing the importance of establishing a solid scientific basis, including empirically
supported theory, for detection of deception by polygraph testing. We then present the main
arguments that have been used to provide theoretical support for polygraph testing and evaluate them
in relation to current understanding of human psychological and physiological responses. We also
consider arguments based on current knowledge of psychology and physiology that raise questions
about the validity of inferences of deception made from polygraph measures. We conclude with an
assessment of the strength of the scientific base for polygraph testing.National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH To an investigator interested in practical lie detection, basic science may
seem irrelevant. The essential question is whether a technique works in practice: whether it provides
information about guilty or deceptive individuals that cannot be obtained from other available techniques.
As Chapter 2 makes clear, however, it can be very difficult in field situations National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.

to determine scientifically whether or how well the polygraph (or any other technique for the
psychophysiological detection of deception) “works.” The appropriate criterion of validity can be
slippery; truth is often hard to determine; and it is difficult to disentangle the roles of physiological
responses, interrogators’ skill, and examinees’ beliefs in order to make clear attributions of practical
results to the validity of the test. Given all these confounding factors in the case evidence, even the most
compelling anecdotes from practitioners do not constitute significant scientific evidence.National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
Evidence of scientific validity is essential to give confidence that a test measures what it is supposed to
measure. Such evidence comes in part from scientifically collected data on the diagnostic accuracy of a test
with certain examiners and examinees. Evidence of accuracy is critical to test validation because it can
demonstrate that the test works well under specific conditions in which it is likely to be applied. Evidence of
accuracy is not sufficient, however, to give confidence that a test will work well across all examiners,
examinees, and situations, including those in which it has not been applied. National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
This limitation is important whenever a test is used in a situation or on a population of examinees for which
accuracy data are not available and especially when scientific knowledge suggests that the test may not
perform in the same way in the new situation or with the new population. This limitation of accuracy data is
particularly serious for polygraph security screening because the main target populations, such as spies and
terrorists, have not been and cannot easily be subjected to systematic testing. Confidence in polygraph
testing, especially for security screening, therefore also requires evidence of its construct validity, which
depends, as we have noted, on an explicit and empirically supported theory of the mechanisms that connect
test results to the phenomenon they purport to be diagnosing. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
For polygraph lie detection, scientific validity rests on the strength of evidence supporting all the inferential
links between deception and the test results. Inferences from polygraph tests presume that deception on
relevant questions uniquely causes certain psychological states different from those caused by comparison
questions, that those states are tied to certain physiological concomitants, that those physiological responses
are the ones measured by the polygraph instrument, that polygraph scoring systems reflect the
deception-relevant aspects of the physiological responses, and that the interpretation of the polygraph scores
is appropriate for making the discrimination between deception and truthfulness.1 Inferences also presume
that factors unrelated to deception do not interfere with this chain of inference so as to create false test
results that misdiagnose the deceptive as truthful or vice versa.National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10

Are the procedures used to measure the physiological changes said to be associated with deception
standardized and scientifically valid?2Does the act of deception reliably cause identifiable changes in the
physiological processes the polygraph measures (e.g., electrodermal, cardiovascular)?National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
is deception the only psychological state that would cause these physiological changes in the context of the
polygraph test?Does the type of lie (rehearsed, spontaneous) affect the nature of the physiological changes?If
the correlation between deception and the physiological response is not perfect, what are the mechanisms by
which a truthful response can produce a false positive?Considering such mechanisms, how can the test
procedure minimize the chances of false positive results?National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.

If the correlation between deception and the physiological response is not perfect, what are the
mechanisms by which a deceptive response could produce a false negative result (i.e., mechanisms that
would allow for effective countermeasures)?Page 68Suggested Citation:"3 The Scientific Basis for
Polygraph Testing." National Research Council. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10420.×SaveCancelConsidering such mechanisms,
how can the test procedure minimize the chances of false negative results?Are the mechanisms relating
deception to physiological responses universal for all people who might be examined, or do they operate
differently in different kinds of people or in different situations? Is it possible that measured
physiological responses do not always have the same meaning or that a test that works for some kinds of
examinees or situations will fail with others?National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003.
The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
THEORIES OF POLYGRAPH TESTING
Polygraph specialists have engaged in extensive debate about theories of polygraph questioning and
responding in the context of a controversy about the validity of comparison question versus concealed
information test formats. We are more impressed with the similarities among polygraph testing techniques
than with the differences, although some of the differences are important, as we note at appropriate places
in this and the following chapters. The most important similarities concern the physiological responses
measured by the polygraph instrument, which are es-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
Polygraph QuestioningPolygraph practice is built on comparing physiological responses to questions that
are considered relevant to the investigation at hand, which evoke a lie from someone who is being
deceptive, with responses to comparison questions to which the person responds in a presumably known
way (e.g., tells the truth or a probable or directed lie). The responses are compared only for one individual
because it is recognized that there are individual differences in basal physiological functioning,
physiological reactivity, and physiological response hierarchies (for more information, see Davidson and
Irwin, 1999; Cacioppo et al., 2000; Kosslyn et al., 2002). Because of individual differences, the absolute
magnitude of an individual’s physiological response to a relevant question cannot be a valid indicator of
the truthfulness of a response.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The
Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.
Psychophysiological Responses

Polygraph testing is based on the presumptions that deception and truthfulness reliably elicit different
psychological states across examinees and that physiological reactions differ reliably across examinees as
a function of those psychological states. Comparison questions are designed to produce known truthful or
deceptive responses and therefore to produce physiological responses that can be compared with
responses to relevant questions to detect deception or truthfulness. To have a well-supported theory of
psychophysiological detection of deception, it is therefore nec-National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420.