Psychology and the Lie detector Industry: A Fifty-Year Perspective

Fifty years ago, in a trenchant analysis that challenged applied lie detection theory and science, David Lykken (1974) brought polygraphic interrogation methods to the attention of academia with the hope that these techniques would come under the purview of psychology and psychophysiology. In this perspective, I examine how this application of psychophysiology has evolved over the last half century and how its status has changed for 1) the comparison (control) question test (CQT), used in forensic applications; 2) polygraph screening tests, used to evaluate examinee integrity; and 3) the concealed information technique (CIT), used to assess recognition memory of crime details. The criticisms of the CQT and screening tests advanced by Lykken have been amplified and focused by the academic community over the last half century. However, this has had little effect on how these methods are practiced and has not curtailed their use. Although most private sector employee screening tests are now prohibited, personnel screening of government employees has increased, and screening tests of sex offenders are now commonplace. Even though the CIT has captured the interest of psychophysiologists as a scientifically defensible technique, its field use is negligible. A primary purpose of polygraphic interrogations continues to be the extraction of admissions and confessions. The lack of change in the polygraph testing status quo stems in large part from unwavering government support for the use of these methods. As a result, polygraph theory and research support continues to rest on shaky ground while practice continues unfettered by valid criticism.