Check out this answer from Consensus:
The effectiveness of lie detector tests varies significantly depending on the method used. Traditional polygraph tests have been criticized for their high rate of false positives and questionable reliability. In contrast, cognitive approaches and technological innovations show promise, with some methods achieving high accuracy rates. However, no single technique has proven to be infallible, and the quest for a reliable lie detection method continues. Practitioners should consider the strengths and limitations of each approach and remain cautious in their application of lie detection technologies.
Lie detection has long fascinated both the public and professionals in various fields, from law enforcement to psychology. The quest to distinguish truth from deception has led to the development of numerous techniques, ranging from traditional polygraph tests to more modern cognitive and technological approaches. This article explores the efficacy of these methods, drawing on recent research to assess whether lie detector tests truly work.
Traditional Polygraph Tests
The polygraph, commonly known as the lie detector, measures physiological responses such as heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductivity while a subject answers questions. The underlying assumption is that deceptive answers will produce distinct physiological responses. However, the reliability of polygraph tests has been widely debated.
Predictive Power and Accuracy
Research indicates that the polygraph’s predictive value is often poor, with a high rate of false positives. This means that many truthful individuals are incorrectly classified as liars, which raises significant ethical and practical concerns5. Additionally, the polygraph’s accuracy can be compromised by various factors, including the subject’s psychological state and the examiner’s biases6.
Cognitive Approaches to Lie Detection
Recent advancements in cognitive psychology have introduced new methods for lie detection that focus on the cognitive load and verbal behavior of the subject.
Cognitive Load Techniques
A meta-analysis of cognitive lie detection techniques, which include imposing cognitive load, encouraging detailed responses, and asking unexpected questions, has shown promising results. These methods have demonstrated superior accuracy in detecting both truths and lies compared to traditional approaches, with overall detection rates reaching 71%1.
Response Time and Consistency
Another cognitive method, known as time-restricted integrity confirmation (Tri-Con), uses response time and answer consistency as indicators of deception. Studies have shown that this method can achieve classification accuracies as high as 89%, suggesting that cognitive-based lie detectors could be a reliable alternative to polygraphs4.
Nonverbal and Verbal Cues
The analysis of nonverbal behavior and speech patterns is another area of interest in lie detection research. While people often believe they can detect lies through body language and facial expressions, empirical evidence suggests that these cues are not always reliable.
Nonverbal Behavior
Research has shown that both professional lie detectors and laypersons struggle to accurately detect lies based on nonverbal cues alone. Accuracy rates are typically around 60%, which is only slightly better than chance2. This indicates that nonverbal behavior alone is not a reliable indicator of deception.
Verbal Cues
Verbal analysis, which involves scrutinizing the content and structure of a subject’s speech, can provide more reliable indicators of deception. However, the effectiveness of this approach varies, and there is no consensus on specific verbal cues that consistently indicate lying3.
Technological Innovations
Advancements in technology have led to the development of new lie detection methods that utilize brain activity and other physiological measures.
EEG and Fuzzy Reasoning
One innovative approach involves using electroencephalographic (EEG) variability and fuzzy reasoning to detect lies. This method has shown an accuracy rate of 89.5% in experimental settings, suggesting that it could be a viable alternative to traditional polygraph tests7.
Psychometric Scales
Another novel technique uses psychometric scales to predict deceptive behavior. For example, the Multivariable Multiaxial Suggestibility Inventory-2 (MMSI-2) has been used to detect lies with varying degrees of success, depending on the context and the specific scales employed8.
Do lie detector tests really work?
Gershon Ben-Shakhar has answered Unlikely
An expert from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Psychology
Two major methods of psychophysiological detection have been studied and applied for forensic investigation: The Comparison Questions Test (CQT), which is designed to detect deception directly, and the Concealed Information Test (CIT), designed to detect concealed knowledge. A comparison of the two methods, with respect to their theoretical basis, level of standardization, vulnerability to biases and criterion validity, reveals that only the CIT meets basic scientific standards, although its external validity has been questioned. While proponents of the CQT argue that this method is highly accurate, this claim cannot be supported by properly designed research Unfortunately, the CQT is widely used, especially in North America, while the CIT is rarely applied in most countries. The exception is Japan, where the CIT is the sole method used in forensic investigations. Currently, many research efforts are devoted to improve the CIT and enhance its potential application.
Do lie detector tests really work?
Don Grubin has answered Likely
An expert from Newcastle University in Psychiatry
It depends on what you mean by ‘work’, and presumably you are thinking about polygraph tests rather than the many different technologies and techniques used to determine if someone is deceptive. In the case of polygraphy, the instruments themselves don’t detect lies. Instead, they record involuntary responses to salient information which in the context of a polygraph test is interpreted as being indicative of deception or truthfulness.
The best evaluation of polygraph accuracy is probably still the 2003 National Research Council review which concluded that in single issue tests accuracy is between 81 and 91% using a comparison question technique (there are a number of different polygraph formats, but this is the most commonly used). Whether that is good enough to say polygraphy ‘works’ depends on the setting in which it is applied. It is certainly not accurate enough to base important decisions solely on a polygraph result, but it is accurate enough to assist in decision making provided the decision maker is aware of the error rate.
Do lie detector tests really work?
M T Bradley has answered Likely
An expert from University of New Brunswick in Cognitive Science
It depends on the method and the operator. The Concealed Information Test (CIT) is effective provided a) the criminal remembers details of the crime b) the investigator knows those details c) reasonable questions are formulated. The more popular Comparison Question Test (CQT) just requires a suspect aware that a crime was committed. In theory, guilty suspects respond to the specific crime related questions, whereas innocent suspects respond to generally incriminating questions. Scientists tend to advocate CIT in part because they believe CQT is transparent. In a ranking study (MacNeill & Bradley, 2014), although not definitive, there was a tendency for innocent participants to rate comparison questions highly.