Instructions are attached
Response to peers
Your response should either add to their summary or respectfully challenge their position based on information that you have found in a peer-reviewed journal article. Your reply post should consist of 300 to 400 words. The use of quotations is not allowed. Please upload a copy of your article with your reply post. Points will be earned for proper grammar, spelling, organization, length, citations, content of the knowledge, reasoning, and APA citation and referencing.
Peers post:
James
A Polygraph machine is designed to detect physiological changes in an individual when answering questions. This is based on the belief that lying induces reactions such as increased heart rate and skin conductance (Fiedler, 2002). These ‘deceptive’ responses are then interpreted by a polygraph examiner, who will conclude the individual’s truthfulness. But just how useful or dependable are these polygraphs?
Numerous studies suggest that polygraphs can be useful. For example, a meta-analysis by the American Polygraph Association revealed an average accuracy rate of 87% Nelson, R. (2015), (APA, 2011). This implies that polygraph tests can detect dishonesty moderately accurately when administered correctly. Also, it shows the instrument’s usefulness in situations where the truth is critical, such as criminal investigations.
On the contrary, other studies dispute these claims. For example, Iacono’s (2001) research found that polygraph tests’ accuracy rate dropped to about 65% when testing real-world individuals who were initiative-taking to beat the test, displaying the limitations of the polygraph in certain situations.
Moreover, there are also concerns about the subjectivity in interpreting polygraph results. Since human examiners interpret the results, they are prone to biases and errors. This implies that a person’s fate could be unfairly decided based on an examiner’s potentially subjective or mistaken interpretation (Ben-Shakhar et al, 2002).
Furthermore, polygraph tests are not foolproof; they can be beaten or manipulated. Techniques such as physical countermeasures (e.g., manipulating one’s breath or tensing muscles) and psychological countermeasures (e.g., altering one’s mindset) can confound the polygraph results’ accuracy (Honts et al, 1996). This situation further casts doubts on the reliability of the polygraph as an evaluation tool.
At some point, it is impossible to overlook the ethical concerns raised using polygraphs. Is it just moral to rely on major choices—like hiring decisions or court rulings—on a tool that is far from perfect? Especially considering that the psychological stress induced by polygraphs can hurt innocent individuals (National Research Council, 2003).
Finally, polygraph-based evaluations can offer some reflection into an individual’s truthfulness, being not entirely dependable or without limitations. Future studies in technology and ethical considerations will further decide its continued application. That is why the polygraph should only be used sensibly, keeping in mind any possible disadvantages and effects of use.
References:
Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., & Kremnitzer, M. (2002). Trial by polygraph: Reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge technique in court.
Law and Human Behavior,
26(5), 527–541.
Links to an external site.
Fiedler, K., Schmid, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection?
Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
24(4), 313–324.
Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., Winbush, M., & Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests.
Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(4),410–423.
Links to an external site.
Iacono, W. G. (2001). Forensic “lie detection.”: Procedures without scientific basis.
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice,
1(1), 75–86.
National Research Council. (2003). The Polygraph and lie detection. National Academies Press.
Nelson, R. (2015). 2015 update to the APA 2011 Meta-Analytic Survey of validated polygraph techniques.
Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice, 319–333.
