Everyone agrees that the examiner, and not the machine, is the most important factor in

reaching "reliable" results. It is up to the examiner to determine the suitability of the subject
for testing, to formulate the proper test questions, to establish the necessary rapport with the
subject, to detect attempts to mask or create reactions on the chart, and to interpret the
charts.

The polygraph is a machine that records and graphs three or four physical responses. These
are galvanic skin response (sweating of the palms), the mean of the systolic and diastolic
blood pressures, respiration rate, and sometimes changes in the blood flow in the tip of the
index finger. These responses are measured by instruments placed on the subject being
tested, and are made visible by simultaneous and continuous recording on a chart.

The machine which connects the subject and the chart does not detect deception. Rather,
the examiner studies the readings which are interpreted as giving indications of deception.
The underlying theory of polygraphy is that conscious effort at deception by a rational
individual causes involuntary and uncontrollable physiological responses that include
measurable reactions in the bodily functions being monitored.

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been

controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence
that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An
honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest
person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate
the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and
Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be
impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's
very difficult to know what the truth is.

A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-

like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the
actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses.
One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects
who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess
or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie
detector might be better called a fear detector.

Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public

controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is
little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United
States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's
research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the
use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability.
Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial
settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the
veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on
probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking
to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of
circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.

The Truth About Lie Detectors

(aka Polygraph Tests)
https://www.apa.org/research/ac
tion/polygraph
Developments in the Law of Scientific Evidence: The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence

https://digitalcommons.pepperdi
ne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1402&context=naalj