The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court: Some Empirical Findings
Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature, The que...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Law and human behavior 1980-03, Vol.4 (1-2), p.117-131 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 131 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1-2 |
| container_start_page | 117 |
| container_title | Law and human behavior |
| container_volume | 4 |
| creator | Cavoukian, Ann Heslegrave, Ronald J |
| description | Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature, The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in "blind acceptance." The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/BF01040487 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_914686885</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1393498</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1393498</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a287t-6f667e04c5918938fd5e17b1e52114d8381fbdd5f15ad55c4a2d30963b1a2c503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10M1Lw0AQBfBFFKzVi2cPQfEiRmeynznW0qpQ0EMFb8sm2diUNIm7qZD_3pQovehpDu_HezCEnCPcIYC8f5gDAgOm5AEZIZc0FALfD8kIkMlQUpDH5MT7NQDECviIwHJlg0m2KbwvkqIs2i6o8-C1LrsPZ5pVMPsqMlulNiiqYFpvXXtKjnJTenv2c8fkbT5bTp_Cxcvj83SyCE2kZBuKXAhpgaU8RhVTlWfcokzQ8giRZYoqzJMs4zlyk3GeMhNlFGJBEzRRyoGOyeXQ27j6c2t9q9f9fNVP6hiZUEIp3qOr_xBGsRSKRdGu6mZQqau9dzbXjSs2xnUaQe_epvdv6_HFgNe-rd1e0piyWPXx7RCbxujGd6lxbZGW1qdb52zV6nKVaKZRRxpx13b9N_914eC-Afmiggg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>914686885</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court: Some Empirical Findings</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Cavoukian, Ann ; Heslegrave, Ronald J</creator><contributor>Sales, Bruce D</contributor><creatorcontrib>Cavoukian, Ann ; Heslegrave, Ronald J ; Sales, Bruce D</creatorcontrib><description>Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature, The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in "blind acceptance." The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0147-7307</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-661X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF01040487</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, N.Y: Plenum Publishing Corp</publisher><subject>Adjudication ; Empirical evidence ; Estimate reliability ; Guilty verdicts ; Human ; Inadmissible evidence ; Juries ; Jurors ; Legal evidence ; Legal Processes ; Not guilty ; Polygraph testing ; Polygraphs ; Psychometrics ; Social Acceptance</subject><ispartof>Law and human behavior, 1980-03, Vol.4 (1-2), p.117-131</ispartof><rights>1980 Plenum Publishing</rights><rights>1980 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright 1980 Plenum Publishing Corporation</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a287t-6f667e04c5918938fd5e17b1e52114d8381fbdd5f15ad55c4a2d30963b1a2c503</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a287t-6f667e04c5918938fd5e17b1e52114d8381fbdd5f15ad55c4a2d30963b1a2c503</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27868,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Sales, Bruce D</contributor><creatorcontrib>Cavoukian, Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heslegrave, Ronald J</creatorcontrib><title>The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court: Some Empirical Findings</title><title>Law and human behavior</title><description>Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature, The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in "blind acceptance." The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law.</description><subject>Adjudication</subject><subject>Empirical evidence</subject><subject>Estimate reliability</subject><subject>Guilty verdicts</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Inadmissible evidence</subject><subject>Juries</subject><subject>Jurors</subject><subject>Legal evidence</subject><subject>Legal Processes</subject><subject>Not guilty</subject><subject>Polygraph testing</subject><subject>Polygraphs</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Social Acceptance</subject><issn>0147-7307</issn><issn>1573-661X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1980</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp10M1Lw0AQBfBFFKzVi2cPQfEiRmeynznW0qpQ0EMFb8sm2diUNIm7qZD_3pQovehpDu_HezCEnCPcIYC8f5gDAgOm5AEZIZc0FALfD8kIkMlQUpDH5MT7NQDECviIwHJlg0m2KbwvkqIs2i6o8-C1LrsPZ5pVMPsqMlulNiiqYFpvXXtKjnJTenv2c8fkbT5bTp_Cxcvj83SyCE2kZBuKXAhpgaU8RhVTlWfcokzQ8giRZYoqzJMs4zlyk3GeMhNlFGJBEzRRyoGOyeXQ27j6c2t9q9f9fNVP6hiZUEIp3qOr_xBGsRSKRdGu6mZQqau9dzbXjSs2xnUaQe_epvdv6_HFgNe-rd1e0piyWPXx7RCbxujGd6lxbZGW1qdb52zV6nKVaKZRRxpx13b9N_914eC-Afmiggg</recordid><startdate>198003</startdate><enddate>198003</enddate><creator>Cavoukian, Ann</creator><creator>Heslegrave, Ronald J</creator><general>Plenum Publishing Corp</general><general>Plenum Publishing Corporation</general><general>Plenum Pub. Corp</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>SAAPM</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198003</creationdate><title>The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court</title><author>Cavoukian, Ann ; Heslegrave, Ronald J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a287t-6f667e04c5918938fd5e17b1e52114d8381fbdd5f15ad55c4a2d30963b1a2c503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1980</creationdate><topic>Adjudication</topic><topic>Empirical evidence</topic><topic>Estimate reliability</topic><topic>Guilty verdicts</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Inadmissible evidence</topic><topic>Juries</topic><topic>Jurors</topic><topic>Legal evidence</topic><topic>Legal Processes</topic><topic>Not guilty</topic><topic>Polygraph testing</topic><topic>Polygraphs</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Social Acceptance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cavoukian, Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heslegrave, Ronald J</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 42</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Law and human behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cavoukian, Ann</au><au>Heslegrave, Ronald J</au><au>Sales, Bruce D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court: Some Empirical Findings</atitle><jtitle>Law and human behavior</jtitle><date>1980-03</date><risdate>1980</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>1-2</issue><spage>117</spage><epage>131</epage><pages>117-131</pages><issn>0147-7307</issn><eissn>1573-661X</eissn><abstract>Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature, The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in "blind acceptance." The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law.</abstract><cop>New York, N.Y</cop><pub>Plenum Publishing Corp</pub><doi>10.1007/BF01040487</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0147-7307 |
| ispartof | Law and human behavior, 1980-03, Vol.4 (1-2), p.117-131 |
| issn | 0147-7307 1573-661X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_914686885 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES; Periodicals Index Online; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adjudication Empirical evidence Estimate reliability Guilty verdicts Human Inadmissible evidence Juries Jurors Legal evidence Legal Processes Not guilty Polygraph testing Polygraphs Psychometrics Social Acceptance |
| title | The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court: Some Empirical Findings |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T18%3A17%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Admissibility%20of%20Polygraph%20Evidence%20in%20Court:%20Some%20Empirical%20Findings&rft.jtitle=Law%20and%20human%20behavior&rft.au=Cavoukian,%20Ann&rft.date=1980-03&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=117&rft.epage=131&rft.pages=117-131&rft.issn=0147-7307&rft.eissn=1573-661X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF01040487&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1393498%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=914686885&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1393498&rfr_iscdi=true |