Poligraf i pouzdanost u psihološkom procenjivanju: Mit ili realnost
Ključne reči:
poligraf, psihološka procena, forenzičke nauke, psihološka pouzdanostApstrakt
Cilj ovog teksta je da pokaže da je svako tvrđenje ili zaključak o istinitosti nekog iskaza na osnovu poligrafa - tvrđenje visokog rizika. Kao što je dobro poznato, detektor laži detektuje autonomne reakcije subjekta na "kontrolna pitanja" koje nije lako kontrolisati svesno budući da uključuju telesne reakcije kao što je to srčana radnja, stepen respiracije (znojenja) krvni pritisak, dilatacija kapilara, mišićne pokrete etc. Pretpostavlja se da ove mere trebe da pokažu promtne, kratkotrajne reakcije na stres koji bi trebalo da izazovu teme važne za subjekta. Problem je u tome što na te reakcije može uticati strah, ljutnja ili iznenađenje, tako da parametri na poligrafu mogu pokazivati kao da neko laže, a u stvari mu ključne reči izazivaju emocionalne reakcije koje ne može da kontroliše i psihološki ulazi u poziciju žrtve. Obrnuto, sociopate koje su vične manipulacijama, mogu vešto "prevariti" poligraf budući da čin laganja u manipulativne svrhe psihopatama ne predstavlja nikakav problem.
Danas postoji solidna empirijska evidencija čiji rezultati pokazuju da upotreba poligrafa nema naučnu validnost i ne smatra se naučnom procedurom niti se rezultati dobijeni na poligrafu smatraju pouzdanim.
Profesor Erikson sa saradnicima objavio je 2007. kapitalni rad "Šarlatanstvo u forenzičkim naukama" (ref. Eriksson, A. and Lacerda, F. (2007). Charlantry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law. 14:2). Autori su analizirali rezultate pedesetogodišnjih istraživanja i iskustava sa poligrafom i došli do zaključka da ne postoji naučna evidencija da detektori laži daju korektne i pouzdane rezultate.
Prema zvaničnom saopštenju Američke asocijacije psihologa (APA: American Psychological Association) izdatom 5. avgusta 2004. i ponovljenom 14. avgusta 2013. "Poligraf ne daje korektne ni validne podatke."
Ergo, akumulirana istraživačka evidencija sugeriše da mašine tipa poligrafa ne detektuju neistine, statistički posmatrano, više nego "randomno".
Reference
Abrams, S., & Ogard, E. (1986). Polygraph surveillance of probationers. Polygraph, 15, 174–182.
Abrams, S., & Simmons, G. (2000). Post-conviction polygraph testing: Then and now. Polygraph, 29, 63–67.
American Psychological Association. (2013). The truth about lie detectors (aka polygraph tests). American Psychological Association.
Bashore, T. R., & Rapp, P. E. (1993). Are there alternatives to traditional polygraph procedures? Psychological Bulletin, 113, 3–22.
Ben-Shakhar, G., & Dolev, K. (1996). Psychophysiological detection through the Guilty Knowledge Technique: Effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273–281.
Ben-Shakhar, G., & Elaad, E. (2003). The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 131–151.
Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A critical review of the control questions test (CQT). In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 103–126). Academic Press.
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, 527–541.
British Psychological Society. (1986). Report of the working group on the use of the polygraph in criminal investigations and personnel screening. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, 81–94.
Bull, R. (1988). What is the lie-detection test? In A. Gale (Ed.), The polygraph test: Lies, truth and science (pp. 10–18). Sage.
Carroll, D. (1988). How accurate is polygraph lie detection? In A. Gale (Ed.), The polygraph test: Lies, truth and science (pp. 19–28). Sage.
Carroll, D. (1991). Lie detection: Lies and truths. In R. Cochrane & D. Carroll (Eds.), Psychology and social issues: A tutorial text (pp. 160–170). The Falmer Press.
Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. W. W. Norton & Company.
Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266.
Elaad, E. (2003). Is the inference rule of the control question polygraph technique plausible? Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 37–47.
Eriksson, A., & Lacerda, F. (2007). Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(2).
Fiedler, K., Schmid, J., & Stahl, T. (2002). What is the current truth about polygraph lie detection? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 313–324.
Grubin, D. (2002). The potential use of polygraph in forensic psychiatry. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12, 45–55.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1988). How to defeat the polygraph tests. In A. Gale (Ed.), The polygraph test: Truth, lies and science (pp. 126–136). Sage.
Heussen, Binkofski, & Jolij. (2010). The semantics of the lying face: An EEG study.
Hindman, J., & Peters, J. M. (2001). Polygraph testing leads to better understanding of adult and juvenile sex offenders. Federal Probation, 65, 8–15.
Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. L. (2002). Countermeasures. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 251–264). Academic Press.
Honts, C. R. (1991). The emperor’s new clothes: The application of polygraph tests in the American workplace. Forensic Reports, 4, 91–116.
Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1996). Polygrapher’s dilemma or psychologist’s: A reply to Furedy’s logicoethical considerations for psychophysiological practitioners and researchers. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 20, 199–207.
Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 2, pp. 446–483). West.
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252–259.
Kleiner, M. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of polygraph testing. Academic Press.
Kron, L. (2016). http://www.vreme.co.rs/ 2016-08-11
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of lie detection (2nd ed.). Plenum.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.
Morse, S. J. (2006). Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 397–397.
Morse, S. J. (2007). The non-problem of free will in forensic psychiatry and psychology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 203–216.
National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. National Academies Press.
Raskin, D. C. (1990). Polygraph techniques for the detection of deception. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigations and evidence (pp. 247–296). Springer.
Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 1–48). Academic Press.
Saxe, L. (1994). Detection of deception: Polygraph and integrity tests. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 69–73.
Stolle, D. P., & Wolpe, P. R. (2007). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the Fifth Amendment. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 359–369.
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Wiley.
Wilcox, D. (2000). Application of the clinical polygraph examination to the assessment, treatment and monitoring of sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 5, 134–152.
Wilcox, D. T., Sosnowski, D., & Middleton, D. (2000). Polygraphy and sex offenders. Forensic Update, 61, 20–25.
##submission.downloads##
Objavljeno
Kako citirati
Broj časopisa
Sekcija
Licenca
Ovaj rad je pod Creative Commons Autorstvo 4.0 Internacionalna licenca.
Autori zadržavaju autorska prava nad objavljenim radovima i daju izdavaču neeskluzivno pravo da objavi članak, da bude naveden kao njegov prvi izdavač u slučaju ponovne upotrebe i da ga distribuira u svim oblicima i medijima. Članci će biti distribuirani pod licencom Creative Commons Attribution International (CC BY 4.0), osim ako nije drugačije naznačeno.
