바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.2
Citation Share

Validity of the basic assumption underlying the comparison question technique(CQT) for forensic lie detection

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2009, v.28 no.2, pp.471-484


& (2009). Validity of the basic assumption underlying the comparison question technique(CQT) for forensic lie detection. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 28(2), 471-484.
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Comparison Question Technique (CQT) is the method of forensic lie detection that is the most widely used in Korea. CQT is based on the basic assumption that the psychophysiological responses vary depending on whether the subject receives a relevant or a comparison question and whether the subject is telling a lie or the truth. The present study tested the basic assumption underlying the use of CQT by means of a chi-square test for the goodness-of-fit between the false positive rates as expected by Lykken (1988, 1998) and those as estimated from actual data. The false positive rates in actual data were estimated to be generally low in the range of 1% to 7%. On the other hand, Lykken (1988, 1998) expected them to be in the range of 39.5% to 47%. Our analyses indicate that Lykken severely overestimated the false positive rates of CQT and as a result, the basic assumption underlying the use of CQT as a method of lie detection is not as ill-founded as Lykken proposed. The limitations of the present study and further studies to establish the validity of the rationales underlying CQT were discussed.

keywords
polygraph test, comparison question technique(CQT), logical validity, false alarm rate, 거짓말탐지검사, 비교질문검사(CQT), CQT의 논리적 타당성, 오류긍정 비율

Reference

1.

한유화, 박광배 (2008). 범죄수사를 위한 거짓말탐지 검사(polygraph test)의 판정기준과 정확성. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 14(4), 103-117.

2.

Backster, C. (1963). The Backster chart reliability rating method. Law and Order, 1, 63-64.

3.

Ben-Shakhar, G. & Furedy, J. J. (1990). Theories and Applications in the Detection of Deception: A Psychophysiological and International Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.

4.

Elaad., E. (2003). Is the inference rule of the “control question polygraph technique” plausible? Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 37-47.

5.

Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108-115.

6.

Horvath, F. (1988). The utility of control questions and the effects of two control questions types in field polygraph technique. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 198-209.

7.

Lykken, D. T. (1988). The case against polygraph testing. In: A. Gale (Ed.), The Polygraph Test: lies, truth and science. London: Sage.

8.

Lykken, D. T. (1998). A Tremor in the blood. Uses and abuses of the lie detector. Second edition. New York: Plenum Trade.

9.

Offe, H., & Offe, S. (2007). The comparison question test: Does it work and if so how? Law and Human Behavior, 31, 291-303.

10.

Raskin, D. C. (1986). The polygraph in 1986: Scientific, professional, and legal issues surrounding applications and acceptance of polygraph evidence. Utah Law Review, 1986, 29-74.

11.

Raskin, D. C. (1987). Methodological issues in estimating polygraph accuracy in field applications. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 389-404.

12.

Reid, J. E. (1947). A revised questioning technique in lie detection tests. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 37, 542-547.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy