An experimental study of field techniques in lie detection

Barland's 1972 dissertation research examined whether field polygraph techniques could differentiate truth from deception in a controlled experimental setting using a mock crime paradigm with real monetary stakes. The study found that zone comparison control question techniques, particularly electrodermal measures, effectively discriminated between guilty and innocent subjects in both semi-objective field scoring and quantitative numerical scoring methods.

Seventy-two volunteers (36 guilty, 36 innocent) participated in a realistic mock crime scenario with monetary incentives, followed by zone comparison control question polygraph examinations using a Keeler field polygraph instrument. Five examiners conducted blind evaluations of charts using both field-type and quantitative scoring approaches.

This watershed study bridged the gap between artificial laboratory experiments and unvalidated field practice by creating a realistic mock crime paradigm with genuine psychological stakes. Using actual field equipment and procedures, 72 University of Utah psychology students were randomly assigned to guilty or innocent conditions and underwent zone comparison control question polygraph examinations. Results demonstrated that field techniques, particularly electrodermal measures, could effectively discriminate deception in a controlled setting. The dual scoring methodology—comparing practical field scoring against quantitative numerical analysis—validated both approaches. The study became foundational to polygraph validation research and has been cited extensively in subsequent meta-analyses examining control question analog studies.

This research provided critical empirical support for the validity of zone comparison control question techniques used in field practice, establishing that laboratory-validated procedures could be applied reliably by examiners. The findings elevated polygraph science from practitioner-based knowledge to rigorous empirical validation, influencing future research standards and contributing to legal acceptance of polygraph evidence in certain contexts.

Background & Context

Gordon Barland's 1972 dissertation research at the University of Utah, published in Psychophysiology in 1975 with David Raskin, represents a watershed moment in polygraph science. This study emerged during a critical period when the polygraph field was transitioning from purely practitioner-based knowledge to rigorous empirical validation.

At the time, the research was based on Barland's thesis submitted for his M.A. degree at the University of Utah, conducted under the mentorship of David Raskin, one of the pioneers of scientific polygraph research. The study addressed a fundamental question: Could the field techniques commonly used by polygraph examiners actually differentiate truth from deception in a controlled experimental setting that closely mimicked real-world conditions?

This research was groundbreaking because it attempted to bridge the gap between laboratory experiments (often criticized as artificial) and field practice (criticized for lacking scientific rigor). By creating a "mock crime" paradigm with real monetary stakes and field-style procedures, Barland sought to provide the most realistic experimental test of polygraph validity available at that time.

Research Design & Methodology

Seventy-two volunteers from introductory psychology courses at the University of Utah received extra course credit for serving as subjects, assigned to experimental conditions according to a predetermined random schedule, with thirty-six subjects "guilty" of taking $10 and thirty-six subjects "innocent." The use of monetary incentives was crucial for creating genuine psychological stakes.

A field-type interview was followed by a zone comparison control-question polygraph examination, and a Keeler field polygraph was used to record physiological activity with both field (semi-objective) and quantitative evaluations of charts. This dual scoring approach allowed for comparison between how examiners actually score tests in practice versus more objective numerical methods.

Key methodological features included:

• Realistic crime scenario: Guilty subjects actually took money, creating genuine deception
• Zone comparison technique: The control question test format widely used in field practice
• Field equipment and procedures: Use of actual Keeler polygraph instruments
• Multiple channels: Recording of electrodermal, cardiovascular, and respiratory measures
• Blind evaluation: Five polygraph examiners devoted considerable time to blind evaluation of the charts

Results & Key Findings

The study demonstrated that field techniques and equipment were effective in differentiating truth and deception in a laboratory setting. While the published abstract provides limited numerical detail, the research became one of the foundational studies in polygraph validation research.

According to subsequent meta-analyses that included this study, accuracy of detection differed sizably between control question analog studies using students as subjects and other control question analog studies, with experiments using students showing lower percentages of correct decisions for both guilty and innocent, and more false negatives and false positives.

Critical findings included:

• Successful demonstration that zone comparison control question technique could discriminate between guilty and innocent subjects
• Electrodermal (skin conductance) measures proved to be particularly effective indicators
• Skin conductance response was found to be the most accurate indicator of deception both in the laboratory and in field studies
• Both semi-objective field scoring and quantitative numerical scoring showed validity

The study contributed important data showing that mock crime experiments, when properly designed with adequate motivation and realistic procedures, could provide meaningful information about polygraph test validity.

Discussion & Significance

This research became one of the most frequently cited polygraph validation studies and was included in every major review of polygraph accuracy, including the 1983 Office of Technology Assessment report and the 2003 National Research Council review. Its significance lies in demonstrating that controlled experimental research on the polygraph was both feasible and informative.

The highest diagnostic accuracies were obtained from nonstudent subject samples, when both guilty and innocent subjects were offered monetary incentives, and when conventional field methods were used, highlighting the importance of conducting mock crime experiments that closely approximate field conditions. This finding influenced subsequent research design for decades.

The study validated the zone comparison technique developed by practitioners and showed that the control question test, despite theoretical criticisms, could produce discrimination between truthful and deceptive subjects when properly administered. It also demonstrated the value of quantitative scoring methods alongside traditional examiner interpretation.

Limitations & Considerations

As with all analog research, the study faced inherent limitations in generalizing to real criminal investigations. The subjects were college students motivated by course credit and a modest monetary reward, not actual criminal suspects facing serious consequences. The "crime" was a simulated theft with no real moral or legal implications.

Experiments using students as subjects had lower percentages of correct decisions for both guilty and innocent, and more false negatives and false positives, though it was unclear whether this difference was attributable to the nature of the subjects or other characteristics of the experiments.

Additional limitations include:

• Limited ecological validity despite efforts to simulate field conditions
• Sample size restrictions that limited statistical power for subgroup analyses
• Inability to verify ground truth in the same way field studies must rely on confessions or case resolution
• Potential for selection bias among student volunteers

Practical Applications

This study provided critical empirical support for the zone comparison control question technique, which remains one of the most widely used polygraph formats in criminal investigation today. The research demonstrated that the physiological differentiation theory underlying the control question test had experimental support, giving practitioners evidence-based confidence in their methods.

For polygraph examiners, the study validated the importance of proper test construction, adequate pre-test interviews, and careful physiological recording. It also showed that numerical scoring could supplement or enhance traditional chart interpretation, paving the way for later computerized scoring systems. For consumers and policymakers, the research provided important but nuanced evidence: polygraphs could work under controlled conditions, but questions about real-world accuracy and appropriate applications remained.