Myers Bryan, Latter Rachel, Abdollahi-Arena M Kathrine
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2006 Aug;30(4):509-23. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9041-0.
We sampled a total of 411 participants and randomly assigned them one of three brief trial vignettes that contained either no-polygraph evidence, evidence of a passed polygraph test, or evidence of a failed polygraph test. Participants rendered guilt judgments and answered a series of questions concerning the trial in particular, and polygraph tests in general. Similar to previous studies on the impact of polygraph evidence on jurors' guilt judgments, this sample of jury-eligible adults indicated that they did not find polygraph test evidence to be persuasive. Moreover, it mattered little to participants whether the results indicated the defendant passed a polygraph test, or that he failed a polygraph test. However, when our findings are compared to those of previous surveys involving experts in the field of psychophysiology, they differ in a number of important respects. The implications for decisions regarding admissibility (e.g., U.S. v. Alexander, 1975 and U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998) are discussed.
我们总共抽取了411名参与者，并将他们随机分配到三个简短的审判 vignettes 之一，其中一个 vignette 不包含测谎证据，一个包含测谎测试通过的证据，另一个包含测谎测试失败的证据。参与者做出有罪判断，并回答了一系列特别是关于审判以及一般而言关于测谎测试的问题。与之前关于测谎证据对陪审员有罪判断影响的研究类似，这个符合陪审员资格的成年人样本表明，他们认为测谎测试证据没有说服力。此外，对参与者来说，结果显示被告测谎测试通过还是未通过并不重要。然而，当我们的研究结果与之前涉及心理生理学领域专家的调查结果进行比较时，它们在一些重要方面存在差异。文中还讨论了这些结果对证据可采性决策（例如，美国诉亚历山大，1975年和美国诉谢弗，1998年）的影响。
