Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Racial biases in polygraphs and their legal implications

Nature Human Behaviour volume 9, pages 3–4 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Widely used in research since the 1800s, SCR (also known as the galvanic skin response or electrodermal activity) measures changes in the electrical conductivity of the skin due to sweat gland activity. SCR has historically been considered a ‘gold standard’ for the objective biological measurement of fear and anxiety. However, myriad emotional, cognitive and physical factors can influence sweating and thereby SCR magnitude, which demonstrates it indexes general arousal. Individuals may exhibit increased SCR when stressed (for example, being deceptive or simply attempting to understand a difficult question) or for reasons unrelated to stress (for example, positive emotions such as happiness or non-emotional processes such as focusing attention4). As such, SCR has inherently poor specificity and discriminant validity as a measure of anxiety5.

Since the 1920s, SCR has been a major component of polygraph testing, which has entrenched it in the criminal legal system4. Currently, polygraph examinations remain controversial owing to concerns about reliability and validity. Although judges have substantial discretion over whether polygraph results can be presented to the jury6, about half of US states still allow polygraph evidence with stipulated agreement by both the defence and prosecution before administering the test. Furthermore, polygraph examinations are also widely accepted as evidence in criminal cases across Europe, in civil cases in China and for all cases in Colombia6. Polygraphs are also used at earlier stages of law enforcement to verify witness statements and to justify further interrogation of suspects6, and at later stages to track progress under court supervision (for example, monitoring of individuals convicted of a sexual offence).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Bradford, D. E. et al. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 12, 237–252 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Webb, E. K., Etter, J. A. & Kwasa, J. A. Nat. Neurosci. 25, 410–414 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Perkins, E. R., Bradford, D. E., Verona, E., Hamilton, R. H. & Joyner, K. J. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 10, 279–286 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Saxe, L., Dougherty, D. & Cross, T. Am. Psychol. 40, 355–366 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lonsdorf, T. B. et al. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 77, 247–285 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Honts, C. R., Thurber, S. & Handler, M. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 35, 411–427 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carson, E. A. & Golinelli, D. Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991–2012 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013).

  8. Nellis, A. Law Soc. Rev. 57, 124–125 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Najdowski, C. J., Bottoms, B. L. & Goff, P. A. Law Hum. Behav. 39, 463–477 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bernstein, D. E. Cardozo L. Rev. 15, 2139 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge a postdoctoral fellowship from the Mind Center for Outreach, Research, and Education (MindCORE) at the University of Pennsylvania (E.R.P.)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychological Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

    Freya Whittaker, Steven M. Sanders & Daniel E. Bradford

  2. Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Angelica DeFalco

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Emily R. Perkins

  4. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Keanan J. Joyner

Authors
  1. Freya Whittaker
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angelica DeFalco
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven M. Sanders
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily R. Perkins
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keanan J. Joyner
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel E. Bradford
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Freya Whittaker or Daniel E. Bradford.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whittaker, F., DeFalco, A., Sanders, S.M. et al. Racial biases in polygraphs and their legal implications. Nat Hum Behav 9, 3–4 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02025-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02025-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing