trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Polygraph tests reliably distinguish truthful from deceptive statements.

the verdict
CONTESTED PARTIAL
Recorded sources
1 source for · 2 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that Polygraph tests reliably distinguish truthful from deceptive statements?

Partly. One meta-analysis of the Concealed Information Test, a polygraph procedure used in Japan, reports large effect sizes for detecting concealed memories, while another study notes that traditional polygraph examinations have well-documented limitations and achieved 88.2% accuracy in a laboratory comparison. Neither settles whether polygraph tests reliably distinguish truthful from deceptive statements in general.

Verdict: CONTESTED PARTIAL · 1 source for, 2 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 1
実験 Concealed Information Test（CIT）の外的妥当性について ―メタ分析による実務と実験の比較，皮膚電気活動を焦点に―
Get citation
実験 Concealed Information Test（CIT）の外的妥当性について ―メタ分析による実務と実験の比較，皮膚電気活動を焦点に―. (n.d.). cir.nii.ac.jp. https://doi.org/10.3408/jafst.19.9

Evidence against · 2
Evaluating eye-tracking as a method for deception detection against the polygraph as deployed in practice
2026
Get citation
Celniak, W., Słapczyńska, D., Jarszak, B., & Augustyniak, P. (2026). Evaluating eye-tracking as a method for deception detection against the polygraph as deployed in practice. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-55344-9

See more details
More against · 1
Ocular-Motor Deception Testing in Civilly Detained Sexually Violent Persons: An Alternative to Post-Conviction Sex Offender Polygraph Testing?
2022
Get citation
C., M. J., W., S. J., & Gina, A. (2022). Ocular-Motor Deception Testing in Civilly Detained Sexually Violent Persons: An Alternative to Post-Conviction Sex Offender Polygraph Testing?. eric.ed.gov. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3895

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work