In the hands of someone without proper training, a lie detector can do more harm than good. A polygraph expert from the VB Psychophysiology Laboratory explained to socialbites.ca that home-use tests often do not reflect actual truth. This perspective comes from research and practice observed at the Shvyrkova Institute of Psychology RAS, where Andrey Uchaev has contributed insights.
Research indicates that an untrained person has about a 50% accuracy rate in lie detection. When a person undergoes focused training, such as in profiling techniques, the accuracy can rise to roughly 75–80% (VB Psychophysiology Laboratory; observed in related studies).
Experts note that the effectiveness of a polygraph test generally falls in the 90–95% range, yet this level hinges on who administers the examination. The critical factor is the examiner’s qualifications. In many regions, including Russia, there are no strict prerequisites for the person conducting the test beyond higher education and some additional training (as cited by the same laboratory). This creates a situation where individuals may seek polygraph services without a solid foundation in psychology or physiology, which are the fields that truly govern how polygraphs operate. Ideally, the examiner would be a psychophysiologist who understands both mental processes and bodily responses—an integration of psychology and physiology that informs interpretation (VB Psychophysiology Laboratory; Uchaev commentary).
There are additional concerns about home polygraph devices. When such tools are used without professional guidance, the readings can be misinterpreted, potentially straining personal relationships. The consensus among researchers and clinicians highlighted by Uchaev is that professional assessment remains the most reliable path for anyone seeking to understand lie-detection results (Andrey Uchaev; VB Psychophysiology Laboratory).
Some researchers affiliated with Moscow State University have described a growing interest in behavior analysis through video analysis, signaling another direction in understanding human responses. This broader context helps frame why expert interpretation matters and why relying on consumer devices is not recommended for important decisions (MSU researchers; VB Psychophysiology Laboratory).”