guest,

My reference is to a peer-reviewed study by Charles R. Honts, David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher: "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 (1994), No. 2, pp. 252-59. The abstract is included in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:


George:  What is the "available research" you speak of here.

Mental countermeasures are discussed in Chapter 4 (at pp. 149-50 of the 3rd edition). The available research suggests that mental countermeasures are as effective as tongue biting. Mental countermeasures have the added advantage of being in principle the most difficult to attempt to detect.

George, thanks for the input. I did read most of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, but I don't remember coming accross mental countermeasures. How do those work, and I guess you guys have seen that they work as good (or better) than physical countermeasures?

It is certainly possible that a polygrapher might suspect countermeasures if reactions to "control" questions appear to be unusually strong.

In The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we suggest using pronounced but submaximal effort if the anal sphincter contraction is chosen, and if tongue-biting is chosen, that it be done hard enough to produce moderate pain.

Another alternative (and perhaps a better one) would be to choose mental countermeasures.

I'm wondering if one can try too hard to produce a response, when trying CMs. For example, when using a CM should you just "lightly" squeeze or bite your tongue? Or should you bite the hell out of the thing, hoping to get a high response on the machine? 

I'm wondering if too high of a response indicates that CMs are being used, and that a lighter bite or squeeze may produce a better, more realistic result. 

Any ideas?