cat wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 8:25pm:


Cat,   

the Japanese are a very proud and socially oriented people.  In short, personal responsibility to the greater (social) good is more important than the individual benefit.  Something (generally speaking) we as Americans, gave away about 40 years ago.

It is not about shame, it is about respect towards others and its relationship to the overall social order.  This has more to do with it than your suggested gullibility, through shame conditioning.

My opinion!

Sackett

George W. Maschke wrote on May 28^th, 2008 at 5:50am:


George,

I am referring to the fact that CQT developed a quantifiable scoring methodology that the GKT did not have.  This removed some of the subjectivity in decisionmaking and attempted to standardize the evaluation process.  For that reason, GKT becomes more difficult to administer, more difficult to evaluate, more difficult to teach and more difficult to replicate through blind analysis/QC; compared to the CQT.
 
Sackett

The Japanese are a people where shame is very prevailent in their society. Their country has a very high suicide rate.  Do you think this may have something to do with their success in using the GKT?  Just curious.

Jim Sackett,

It's not the case that the GKT fell out of favor with the development of the CQT. The CQT was developed before the GKT.

yankeedog,

The bulk of the planning and preparation required for the administration of a GKT is required not of the examiner administering the procedure, but rather of investigators at the crime scene, who need to be fully informed about what is needed for the conduct of a GKT and take active measures to facilitate it (including keeping certain crime scene details confidential). Again, David Lykken's chapter, "The Body on the Stairs: A Pedagogical Detective Story," explains such matters in detail:

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-037.pdf

George W. Maschke wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 5:58am:


Nothing could be further from the truth.  The test that takes the planning and preparation is the CQT, not the GKT/CIT.  The GKT/CIT is much easier and quicker to prepare for and administer.  I can easily have that test completed within 60-90 minutes after having first been informed that a test is requested.  With the CQT, that time period is at least doubled.  The GKT/CIT is certainly my chosen technique, but due to impediments (release of information to the public or a potential examinee) prevents the use of that technique in most cases.  Release of information to the press is a decision that law enforcement makes.  An agency can easily withhold any information they see fit.  Even though we live in a society with free press that does not require specific details be released.  

George, I re-read my post and see where "Sarge" could has misread it.  No problem, your clarification was accurate.

I agree that the press generally supports the police during investigations and will keep some things under wrap.  Sometimes they do not.  

More directly related to my point, an unidentified source reporting confidential police information to the press in Japan is handled and seen socially very different than the blind acceptance and publishing we have in America.  This is, in my opinion, due to the press's feeling they are entitled to the information and would report it freely if it were sensational or apt to sell papers or magazines.

As for why the GKT is less utilized in the US?  I do not know.  It fell out of favor with the development of the CQT.  I also believe the application targets for the GKT is more restricted than that of the CQT, since it primarily deals with physical evidence.  I would like to see it used more frequently, where applicable.


Sackett

Mr Maschke

Not to make to fine a point but we (polyexs) distinguish between interview and interrogation.  An interview is conducted with a view toward obtaining information and should never be confrontational.  An interrogation is conducted with a view toward obtaining a confession and is necessarily confrontational.  So we interview in the pretest and transition into interrogation if DI in post test.

I stand corrected.  I did indeed misinterpret what he wrote.

My apologies, Sackett.

Sergeant1107,

Jim Sackett can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was referring here to the press reporting about polygraph techniques. Rather, in order to construct a proper Guilty Knowledge Test, it is important that a number of case facts not be publicly known, so that these can be used as "keys." For example, in a murder investigation, if it is publicly reported that the victim was shot in the back of the head with a .22 caliber weapon, then such useful keys as the kind of murder weapon (baseball bat, lead pipe, piano wire, gun, or knife) or, for the next question, the caliber of the weapon (.45, .38, 9mm, 7.62mm, .22, or .40), and where the fatal wound was inflicted (stomach, chest, throat, head, or back) cannot be used.

I would disagree with Jim Sackett's bemoaning of an uncoöperative press lacking in social responsibility. The media frequently coöperate with law enforcement and may well refrain from reporting case facts when asked to do so in the interest of helping solve a case.

The main reason the GKT has not gained wider use in the United States is not that we have an unscrupulous press. Rather, it is that law enforcement agencies, including their polygraph examiners, have shown little interest in the technique, which requires considerably more planning and preparation than the CQT.

For a good primer on the kind of preparation that would be necessary to conduct a GKT, see David Lykken's chapter, "The Body on the Stairs: A Pedagogical Detective Story":

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-037.pdf

sackett wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 2:48pm:


That is an interesting turn of phrase.  It is difficult to read that and not conclude that information on the polygraph, which is readily available in this country and, presumably, not so readily available in Japan, tends to lessen the effectiveness of the polygraph.

It seems difficult to believe that could be the case if the polygraph is indeed a scientific test.

pailryder wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 3:30pm:


Thank you for pointing that out, and I certainly don't consider it quibbling. I think Lykken is here using "interrogation" in the limited sense of asking questions, rather than in the broader (and more common) sense of confrontational questioning with a view toward obtaining information and/or a confession.

I think that the functions of administering the Guilty Knowledge Test and interrogating a suspect with a view toward obtaining information and/or a confession should properly be separated and performed by different individuals. As Dr. Richardson has pointed out, someone conducting a forensic test should have no interest in the outcome of that test, yet polygraph examiners are typically evaluated based on how frequently they obtain confessions following a "Deception Indicated" result. I don't think a person administering a Guilty Knowledge Test should be involved in post-test interrogation, nor should his performance be judged on confession rates.

Quote:


Thank you for the reference!

Mr Maschke

Not to quible, but that is Lykken's language, not mine.

The prospects may be better for another and fundamentally different method of polygraphic interrogation that is intended to detect, not lying, but the presence of guilty knowledge.  Tremor p247 1ed.

Kliner's Handbook has a chapter on police use in Japan.

From what I have read, heard and been presented in training or seminars, the GKT is very actively used with great success in Japan.  

Of course, the difference is that the Japanese press actually cooperates with law enforcement through an obligation of social responsibility, rather than hampering it through public disclosures, in an effort to make money by being the first to report information.

Sackett

The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is not an interrogation method (like the completely unscientific Control Question Test [CQT]). The GKT, which Lykken did not repudiate, has a much sounder rationale than the CQT. I don't know enough about Japan's experience using the GKT to comment on it.

Mr Maschke

In A Tremor in the Blood, Dr Lykken describes the GKT as a fundamentally different method of polygraphic interrogation and suggests it may have promise as a tool in criminal investigations.  Did he later reject the GKT?  How do you evaluate the Japanese experience with this format?