1st4th5thand6th, I concede that polygraph is, in a very practical sense, more religion than it is science.

That said, according to the catechism of the polygraph church (so to speak), there are indeed "patterns."

Funny thing is, certain patterns appear (and apply) more often than not in specific-issue testing, meaning the test actually "works" -- although ther error rate is huge, generally speaking.

The polygraph indu$trialists and apologists, who vehemently disagree with me about the "huge" error rate, would contend that the mere fact that specific-issue testing "works" more often than not therefore means polygraph is, after a fashion, scientifically reliable.

I prefer to think of polygraph more as a "faith-based science" -- an oxymoron, I know. But it seems to fit.

As for true scientific scrutiny, who needs it when you have more than enough believers to go around?

Here's a fun fact: Polygraph use is growing not just in the USA, but world wide. 

It's unbelievable.

And the USA is "exporting" polygraph at heretofore unseen levels, from what I've seen.

Why the solid growth?

There are three reasons, IMHO. They are:

1. Polygraph is a moneymaking enterpri$e (on many levels)
2. People want to believe in polygraph 
3. Polygraph has undeniable utility.

Of course, all of the above is just the opinion of a lowly polygraph operator. Others will disagree.

Quote:
 

Quote:


Dan,  

You and the APA know full well that there is no systemic way to map your "patterns" to any human deception ... Therefore your comment above is totally bogus... 

You keep trying to somehow wordsmith validity into what you do.... 
Further you go on to say...

Quote:


This is pure wordsmith Dan....  You claim it works,but you can't tell us exactly how well..... ?   So how do you know at all?   based on what scientific scrutiny?   

1st4th5thand6th, I deliberately chose the 55% figure as a minimum threshold example of "more likely than not."  I agree that it's not much better than a coin flip, but, in the extreme, it has value for gross culling and screening purposes.

True, the box is often used as a prop, but not so, generally speaking, in specific-issue testing. The box measures and records physiological feedback from the test taker. Patterns are analyzed and a result is usually rendered.

I do not manipulate clients, but many examiners -- perhaps most -- do exactly that. And while I would never stop mid-stream to show a test taker the differences in their reactions vis-a-vis RQs and CQs, I often do just that after the test.

My testing model is "open book." Days prior to the test, I advise the client of the risks, realities and limitations of the test. My web site has a page designated "Recommended Reading," which provides a broad spectrum of opinions (pro and con) about polygraph. Yes, it contains a link to this very site.

Why do I do that? Simple. By thusly informing the potential client, it is the consumer who decides if there's what is known as a "value proposition" -- in business terms -- to be derived from their participation in the polygraph process. I take myself out of that loop.

I would be happy to demonstrate the machinations of polygraph testing to you at no charge. Should you find yourself in the New England area sometime, call me and we'll set up an appointment. You can participate in a mock crime exercise, after which you would be polygraphed on a particular aspect of that crime.

Based on my experience, if you actually committed the mock crime, there is about a 95% chance you would be detected. If you did not do the deed (such as taking money), there is a roughly 85% chance you will be found truthful.

Again, there is no manipulation in my tests. I've been doing open-book polygraph testing for a while now. Again, I tell the client the "truth about the test" (your phrase) in advance of the appointment and encourage them to explore the links found on the Recommended Reading page of my web site. Immediately prior to the test, I review CQT theory  and even identify the RQs and the CQs.

While such an approach makes many of my polygraph colleagues almost apoplectic, providing all of that allegedly sensitive information to the examinee doesn't seem to matter much. 

The guilty are usually found deceptive and the innocent are usually found truthful. 

All of that said, you are absolutely right about the lack of any central controlling authority. Unfortunately, polygraph abuse and victimization occurs far too often. Therefore, the key to consumer protection is consumer education.

That's why I have proposed a "bill of rights" for polygraph test subjects. Such a measure would sharply curtail the abuses that plague the polygraph industry. The polygraph establishment, however, wants little to do with a bill of rights for the person who's in the hot seat.  In my opinion, that's wholly unethical, and another glaring blemish on an industry with a very sketchy reputation.

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 26^th, 2014 at 4:33pm:


Dan,

Polygraphy has not advanced in any significant way since the NAS report was published.

What specific peer-reviewed field studies do you think Dr. Zelicoff should acquaint himself with? (Stuff published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, doesn't count.)

Quote:
 

Sir if it's 55% accurate...you're a hair above a coin toss... you want this country to spend millions for 55%???   we can go flip a quarter for free.... 

Quote:
 

Dan,, what do you mean no manipulation?  You turn the box on don't you?  
and you know the box is nothing more than a prop.  So how can you say you're not manipulating them?    

Further, you're not going to turn that box on to anyone who knows that it's a farce... what would be the point?.  you'll hook him/her up... start asking questions, the polygraph wiggles you might say (hypothetically of course): "Ms so-and-so you've had a reaction to this 'crime' question - you wanna explain that?  Ms so-and-so can look at you and say... Sir, "there is no systemic way to map my physiological reactions to any particular emotion". "your wiggles mean nothing and you know it".    What do you say then?  I'll bet most will claim the person is lying or accuse them of hiding something and go on the verbal, psychological assault under that assumption..  For what?  The person made a truthful statement  because she knows your conning them... the whole thing falls apart.... 

Also, how could anyone who knows the con...even believe a polygrapher who says something to the effect of  "you're reacting to this question more than the others?"  

Does the polygrapher stop and show the different charts to the person?
I'll bet the answer  to that is NO!

But Even if they did, so what?... the chart means nothing because it too is just a prop an attempt to get the candidate to believe something that is not TRUE... 

This scenario and any variation of it is TOTAL MANIPULATION.... 
How can you possibly say otherwise?

So by virtue of turning on the box you are manipulating them.

Further, by deliberately refusing to test anyone who knows the truth about the polygraph you taint the sample set and thus the result set.  

Upon "finding out" that the person has read the books, visited the sites. you automatically conclude that these are dishonest, cheaters..and most likely act vigorously on that false assumption.  That person will end up in the reject bin....and your organization will claim if found a cheater!!!  
 
So if you even hook them up you're automatically biased.... . if she breathes, you suspect CMs.  Face it,  Polygraphers are totally biased in giving this test - which automatically renders it a manipulated sample set


There is no legitimate 3rd party "organization". or accounting group,  or organization that performs statistical quality analysis for anything that will bless a result from a biased manipulated  and then further pass it off as expert analysis.  

with the sole EXCEPTION being your profession...

George, the NAS report is over ten years old. Perhaps it's time for Dr. Zelicoff to acquaint himself with the latest research from the American Polygraph Association, available here:

http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/polygraph-validity-research

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 26^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:


Dan,

I would take issue with any characterization of the NAS report as endorsing the accuracy of polygraphy. The passage you paraphrased is from p. 214 of the NAS report. Here it is in its full context:

Quote:


Note the caveat, which I've highlighted above. Moreover, polygraphy hasn't been shown through peer-reviewed research to reliably perform at better-than-chance levels under field conditions (that is, in the real world, as opposed to the laboratory).

Indeed, a statistical analysis by Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff of the best available field studies suggests that "if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone; that is, one could flip a coin and get virtually the same result for a positive test based on the published data."

1st4th5thand6th, wait just a minute. You're dismissing all polygraphy as a sham. It is not.

Incident-specific testing, also known as specific-issue testing, indeed works. Exactly how well it works is unknown. NAS cozily described incident-specific testing accuracy as, and I'm paraphrasing, "significantly above chance, but well below perfection."

What does that translate to? Good question. It would be easy to cite a reasonable mid-point, say, 70%. The American Polygraph Association has research that suggests such testing is about 87% accurate. 

A major problem is the quality of the studies, with which NAS was decidedly underwhelmed. Of course, countermeasures are a wild card. We need more research into CMs, hence my call for an ongoing countermeasure challenge series.

Even if incident-specific testing is only 55% accurate, it still has value. The degree of value depends, in large part, on what is trying to be accomplished with a polygraph.

I tell my clients -- all of whom are fully warned about the risks, realitites and limitations of the "test" -- that any polygraph result, which is far below a reasonable doubt,  should be used as a rough guide.

Also, there is no manipulation in my tests. That's not my style. I simply run the exam and then render my opinion. Post-test interrogation is not a part of my practice, generally speaking. After my prospective clients consider polygraph's plusses and pitfallls, I leave it up to them to determine to what extent a value proposition exists in the process.

FYI, polygraph testing is sometimes used behind the scenes in both criminal and civil cases, thus some reputable attorneys do request polygraph exams from time to time. As far as the courts go, it will be a cold day in hell before polygraph "evidence" finds its way into the courts of my region, which is New England. Other states are different.

Let's visit utility for a moment... The polygraph is a great tool for developing information, especially in LEPET and PCSOT scenarios. Pre-test admissions, which, contrary to popular opinion, often happen spontaneously and with no coercion, are a great aid in furthering the risk assessment process.

Many of my polygraph peers think I'm anti-polygraph. I am not. I am, however, pro-polygraph reality. That makes many of the polygraph establishment types uneasy, for obvious reasons.

1st4th5thand6th wrote on Sep 26^th, 2014 at 2:18pm:


Go get em' 1st4th5thand6th!   

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 26^th, 2014 at 2:52am:


OK..fair enough... but Dan... clearly you are an educated professional, I presume rational adult male.   This is an INDU$TRY that is based on what?  Fraud... plain and simple... You draw conclusions from a box that you know you cannot draw conclusions from. and you pass them off as expert analysis..."This shows deception" etc... Taxpayers and the government are conned out of millions and millions of dollars in the process.  Your test is totally manipulated.. Christ even the waiver that lets you turn on your box is a joke.  There isn't a reputable lawyer in the country that would advise his/her client to sign that.. It is so full of deliberate lies by omission it's sick .. yet this industry as usual, gets to write itself a free pass.!...    You deliberately manipulate people from the time they walk in until the time they walk out... 
and then claim success or failure based on your manipulations on people who are only selected if they are ignorant of your con.... 

This is akin to a drug company that makes a drug, pulls over 5 people to take the drug - they don't show any side effects, and the company claims it works with no side effect!  And then sells it to the masses.. "Works very well with few side effects".... 

Amazing..  do you think FDA would put up that... 

Yet the American people, the justice department etc... don't seem to flinch... which in turn the polygraph industry just uses to egg itself on.... 

Does all this sound like a legitimate industry  that just needs more guidelines and regulations?   Please..... 

1st4th5thand6th, in my opinion, it is because polygraph is first and foremost an INDU$TRY. 

Polygraph indu$trialists -- whether they're on the manufacturing side, in the polygraph school business, run a private practice, or are part of a government subsidized polygraph fiefdom -- certainly aren't about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, at least in my estimation. 

If the science is suspect, well...caveat emptor.

By the way, when it comes to the government's use of polygraph, it seems to me that utility trumps scientific validity, and for good reason: Polygraph utility absolutely "works." 

But it comes at a cost.

Collateral damage -- as typically manifested in false-positive results -- is simply a necessary by-product.

Again, this is just one polygrapher's opinion. 

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 3:55pm:


Dan...why do you think that is?

Doug and George echo an inconvenient truth that the polygraph industry, generally speaking, seems content to minimize or gloss over entirely.

The 2003 NAS study, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, was quite clear, saying:

...there is evidence suggesting that truthful members of socially stigmatized groups and truthful examinees who are believed to be guilty or believed to have a high likelihood of being guilty may show emotional and physiological responses in polygraph test situations that mimic the responses that are expected of deceptive individuals.

Given all of the variables in any given polygraph exam -- examiner skills, technique used, test subject personality and suitability, environmental factors, etc. -- the real-life error rate of polygraph testing is, in my opinion, significantly higher than typically represented by polygraph proponents.

pailryder wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:


That is not the point.  The problem with using the polygraph as a "lie detector" is that the "physiological change" only happens "when lying to another person" about 50% of the time.  In order for the polygraph to be accurate and reliable as a "lie detector" that "physiological change" must ALWAYS indicate deception.   

pailryder wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:


The point is that deception in humans is not correlated in any systematic way with any of the physiological indices recorded by the polygraph.

1st4th5thand6th wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 1:12pm:


Are you saying you have never experienced a physiological change when lying to another person?

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 21^st, 2014 at 7:50pm:


Dan...you can quote all the white papers in all the journals you want.  But the simple fact is: neither you, nor the polygraph community, the APA or the federal government can wordsmith around 1 simple irrefutable fact.

There is no correlation between a physiological response and lying.

Given this very simple, irrefutable fact.... your box is nothing more than a prop... and your polygraph process is a total con.  

And even though you sir, the polygraph community, the APA and the federal government can all hold hands together and sing otherwise...doesn't make this simple irrefutable fact UNTRUE!.....  

It doesn't go away, because you and the rest of you  DON'T LIKE IT...

You all know this....and yet you want to somehow con everyone else into believing it...for your own paychecks...

Mr Williams is the ONLY one of you, that has the courage, the conviction to stand up and admit the truth..... its a fraud, it's always been a fraud and all your wordsmithing will NEVER change that..... 

You claim you want to run for President elect of the APA?  and you claim it needs an overhaul....   That's implying that this is generally OK but needs a little cleanup....that too is False sir... 

Saying the APA needs an overhaul is like saying Jeffery Dahmers  eating disorder could be fixed with proper nutrition ..... Bullshit....

Doug Williams wrote on Aug 19^th, 2014 at 10:55pm:


Gee whiz, Dougy-  project canceled on September 5th after one donation of $100 (you probably "sweetened" the pot yourself).  Guess that tells you that no one gives a shit about you or your book.

Dr. Richardson, I completely agree with you when you say, "I do not believe general screening exams work or can properly work under any circumstances."  Yet, in all federal, state and local agencies that use the polygraph, these "general screening exams" are used extensively for just that purpose.  By far the majority of all polygraph exams are "general screening exams" - and they have been proven to be absolutely worthless!


It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for government agencies to rely on the polygraph to "test" applicants with this type of "general screening exam", especially since it has been thoroughly discredited as a reliable and accurate method to determine whether or not a person is truthful or deceptive!  And it is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for anyone to believe they will pass their polygraph "exam" if they just tell the truth!  When you factor in all the damage done to people who are falsely branded as liars by these con men and their unconscionable conduct, this fraud of "lie detection" perpetrated by the polygraph industry should be a federal crime!  The protection provided to some people by the EPPA should be extended to protect everyone from this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture!  Shame on anyone who administers these "exams" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism! 


Wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems?  One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EPPA passed into law.  But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph.  In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system".   The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass.  Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"?  Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed?  Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)?  And why do they insist on continuing to use it?


After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

Dr. Richardson, thanks very much for your thoughts on the DLT.

I have launched a KICKSTARTER campaign to fund a documentary based on my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION".  Please help me get the word out.  I know there are millions of victims and others who will become victims of polygraph abuse.  This will help stop the insanity of "lie detection".  PLEASE PLEDGE NOW!  For more information, click on KICKSTARTER here:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1006420907/from-cop-to-crusader-my-fight-ag...

Dan,

The directed-lie test (DLT) comes with both positives and negatives.  On the positive side...

The DLT does avoid some of the "setting" uncertainty and largely avoids the psychological blunt force that goes along with probable lie CQT comparison question setting during the pre-test phase of examination.  On the negative side...

With any lie test, I believe examinees (both truthful and deceptive) are largely reacting to the consequences of being found deceptive (prosecution, denial of employment, etc) and are not just responsively reacting to the act of lying.  This phenomenon is counterproductive to the task of discerning whether a given examinee is being truthful or deceptive about some given issue and is further accentuated with the DLT which specifies which questions are the ones that have the consequences that warrant being concerned about (the obvious relevant issues-those which the examinee HAS NOT been instructed to lie about) which may well lead to even more false positive results than will occur with the PL-CQT.  Continuing with the negative...

Successful countermeasure execution on the part of an examinee on a standard lie test requires the successful performance on two tasks: (1) recognition of relevant and control/comparison questions (and irrelevant questions as well so as to counter any confusion intentionally added by the examiner about these being comparison questions), and (2) some combination of adequate and properly concealed  physical/mental countermeasures applied to comparison questions.  

Since the DLT identifies the comparison questions, the challenges of identifying which questions to produce countermeasures to is greatly reduced.

So to summarize, as I have suggested in various parts of our ongoing conversation, I do not believe general screening exams work or can properly work under any circumstances and that specific issue testing should be done with properly conducted investigative work (to include good practices regarding non-disclosure of any relevant/key information) and properly constructed and administered concealed information tests...

Dan,

I've seen some of the research that supports the directed lie format. But, stepping back and taking an intuitive approach, does it not undermine the concept of the psychological set, in the innocent subject, being oriented toward the comparison questions? Why would the innocent subjects consider them the most immediate threat to their well being if their lying has been turned somewhat innocuous by being so instructed? Would this not degrade the dichotomy, with the relevant questions now in competition?

Dr. Richardson,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your views are most informative.

When your availability permits, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the directed-lie comparison question technique.

In polygraph circles, the directed lie method is becoming increasingly in vogue.  In fact, some polygraph proponents claim the directed-lie approach eliminates the "mind games" associated with traditional CQT techniques, which is seen as somewhat of a step forward.

What say you?

Thanks,
Dan Mangan
www.polygraphman.com

Dan,

I have not looked at the linked material yet and will likely not for a few days...

With regard to the passages about accuracy (presumably in the absence of examinee countermeasures) and reliability, here are my quick thoughts...

The problem that I have with this sort of thing is not with statistics (inferential statistics in particular) nor with any of the various tests chosen.  The problem lies in the assumptions of these tests, most of which require homogeneity amongst sample members with the exception of the condition being tested for, i.e. guilty/deceptive or innocent/truthful.  

Because of the anybody's-guess-nature as to the perceived relationship between comparison question vs relevant question material in the eyes of the examinee and the infinite number of ways a polygraph pre-test can be conducted, almost no two polygraph examinations would objectively be considered to be from an homogenous set, let alone this being deemed for all the deceptive subjects and all the truthful subjects.

This is one of the major reasons I like CIT exams...what little conversation related to the substantive issue can be minimized, scripted, and read, and the key and alternative answers (if constructed correctly) are alike in the eyes of a non-knowlegable examinee.

All of that having been said, my guess would be that CQT investigative exam results are slightly better than chance--the innocent/truthful subject exams at about random chance level and the guilty/deceptive results slightly better.  The latter are slightly better because most investigative exams are brought to an examiner by an investigator.  The investigator's opinion regarding subject guilt is relayed (creating bias) to the examiner, and because the investigator generally has some idea of subject guilt status and more times than not will bring a suspected guilty subject, the bias positively affects the outcome.

When the investigator is wrong this wrong bias is passed on too and everything goes to heck as was the case with the CBS 60 Minutes report in the 1980's (wrong false positive bias intentionally passed on for three fictitious crimes).

Accuracy would be expected to further decline in the case of general screening exams in which the examiner not only does not know guilt status of the examinee, but whether some crime or prohibited behavior has actually occurred at all.  The mind set for the examiner is completely different from a specific incident test...

I would expect the reliability of examiner scoring to be high (unrelated to accuracy/diagnostic validity).  Second or third week polygraph students in a given class pretty much end up with similar chart scores...

I hope this rambling note on the fly is somewhat helpful in elucidating not only the what I believe, but why I believe it as well....

Regards....