Hi, my partner took a polygraph test after i suspected him of having an affair.   He was asked 3 questions and the test concluded no deception detected to all three questions.
However, the result of the 1st question automatically answered questions 2 and 3 also.  Should the tester have asked question 1 only?
Also, The tester told him after the test that he had done well !! and that there had to be significant changes for there to be deception detected.  Is this true?  I still suspect my partner had an affair and am baffled that he passed this test.   :-[How easy would it be to pass one of these tests if you did no homework on how to pass but were lying?

You are operating under the common yet false assumption that polygraphs can detect deception.  It can't.  Liars can pass, and the truthful can fail. 

Most people coming to this website looking for answers took the polygraph, told the truth, but failed.

If you suspect your partner of infidelity, why are you relying on a pseudo science to get to the truth?

TC

TC is correct about this.  If you really do suspect infidelity, just hire a private investigator to trail your partner's movements.  Just have the person trail the partner and see where they go.  That would be the best and most economical way to resolve this.   

@ Samoset:  Covert surveillance of a partner is stalking. 

http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/stalking/definition.htm

If you're in a relationship where you can't control your partner's every movement, and this bothers you... Please do the partner a favor and dump him. 

Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

@ Samoset:  Covert surveillance of a partner is stalking.  http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/stalking/definition.htm If you're in a relationship where you can't control your partner's every movement, and this bothers you... Please do the partner a favor and dump him.

Miss Sack,

I did not mean it that way.  I never thought of it like that.  I just meant for the investigator to keep an eye on the partner.  They don't even have to go into emails or texts as those can be taken out of context.

But yes, if they are in a relationship like that, then a person can always get out of it by dumping the other one.

So. a woman who suspects she is a victim of a cheating husband and arranges for a private detective to follow him should be jailed for stalking?

pailryder wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:59pm:

So. a woman who suspects she is a victim of a cheating husband and arranges for a private detective to follow him should be jailed for stalking?

I think the idea is that if you can't trust your partner anymore then its game over!  A relationship is totally based on trust.  Others might disagree and say something else...I don't know what else?  Sex, common interests? infatuation? Whatever.  If you have to resort to hiring a PI or a polygraph then its time to beat feet.  I would at least.

True, relationships are often based on trust, but marriages are more often based on money and children.  My point was the victimized woman, in my example, would be a stalker under Miss Sacks definition.

Hiring a private detective to follow your partner does not fit any legal definition of stalking.  It doesn't even fit the definition of stalking to which Miss Sack included a link.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 12:52am:

Hiring a private detective to follow your partner does not fit any legal definition of stalking.  It doesn't even fit the definition of stalking to which Miss Sack included a link.

True, true.  If it were the case, then by definition ANY private investigator could be classified (and charged I presume) as a 'professional' stalker!  That's why private investigators require training and licensing/certification in order for them to do what they do, especially in surveillance of individuals.