Just thought I would post a little bit about my experience with a Pre-employment polygraph.  I would be interested to hear from others what they think about what happened to me.

I have been working on contract with a LE agency for about 2 years.  I have enjoyed the work and my co-workers and have found the environment to be a good place to work.  Recently new management took over our area.  A few months ago, the new manager asked me to think about coming to work for them permanently, and I couldn't think of any good reason not to - and I could think of a few good reasons why I should.  Plans have been in the works since then to bring me on full-time in the fall.

Our department is involved in the support of the IT systems for this LEA, and as such we have the potential to be in contact with sensitive information.  Standard operating procedure is to polygraph anyone that will be working with the most sensitive data - This is a very small group.  3 weeks ago, they polygraphed a few people who would be starting a new project, including a contractor who had been there for a while.  (Let's call him "meathead".)  On the day of the interview, Meathead never came back.  POOF! He's gone!  He came in to work as usual that morning, went for his test and never came back.  Apparently, he didn't get very far into his pre-test interview and was DQ'ed.  They never even hooked him up - he made some sort of admission and was eliminated.

Last week, the new boss shows up in my office with the pre-test questionaire and tells me that because Meathead had not been truthful on his original application, and because Meathead had raised everyone's anxiety about "personal lifestyle" that every new hire would be polygraphed from here on in.  I was to be the first.   

I had been lurking on the site here for a while, ever since the group that included Meathead was told they would be polygraphed.  I have also been reading on other sites that claim the polygraph is very accurate.  And let me be perfectly honest - most of the posts and information here sounds like it comes from bitter, unhappy and perhaps guilty people seeking to blame their bad experiences with telling the truth on a machine.  I didn't really know what to believe, however I do know:  DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ - ESPECIALLY ON THE INTERNET.

So - given that Meathead had just been evaporated, and that what I was reading here was making me very uneasy - I WAS VERY NERVOUS ABOUT GOING THROUGH THE EXAM.  However, I felt in my case I had a little to lose - my contract would expire anyways if I chose not to take the test - I all I would be doing would be hastening the day of my departure.  Besides, I had never done anything that bad in my past - and the little that I had was done a LONG time ago. 

I had nothing to lose - right?  read on....

I read the BLTBLTBLT (good gravy, you know what I mean) and practiced the countermeasures in the mirror.  I figured that I did not have time to master them, and I would be detected.  Furthermore, as I thought about using the countermeasures I could feel my stress levels rising.  Lastly, I figured using countermeasures is NOT ethical, despite the arguments here to the contrary.

SO - I resolved to go to the exam, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and trust the machine and the human running it.

I showed up about 10 minutes early, shook hands with the interrogator vigorously and we got started.  It turned out my examiner was a woman and she made every effort to make me comfortable and to make my stress level subside.  We started going through the pre-test interview and I gave her a FULL download of my history.  I told her EVERYTHING - she knows me better now than my wife.  Anything that I had done, things even that I had felt bad about but that were very irrelevant, I told her.   

I could feel myself becoming more and more nervous as time went on, as I realized that I had done more "stuff" than I thought - and that I was NOT going to be calm on the machine.  The whole process was stirring up a lot of old memories and making me feel quite agitated.   

We talked about the death of my young daughter, the fact that my wife had some sexual hang-ups, and that I had been in some good fights when I played sports.  I could also feel my anger rising that I was 1) playing right into her hands and was singing like a bird and 2) that I was sharing every intimate and private detail of my life with a total stranger who was taking notes and video taping the whole affair.  I had visions of a bored HR clerk having a good laugh as she read my file to keep herself amused in the months to come.  I had visions of the same clerk sharing her laughs with her friends and eventually everything getting back to my parents and my wife.  I started to get quite angry and resentful, and knew instantly that this wasn't going to help when they finally hooked me up.  This immediately set up a feedback loop that made me even more stressed about my stress.  And so on...

After about an hour and a half she told me to keep my answers brief or we weren't going to get done.  MORE STRESS!  How could I take the test with a clear conscience if I couldn't give her the full story of why I took the quarter from the cushions of the couch when I was 12???

Finally, she hooked me up and we started the test.  My anxiety and stress was at an all time high.  When we started the test, the control questions went fine and so did the first two or three questions.  (They were along the lines of "are you withholding information relating to your involvement in....").  After about the 5th or 6th question I felt my heart miss a beat as an image popped in to my mind of a traumatic incident from my younger days.  Not a criminal event, not even that serious for most people, but something that had happened to me that was unhappy. (No - I was not abused as a child, just a tramautic / extremely embarrassing event.)  As soon as my heart skipped a beat, I started to REALLY stress - SHE IS GOING TO THINK I AM LYING ABOUT THAT QUESTION!!!  My heart started to race - I couldn't calm down.

After the 2nd round of questions were done, the examiner told me to calm down or I was going to fail the test.  I mustered every once of self control and did the third round OK.  At the end she commented that she thought I had gone to sleep on this one.

Later, She did the typical "why are you stressed out about this question?  Only you know the truth, and you aren't telling it!".  I looked her in the eye and said "There is ABSOLUTELY nothing about me that you don't know".  She asked "what were you thinking when I asked that question?".  I told her.  She said "did that really happen to you".  I said "Yes".  She said, "no problem, that explains it, you are free to go."

I got the job offer day before yesterday.

My analysis:  The process is a HUGE psych job to get you to spill your guts.  If the EXAMINER thinks you are telling the truth - you're good.  If the EXAMINER thinks you are lying - you're toast.  The instrument is sensitive, and detects physiological changes.  It can't tell if those changes are due to your emotional state or what.  If your body decides to have a little panic attack for no reason, then you will fail.

If you are an intelligent, introspective person given to telling the truth and leading a good life, the deck is stacked against you.  I fear that the only people that can confidently pass the exam are either dummies or pathological liars.   

I am glad it is over, and I would NEVER wish the experience on anyone.   

Would love to hear some thoughts, especially from those who are examiners themselves.  Is my story unusual?

Anonymous

Congratulations for not only passing your polygraph examination but declining to use CM's.  I am an examiner and yes (unfortunately) people who pass polygraph examinations will walk out scratching their heads.  It's in the past.  Go out and do good work.

Suethem

You wrote:  "The polygraph has been scientifically tested by the National Academy of Sciences" 

Are you certain that is an accurate assessment of the NAS study?

George

Thank you for providing clarification.   

Suethem

That would be correct.  An excellent technique that works quite well.  Don't give me that bullshit about scientific validity and what not.  You guys rant and rave about the NAS "study".  All they did was read a bunch of material generated over that past 60 years and somehow came up with conclusions.  That's a hell of a research project by our nations scientists.  You would think if they were serious about checking "scientific validity" they would do their own research.  What a farce.  The only reason they came up with the negative conclusions they did was because their buddies (other scientists) over at DOE whined about having to undergo a polygraph examination.  Makes you wonder how valid their little study really was!!!!  Sorry guys, had to get on my soap box.  I get real tired of all the whiners on this website.  In the words of George Bush, bring em on.

Saidme wrote on Jul 15^th, 2003 at 4:40am:


Scientific validity is a fundamental component of any forensic technology. That you can dismiss it as "bullshit" so casually makes me wonder if you would object to your department suddenly relying on coin tosses and magic 8-balls to screen applicants. Why exactly do you hold scientific validity in such low regard?

Quote:


How exactly would you conduct a research project? I don't see anything wrong with reviewing the available evidence and forming a conclusion based on it. Do you have some reason to believe that the research they reviewed was inaccurate? If so, why?

Quote:


....makes me wonder if you have any evidence to support such a claim.

Saidme wrote on Jul 15^th, 2003 at 3:27pm:


Not exactly. I see no reason to start from scratch when there is already a plethora of information available, supplied from both polygraph proponents and those opposed to polygraphy. Again, unless you have a reason for believing the available information on polygraphy is inaccurate, I don't see why it can't be used as a reference.

Also, it seems as if the pro-polygraph community is unwilling to cooperate with any studies that might conclusively invalidate the polygraph. Jerking the NSA around on the CM issue shows that they are more concerned with obscuring the truth than they are with making it known.

Quote:


Of course. 

Quote:


I too would push "this scientific validity crap" if an important job was denied to me because of some "test" that has no scientific basis behind it. Wouldn't you be mad if a potential employer told you, "I can't hire you because my tea leaves tell me you've done drugs in the past"?

I agree that scientific validity usually only becomes important to people after they've failed, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Those who pass have no reason to research polygraphy. It's only those who fail and don't understand why that look for answers. 

Quote:


I have to disagree with your claim that the NAS study was biased simply because "fellow scientists" working at the DOE were upset over having to take polygraphs. It would help if you had any evidence to back up your claim. Right now it sounds as if you're speculating. Second, what about the study do you consider to be inaccurate, and why?

Saidme,

Are Dr. Drew Richardson's findings bogus too?

Since nothing is 100% , what percent of accuracy would you rate the polygraph at?

How many polygraph's have you given?

Saidme,
Quote:
At least you qualified your comment See page 324 of the NAS study. You will see that they did in fact contact DoDPI as they sought research materials.
Quote:
Absolutely. The members of the Committee which conducted the study consisted of 5 people in the Psychology/Psychiatry field, 6 in the Statistical, Cognitive and Social Sciences, 1 from the Law field, 1 from the Mathematics field, 1 Systems Engineer, 1 from the Radiology field and 1 person who is a language specialist. Quite a diverse group, and I doubt seriously they would all be sympathetic to the nuclear guys. Well, maybe the mathematician if his field is theoretical math.
Quote:
Absolutely again. But this analogy would only hold water if the NAS study had been conducted by the scientists employed by the DOE, which it was not.