Are control questions rated?  For example,  have you ever lied to your supervisor...  If a person  say yes or no.  Do it hurt the outcome of the test??

"Control" questions are indeed "rated" in the sense that they reactions to them are given a numerical score. But the key to passing is to show larger reactions to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions. For a much fuller explanation of how polygraph tests are administered and scored, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Minor admissions to the "control" questions shouldn't hurt, for example, calling in sick once when you might have been well enough to come to work. Major admissions, however, (for example, falsifying a travel voucher) might well be disqualifying.

Quote:


Agreed, and that is why polygraphers try their damnedest to create or re-inforce the belief that the there is some sort of special response to lying per se. A good polygrapher (and I believe there are variations amongst them) will try to allevieate stress relative to the relevant (assuming the examinee is not deceptive) while maximizing the response to the controls much like you described in "NE"'s case.

[sorry about the typo's but I don't have my glasses and my typing sucks]

-Marty

Quote:

A "good" polygrapher emphasizes that the polygraph is "scientific" and detects "lies", rather than stress. She also emphasizes that people who did (control Q subject) are the kind of people that the agency doesn't want to hire (for screenings).

This is not too removed from effective prescribing of placebos. A good bedside manner and projecting confidence in the "treatment" can be quite effective. Fully informing the patient on the true nature of the sugar pills would likely produce less effective results.

This is the problem. If people really deeply understand what the polygraph actually does, it is likely the guilty will respond less while the innocent examinee will respond more to the relevants.  Which brings up the perennial question, how does a polgrapher polygraph another polygrapher? I suspect a wink and a nod

-Marty

Quote:


I thought it was clear in my reply. This is the whole rationale behind stressing the scientific nature of the polygraph. Assuming the examinee can be con'ed into believing that the polygraph actually responds to some lie specific physiological reaction the instrument measures then he will be more nervous if he intends to lie on the relevant and less nervous if he doesn't as he will trust in the "infallibility" of the polygraph.

The real guesswork is in the selection of controls. And if the examiner guesses wrong, God help the examinee.

We've covered elsewhere the case of informed examinees.

[added]
As for MD's administering placebos, I wasn't comparing the ethical similarities so much as pointing out the similar psychology. There is no serious dispute that the CQT is more reliable (I said more, not highly) if the examinee is uninformed as to it's purpose. I also am inclined to believe the majority of polygraphers try to do the best they can but to openly discuss the polygraphs limitations would diminish what effectiveness it has, much the same would apply to discussing placebos in front of terminal patients.

-Marty