With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you. These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-polygraph" crowd--so often relies. I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice. The studies I refer to are the following: Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K. (1996) Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281. Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108. Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247. Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees. (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing. Academic Press, 2002.) What does that last statement mean to this forum? It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge, this site does absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher. Meanwhile, it provides the guilty with knowledge that may (not will, but may) help them avoid being detected altogether. When seen in that light, so much for this site being a service to the innocent. The "challenge" issued to polygraph examiners by people on this site is an empty challenge. Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world. At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis. So what's the point? For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time, the "challenge" is ignored.
|