digithead wrote on Mar 11 th, 2008 at 4:41pm: sackett wrote on Mar 11 th, 2008 at 3:34pm: digithead wrote on Mar 11 th, 2008 at 3:33am: sackett wrote on Mar 11 th, 2008 at 3:16am: Snip...
Once again, it doesn't fit the mantra of this site, but truly, can you name any reasons why a person would elicit an ANS response to a well reviewed and rehearsed question in a controlled setting, other than the dichotomy of developing a lie (or withholding, minimizing, secreting or rationalizing previously provided information)?
snip...
Hmm, disgust, anger, nervousness, undetected hypertension, vascular diseases, diabetes, thyroid problems, or endocrine disorders immediately come to mind... Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things don't affect the CQT polygraph? Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things do affect the CQT polygraph? The first few are cognitive thought issues, contributing to the overall state of general nervous tension through the central nervous system, the rest are biologically altering issues. The severity one can only assume. Without having a "specimen" in the chair, one can only hypothesize how or even if their disorder would effect the accuracy of polygraph. I suspect, unless they are dysfunctional in nature they would not. I have tested many people with anxiety disorders, diabetes, hypertension, etc and have gotten good results. Sackett I'm off to the airport so I won't be responding to whatever your next thing is but a quick search of Pubmed turned up this gem from your own polygraph people in 1981, enjoy! Waid WM, Wilson SK, Orne MT. 1981. Cross-modal physiological effects of electrodermal lability in the detection of deception. J Pers Soc Psychol. 40(6):1118-25. Quote:Abstract: This study examined the effects of individual differences in electrodermal lability on cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal responses (EDRs) in the detection of deception. One Day 1 each of 74 subjects rested quietly for 3 min. while skin conductance was recorded. Electrodermal lability was scored for each subject, those giving frequent nonspecific EDRs being labiles and those giving few being stabiles. On Day 2, usually 1 week later, 40 of the subjects attempted to deceive a professional polygraph examiner in a field-type test. The 34 remaining subjects attempted to convince the examiner, who was blind as to each subject's condition, that they were indeed being truthful. Deception by stabile subjects was detected less frequently than was deception by labile subjects. Among truthful subjects, the more labile were falsely detected as deceptive on more questions than were their stabile counterparts. Although accuracy of detection was greatest with the EDR, the effects of lability on detection were similar for electrodermal, cardiovascular, and respiratory measures. Labiles also had a higher heart rate during the polygraph test than did stabiles. Bolding mine. Btw, labile means unstable... At least I finally found research that shows that increased individual variability in the four channels measured by the polygraph affects the polygraph's ability to detect deception... I'll add here that the probability of deception (i.e. base rate) in this sample is 54% which is hardly ever the case in a screening situation (it's usually much lower). This just adds to the evidence that the polygraph is biased against the truthful, especially amongst with those having unstable physiological responses... Regards... I am not a researcher and certainly not an academic; however, I do know many variables play into the validity and reliability of any research project. While I didn't read the entire research report nor study the valididty of it, I wonder, who were the 74 people? Were they college student just back from spring break with stories to tell? were they working people with problems of their own and given three minutes of quiet would focus on them. Could this have caused labile responses during this "evaluation" time. Possibly misdiagnosing otherwise stabiles as labiles. I don't see any references to control group by which to determine the accuracy of the results. I see no randomness, which I'm sure you know is the key to many research projects. I certainly didn't see anything remotely resembling reward or fear of consequences (as in real life), and as is imperative to polygraph research; otherwise, who cares if you catch me or don't... You didn't report the hypothesis, which as you know if not guarded against, becomes the outcome through self proclaimed prophesy, versus actual findings, etc, etc, etc. I'm not suggesting this project was done incorrectly, but before I make any opinion about it, I want someone with authority, expertise and academic creditials to review all aspects and method to the results to verify it's validity. There are many, many "research" projects out there which are worth nothing more than a quick publishing. I would never blindly assume the one you presented here, or which anyone might present, is automatically accurate and valid until reviewed by someone who has that ability. On the lighter side, you disproved George's assertions that polygraph is as good as a coin flip. 54%! It's better! Thanks for helping...  Sackett
|
Pages: 1
Trimarco on the Discovery Channel (Read 154569 times)
