Onthefence wrote on Apr 26^th, 2009 at 12:32am:


I think everyone seeking a position of public trust has an ethical obligation to answer the relevant questions truthfully. However, it is secretly expected that even persons a law enforcement agency would be eager to hire will be less than completely candid when answering the so-called "control" questions. Thus, I see no ethical problem with an applicant withholding information regarding these latter questions.

Quote:


All. Because they're all scored. If your reactions to any one relevant question are consistently stronger than your reactions to any one corresponding control question, you fail the entire "test." How did you get the notion that it might be preferable to augment reactions to only some of the control questions?

Quote:


As pointed out in the info for this video, the polygrapher's explanation that he knew "someone was messing around" because he saw reactions to both the relevant AND the control questions is utter nonsense.

Onthefence,

Before trying to use countermeasures, think carefully. I am a polygraph examiner, and I have often caught examinees attempting countermeasures. When I do, their career goal, at least with my employer, is essentially over. Attempting countermeasures is viewed as a lack of integrity and a lack of cooperation.

Some of the "experts" on this website would have you believe that it is very common for a person to be a "false positive" on a polygraph exam--i.e. to appear deceptive when in fact they are truthful. In my experience--which I've pointed out many times as more valuable and supportable than George's or anyone else's polygraph failure--it is much more common to be caught attempting countermeasures, or at best be labeled as "inconclusive" on the exam. Now, if you were hiring people, who would you want to take--a person who clearly passed the exam, or someone you weren't sure about? Easy choice when we're talking about two qualified employees, especially in today's world of high unemployment.

Whatever you decide to do, I'm just giving you fair warning. The people who pose as experts on this website are providing poor advice when they advocate using countermeasures on a polygraph exam. Could you actually be a "false positive" on your exam? Yes, possibly, but highly unlikely. I believe your likelihood of screwing yourself by messing around on the exam outweighs your likelihood of being a "false positive." You've potentially hurt yourself by listening to false "experts" on this site. Think carefully about hurting your career chances as well.

The question, as I've posed on this forum before is, Do you feel lucky? If you've really got nothing to hide, studies show that innocent examinees have nothing to gain from attempting countermeasures. There is also great risk. Here's what the NAS has to say about it:

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of “beating” the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. 

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will “pass” the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

George, about Onthefence's three omissions, I agree with you. Onthefence, I really don't think you are cut out to be in law enforcement, especially considering that four years ago you "invested" a large sum of money for someone else to buy drugs to be sold. Four years ago? And you are supposedly older and wiser now? Perhaps you have changed, but engaging in criminal behavior, especially so recently, would be an immediate disqualifier, at least with my employer.

George, you asked what my employer would do should someone use the "honesty" approach before taking a polygraph exam, as outlined in TLBTLD. Since the polygraph is a required part of the employment process, if the person wanted the job they would have to submit to a polygraph examination, and I would have to administer it. If you don't want to take the exam, look elsewhere for a job, plain and simple. Of course, your question seems to imply that my employer might look at such a revelation (that the subject read TLBTLD) as "Oh, no, he knows our secret!  Gee whiz, what will we do now?" In fact my employer--and those of us who are polygraphers--don't give much credence to this website or its advice by self-portrayed "experts." Therefore, it would have little effect on our beliefs or attitude.

Now, if I learn that an examinee has read the advice on your website and believed what he/she read enough to actually proclaim to the polygrapher that he/she "knows" the truth about the "lie detector," I would immediately consider that examinee to be a bit arrogant and presumptuous.  After all, like you and other self-portrayed "experts" on this website, the examinee has simply read something second-hand and now feels that he/she has, as TLBTLD analogizes, pulled back the curtain from the Wizard of Oz, when in fact he/she has no experience whatsoever.

I would go ahead with the polygraph examination, obviously with an even closer watch for what I have learned to be key indicators of attempted countermeasures. And yes, these indicators do stand out like a sore thumb--especially when the radar is up due to advanced warning. If I saw no such attempts, and the examinee passed the exam, good for him/her, since I believe, and some studies show, that countermeasures do very little to aid an "innocent" examinee.

My advice to readers of this website is to simply approach the polygraph examination with an open mind and a spirit of cooperation. You are free to accept or refuse any advice from George, myself, or anyone else with regard to the subject of the polygraph, but if you want the job and it requires that you submit to a polygraph, follow the polygrapher's instructions to the letter and your chances are much better than not that you will pass the exam.  That's my experience talking, which should count for more than anything you read from people who have none.

George,

If I'm using a PLC format (probable lie comparison), I would most likely switch to a DLC format (directed lie comparison). At least that way I'm not introducing the comparison questions with a "wink wink" at the examinee, as though we're both in on a little secret. Even though his/her knowledge of polygraph is almost nil, I don't want to make the examinee assume anything. However, that switch from PLC to DLC would be more for the sake of appearances rather than utility because either PLC or DLC should work equally well, as I've discovered through testing conducted by my employer on myself. You see, even though I know all the "secrets" of the polygraph and have had years of training and experience, I still react much more strongly to PLCs and DLCs than I do to the relevant questions. And that's with no attempted countermeasures on my part.  I believe this is due to my never having committed or been involved with any of the relevant issues.

Mr. Cullen,

Since I don't think you're really as naive as that question sounds, but that you are instead being facetious despite the glaring admission that you are in fact without experience, I'll answer your question for the benefit of other readers.

If the conclusion, based on the data, is "Deception Indicated," I will of course want to know why. Nine times out of 10, there is a very good reason, and it comes out because the examinee realizes that he/she has been caught in a lie and doesn't want to leave those cards on the table, especially when he/she wants a job. Of course, there are other possibilities for the one out of 10. The examinee may have failed the exam because he/she decided to take the poor advice of this or another website and screw around during the exam, even though he/she really had nothing to hide with regard to the relevant issues; or the examinee failed and knows why but won't talk about it; or the examinee is truly being truthful but is a "false positive." The third of these possibilities (the false positive) in my experience, is quite rare, but since the polygraph examination is not a perfect process, I will concede that it could happen.

What I won't concede, though, is the erroneous assumptions that you and others on this forum hold that false positives are common, or that anyone can easily be taught to effectively use the countermeasures you advocate. Therefore, my experienced advice to potential examinees is, don't risk your career goals on the assumptions of those whose only experience with the polygraph is having failed it.

You sure are a tiresome fellow, Mr. Cullen. It would be so much wasted time for me to take each sentence you write, quote it, and respond to it. Of course, you and George know that, so your usual M.O. is to take a valid argument and then break it down into individual sentences and throw out unsupportable statements after each one in, I believe, an effort to fill your posts with so much psychobabble that almost no one would want to take all day to respond.

Your only defense is to spout second-hand rhetoric based on questionable studies that are often polar opposites of studies I would use to support my own arguments. Thus, we are left, as I said before, with two options for readers of this forum: Listen to someone with absolutely no experience with the polygraph make claims based on questionable studies; or listen to somone with a wealth of experience make claims based on questionable studies and experience. I think that's an easy choice.

The fact remains that fearful readers of this website have to take a polygraph if they want to have or keep a job. No one else has to take a polygraph--no criminal defendant is ever forced to take a polygraph exam. Therefore, it would behoove these potential examinees to do what you advocate at the end of your tiresome post: Be truthful during the polygraph exam, and, I would add, follow instructions and don't engage in any kind of countermeaure attempts because it's just not worth the risk. Your chances of passing the polygraph exam--if you haven't been engaged in any really serious crimes or integrity issues--are very, very good. And should you actually fall into that tiny, tiny percentage who are actually "false positives," defend your own integrity.

We went over this question before, but if you insist on being redundant, I'll indulge you.

We use the words "deception indicated" or "significant response" because it sounds better than "ninety percent chance that the subject is lying" (or choose whatever percentage floats your boat, according to the study you prefer--the studies we prefer are approximately 90%). The polygraph process sn't perfect, much like many other types of diagnostic tests in medicine, psychology, or even your local auto mechanic's engine diagnostic machine. But it's pretty darned good, so we feel comfortable using these descriptions of our diagnosis, especially since we can't say something like "deception without a doubt" or "deception guaranteed."