Examiner,
When you say, "Okay, we agree," do you mean that we agree that it's really
not in the best interest of a person accused or suspected of a crime to make a post-test confession? If that's not what you meant, could you clarify?
I'd like to discuss a couple points you directed to Gino and wannabe. To Gino, you wrote:
Quote:The download begins by advising people to use complete honesty. I agree with that, personally I don’t believe knowledge the control question test is a barrier. I think there is a study out on that very topic and I will try to locate it and provide the reference. Then it goes on to say if you don’t want to do that, then decline the test. Again as I have previously stated I agree that anyone who has committed a crime should not take a polygraph. Then it goes on to say that if you decide to submit, or feel compelled to submit, here are some countermeasures you can use. Then it says if all else fails, don’t make admissions and don’t admit to being on this site or doing any research or using countermeasures. This is in complete conflict with your earlier advice. Then it says if that advice wasn’t followed, here’s the grievance procedure. So to say they didn’t follow your advice, so their problems are self-made (understanding of course their initial misconduct was self-made), I consider a cop-out.
In Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (Polygraph Countermeasures), we discuss three basic methods for protecting oneself against a false positive outcome:
1. refusal to submit to polygraph interrogation;
2. complete honesty;
3. polygraph countermeasures.
We present these options in that order, and leave it to the reader to decide how to procede. Note that we do not begin "by advising people to use complete honesty" but by discussing the option of refusing to submit to a polygraph interrogation. We explicitly recommend this course of action to anyone who stands accused of a crime.
The "complete honesty" approach does not mean that we advise guilty people to confess. Rather, it is an approach by which one can attempt to be excused from having to submit to polygraphic interrogation by disclosing up front that one understands that polygraph "testing" is a fraud. We note at p. 67 of the 1st edition: "We believe that the ethically preferable choice for those facing polygraph interrogation is to either refuse to submit or to use the 'complete honesty' approach (or both). But we are also aware that these two choices may entail serious adverse consequences."
Now, Examiner, you have confirmed that you "don't believe knowledge [of] the control question test is a barrier." I suspect that a lot of polygraphers feel the same way. Indeed, the narrow self-interest of those in the polygraph community dictates that they must (at least publicly, if not privately) adopt the position that knowledge of the CQT is no barrier, because otherwise, the polygraph house of cards would rapidly come crashing down.
But let me ask you this: if a subject tells you that he has read
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, that he understands that the stim test is a trick designed to dupe him into believing that polygraphy really works; if he tells you that he understands that you are going to decide whether he is truthful or deceptive by comparing his physiological responses to the "control" questions vs. the relevant questions, and that the irrelevant questions don't "provide a baseline for truth" but are instead not scored at all; if he tells you that he has studied and trained himself in the employment of polygraph countermeasures, and, despite all this, you procede to administer a CQT, then on what theoretical basis do you expect the truthful subject to produce stronger responses to the "control" questions and the guilty subject to produce stronger responses to the relevant questions?
Now, the 3rd option we provide, for those who are concerned that the "complete honesty" approach will be unfruitful, is polygraph countermeasures. Our recommendation to those who employ countermeasures not to make pre-test or post-test admissions (including regarding their knowledge of polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures) if accused of deception or having attempted countermeasures is hardly "in conflict" with this approach.
Regarding our chapter on grievance procedures (Ch. 5), you write: "Then it says if that advice wasn't followed, here's the grievance procedure." Not quite. Chapter 5 opens: "If you have read this book prior to your polygraph interrogation, you should not need to contest your polygraph results. However, if your first exposure to this book comes after you have already submitted to and 'failed' a polygraph 'test,' read this section carefully."
I respectfully submit that a review of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector suggests that you have misconstrued the approaches we present for avoiding a false positive outcome (you even got the order in which they are presented wrong).
In the case of your subjects who, to your chagrin, terminated their post-test polygraph interrogations, Gino is correct in pointing out that they did not follow our explicit recommendation that anyone accused of a crime should refuse to submit to a polygraph "test."
This is no cop-out. If you still disagree, and/or think that we are somehow blameworthy, please explain.
You also wrote to wannabe:
Quote:Wannabe, I believe I addressed this post also, with one exception. I see in your posts you frequently refer to "the flip of a coin" polygraphy, would you mind providing a list of the peer reviewed research that YOU have studied to come to this conclusion or are you merely echoing someone else’s statements?
As we point out in Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to work better than chance under field conditions. Indeed, CQT polygraphy is not a standardizable, scientifically controlled procedure such that it could have any true validity. A plethora of uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables may influence the outcome, including, perhaps most significantly, whether the subject knows how to beat the "test."
I think wannabe and others refer to "coin flip" accuracy as meaning "no better than chance." While polygraphy has not been shown to work better than chance, the "coin flip" metaphor may be misleading to the extent that it suggests that polygraphers are wrong half the time. This need not be the case. For example, when you polygraph a servicemember who has tested positive on a urinalysis test, you have strong presumptive evidence that the person knowingly used an illegal drug. If you simply decided to "fail" all such persons when they come to you for a polygraph "test," you'll likely be right much more than half the time, even though such a methodology is completely invalid from a scientific standpoint. Similarly, in the case of counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening, if you simply decide to "pass" everyone, you'll be right almost all the time, because almost no one is a spy or saboteur. And yet again, this technique is completely invalid.
For further reading on how an invalid technique can seemingly work better than a coin flip, see Chapter 5 of the 2nd edition of David T. Lykken's book,
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (New York: Plenum Trade, 1998).