posted 06-14-2012 10:46 AM         

It was a dark and stormy night, etc.

The driver felt a "thump," but claims he thought he struck an animal, not a person.

Obviously, the attorney wants something meaningful he can show to the prosecutor (if the outcome is favorable, of course).

Back to the RQs... I'd like to keep things simple. Any suggestions?

posted 06-14-2012 11:41 AM            

While driving your car, did you see a person just before you heard the thump?

Did you know on (date) your car struck a person that was in the street?

Did you know your car hit a person when you heard the thump?

Did you observe a person in the street just before your car struck them?

In addition, I'd like to know (why) the suspect "thought he struck an animal" and then possibly structure a question based on their reply.

posted 06-14-2012 12:18 PM         

>>>>Did you know your car hit a person when you heard the thump?

That's what I was thinking.

Does anyone see any problems with this question?

posted 06-14-2012 02:29 PM            

"Did you know at the time of that accident that you struck a person?"

"Did you know at the time you struck a person when you heard/felt that thump?"

If I went that way, I'd want the "Did you know at the time..." in the question and I'd pre-test that by telling the examinee "you relalize he obviously knows NOW that it was a person but you are not asking him what he knows NOW. You want to know what he knew AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.

I would prefer not to use the "heard/felt that bump" as those are his words and if he really didn't feel or hear a bump then he might have a problem with the question even though he didn't knowingly hit a person that night.

You could keep it as simple as a you-phase with the following two questions:

"Did you know that night that your car struck a person?"

"did you know that night that you struck a person with your car?"

That makes it easy for him to pass if he's telling the truth and pretty hard to pass if he knew that night.

I'm assumimg he was approached/told the following day or at some other time otherv than the night it happened.

posted 06-14-2012 04:37 PM            

Consensus seems to be that it is OK, but these questions are also vulnerable to criticism when the examination is subject to QC by the opposing counsel's expert.

It will be important at some point to make ourselves less vulnerable to criticism for asking this type of question when it is useful or necessary to do so.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 06-14-2012 08:42 PM            

Why be negative? Why not be more positive? Why not use the polygraph as a truth detector?

Gail Ryan - a well-known therapist for sexually abusive youths and victims - and others used ask me these questions.

If it worked then it would be great.

But... (hate to have to do this)...

It is complicated because testing truthfulness may not be the same as testing lying.

First, going back to the hypothesis of fear as a basis for response - though it may not completely explain all observed phenomena does certainly seem to play an important part - telling the truth might not invoke the same potential consequences as lying.

Next, using cognition and memory as a basis for response - independent of the language of emotion - having done something might present the potential for invoking cognition and memory from a truthful person.

Then, using the construct of behavioral conditioning as an explanation for the basis for response - independent of emotion and independent of overt memory or cognition - having done something might invoke the potential for a conditioned response to a stimulus that describes the issue of concern.

Take this further and you will find that the epistemological concept of "truth" is so complicated that there are quite a number of theories of truth ranging from rationalist/modernist theories of truth (which are limited only to measurable/observable facts and therefor have serious shortcomings as to their usefulness and applicability to social phenomena), to correspondence theories (which have been shown to be impossible because they require "complete" detail - and there is always more) to modified correspondence theories, to constructivist/deconstructionist (post-modern) theories of truth (upon which some modern forms of psychotherapy are based - but which also tend to view truth as a matter of perspective, and therefore sidestep issues of rationalism/logic and measurability/observability in favor of creating psychological space for change to occur). The problem - for therapists - is that rationalist/modernist theories of truth seem to disallow for change - things are what they are. All of this requires attention to a fundamental question: what types of things can be true? Measurable/observable things - sure. How about opinions? Attitudes? Beliefs (knowledge (knowledge that not anchored by observation/measurement/math)?

Instead of wading into the philosophical cesspool of truth, polygraph seems to be based on a pragmatic truth - we infer that people are truthful when we can determine that they are not lying. This works because lying is a much more expedient phenomena to define. Lying = attempting to deceive (mislead, etc.).

And finally, in all the studies we reviewed to complete the meta-analysis last year - we found not one usable study that seemed be based on the concept of truth-detection. There seems to be no evidence that this would actually work as well as lie-detection. So, it might be best to be careful until there is some form of proof and replication.

Now, as for marketing, truth-detection seems fine.

Statement tests themselves are conspicuously vacant from the literature, but there seems no reason why they would not work if the statement were some form of serious behavior such as lying on a police employment application, filing a false police report, or any form of paperwork for which there are serious or criminal consequences for falsifying.

Our job, as field examiners is to present the stimulus and then observe/measure the response. Do it several times. Aggregate the results together. Then compare the result to the cutscores/normative data to determine if the result is significant.

The examinee's job is to listen to the stimulus and let us observe/measure whether his responses are significant. If they are then we know what to do. Significant responses would be due to some form of emotion/fear, cognition/memory, or behavioral experience regarding the test stimulus (event under investigation). If the responses are not significant, and if the exam is normal in terms of operation and examinee behavior/cooperation, then we should assume that the absence of response is due to an absence of emotion/fear, absence of memory/cognition, and absence of behavioral conditioning regarding the stimulus.

For all this complicated rambling I still like for the polygraph procedures to pass the KISS principle.

All said, I'd have to weigh-in against the truth-detection approach.

I suggest this: ust ask a question that describes the behavior. If he admits the behavior and the target of the investigation is the issue of memory/intent/state-of-mind, then it seems like there is a good amount of field experience telling us that works.

As always,

.02

r

p.s.: thanks Dan for another good thought-provoking discussion to learn from.

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 06-14-2012 10:52 PM         

What do the police report and the evidence show about damage to the vehicle? Did the victim hit the windshield or was it a "thumpthump-thumpthump"? Was there any blood/tissue on the vehicle? Was there any part of the vehicle embedded in the victim? This info would be of great value.

posted 06-15-2012 09:16 AM            

ask if he lied on his written statement. You are then testing for deception.

Ray,

The consequence for any answer on any question is not serious in this situation, it is for a defense attorney and the results of the exam will not be used IF the examinee is deceptive. According to your long narrative this will be a bad test because there is no serious consequence for deception. I disagree with you. I have tested for attorneys many times under these circumstances and obtained excellent reactions to deception.

posted 06-15-2012 09:32 AM            

There is some research that was offered in 1994 in support of these "confirmation" tests in sex offense cases in which claimed victims were tested (Wideup, 1994). The conclusion was that confirmatory type tests should be preferred over the "Did you lie" type tests.

They tested 100 claimed victims of sexual assault. Fifty were asked questions such as "Are you lying when you say that man threatened you with a knife?" The other 50 were asked questions such as "Did that man threaten you with a knife?"

The author found there wasn't any difference based on "confirmation" rates; however, cases were confirmed based on things such as a final investigator finding in the report. We have no idea how much polygraph testing influenced the investigation results or how many cases to which that applied, so you can't have any confidence in the reported results.

Here's what was reported, and where it gets interesting:

DI NDI INC
No Answers 26 6 16
Yes Answers 15 18 17

Notice that "no answers" resulted in a lot more DI decisions than did "yes answers." (That's a pretty good number of INCs, too - in both.)

If these "victims" were randomly selected (as they were), then we'd expect to see about equal numbers in each category (DI and NDI). If you flipped a coin 100 times you'd expect to see around 50 heads and 50 tails. Sure, you'll get more or less, but the mean will be around 50 if you do it many times. You'd be a little surprised if you flipped an got 99 heads and only 1 tail in those 100 flips, right?

Yet, that's pretty much what this data got. If you do the math and test to see if the differences in the reported results is do to random chance (like 45 heads and 55 tails), you find the it's very unlikely. That is, the probability is less than 1% that something else isn't going on in the study.

It appears that there is a statistically significant increase in NDI decisions when people are asked if their answers are truthful.

posted 06-15-2012 09:33 AM            

Here's what that table should indicate:

posted 06-15-2012 09:37 AM            

If he's in the lawyer's office, there are already serious consequences.

posted 06-15-2012 11:41 AM         

I'm inclined to go with Skip's you-phase recommendation, but I'm also considering a written-statement test.

BTW, when I refer to written-statement tests, I mean the exam-specific type (not testing on a lengthy statement previously given to the cops), composed expressly for the polygraph in the pre-test stage. The technique is fully explained by Stan Abrams in his 1993 book,"Polygraph Testing and the Pedophile." The technique is also taught by Nate Gordon.

The statement technique was created, said Abrams, to counter the effect of overly provocative questions. Given the individual in this case killed someone with their car, I'm wondering if any "responsibility" feelings might color the response of a truthful person facing the direct question...

Also, the discussion of affirmative/confirmatory vs. "did you lie" answers underscores the hokey-pokey nature of the polygraph world. You know the song: "Put your left foot in / Your left foot out / Your left foot in /And shake it all about / Do the hokey pokey / And turn yourself around..."

It's no wonder the "real" forensic sciences don't take polygraph seriously.

Another thing... Whenever I hear "flipping a coin" references in regards to statistical probabilities and the polygraph, I have to laugh. Are the polygraph scientists comparing people to pennies? Coins don't have anxiety, fear (or hope) of false results -- rational or not -- nor any of the vast number of other psychological or physiological variables that humans, by nature, possess. The two are patently incomparable.

Dan

posted 06-15-2012 11:49 AM            

Coin flipping helps people understand what probability means. Sure there are other variables, but that doesn't change the principles involved.

I think the psychological research already holds the answers to the why part of things in polygraph, and that's supported by this confirmatory issue.

posted 06-15-2012 12:57 PM         

It's no wonder the scientific community, by and large, doesn't take polygraph seriously.

On another note...
If confirmatory tests are bogus, then why is the method taught at APA-sanctioned seminars?

posted 06-15-2012 03:45 PM            

How does constructing a relevant question easier for a truthful person to pass reduce accuracy relative to "liars?" Can you cite an example of how/why "We'd expect false negatives to increase?" Thanks.

posted 06-15-2012 05:13 PM         

If what you say is true, then why were the developers of methods using those suspect "technical questions" -- such as Jim Matte (Quadri-Track) and Nate Gordon (IZCT) -- invited to teach their methods at the last APA national seminar? For political harmony? Warm-and-fuzzy inclusiveness in the wake of the meta-analysis?

What message does this send to the rank-and-file examiner who spends a lot of dough attending an APA seminar in hopes of legitimately augmenting his or her "toolbox?"

How do you expect to turn the ship around if you don't change compass bearings or move the rudder?

And who, exactly, sets the course?

Dan

posted 06-15-2012 07:29 PM            

We are talking theroies with that statement. And there are other theroies. We don't know "for sure". I do believe fear of consiquenses plays an important role in our field, also cognitive conflict is part of it. Lets not throw the baby away with the bath water.

posted 06-15-2012 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

testing the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of a statement is proper testing and is supported by research

---

Cite the research.

quote:

---

fear of consiquenses plays an important role in our field, also cognitive conflict is part of it.

---

If that's it, then why does polygraph work in the lab? While fear may be an issue with some, it's incomplete. We've know for 30 years - at least - that fear isn't necessary for polygraph to work. I have no idea what "cognitive conflict" means.

quote:

---

If what you say is true, then why were the developers of methods using those suspect "technical questions" -- such as Jim Matte (Quadri-Track) and Nate Gordon (IZCT) -- invited to teach their methods at the last APA national seminar? For political harmony? Warm-and-fuzzy inclusiveness in the wake of the meta-analysis?

---

I'm not sure what you mean or what your point is. They were included because they made the "list" as provided by the committee in its report regarding what "techniques" were valid as required by our bylaws, and the seminar program chair wanted all of those formats presented.

posted 06-16-2012 11:42 AM            

Here are possibilities for the hit and run fatality:

If the driver told investigators , " I went to Wal Mart, drove back home, parked my truck in the garage , went inside , watched Idol , and went to sleep." I would ask the driver in the pre-test "Did you stop at anytime to lool at your truck ? At home, did you examine the front end of your truck ?Did you look under your car or wipe anything off the truck ?"

If he knowingly struck a person he would have looked, inspected,stopped on the shoulder, cleaned, etc... The R could be "That day, did you inspect the front end of your truck ?"

posted 06-19-2012 12:49 PM            

"Did you know that night that your car struck a person?"

"did you know that night that you struck a person with your car?"

certainly didn't weaken the relevant issue and shouldn't result in an increased probability of having a false negative. The questions are direct and to the point and what I said:

"That makes it easy for him to pass if he's telling the truth and pretty hard to pass if he knew that night."

I stand by. We have an obligation to try to make it "easy" for the truthful to pass a polygraph and hard if they are lying.

That doesn't imply that I believe in weakening the relevant questions. It requires making them direct and to the point. The issue as presented was not did he strike a person. I assume that was a fact in evidence. The issue was did he know at the time of the incident that he had struck a person. On the other hand, If you were referring to the use of a statement test, I concur. I personally don't like statement tests as one is no longer really testing the physical issue under investigation but is actually testing whether or not the examinee is lying to the examiner about an act which is not the actual issue to be resolved.