posted 07-17-2012 02:50 PM            

Everyone knows what sexual touching is. Period.

If they talk about parental touching when we ask about sexual touching - it is a CLUE!

Want to have some fun?

Ask if he knows the difference between sexual touching and parenting. Some people will actually try to say "no." At that time you pick up your pen and make some notes, and explain that if their is no difference then all touching must be sexual touching. That is fine, at least we know and at the very least they can admit they have a problem with the fact that they did touch the child's vagina and they don't know the difference between sexual touching and parenting - and it is all therefor sexual touching.

The person will probably smile and admit they know the difference, or they will begin to assert somehow that they do know the difference.

The run the You-Phase or ZCT of your favorite flavor.

Did you sexually touch that child's vagina.

Did you engage in sexual contact with that child's vagina?

And be prepared to resolve the matter in the posttest.

.02

r

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

posted 07-17-2012 05:58 PM            

I would eliminate the term "sexual gratification" in the exam question (not pretest) as I believe this could help in minimizing the sensitivity of this issue. It seems to me this wording could put a suspect a little more at ease. If they are "dirty" a good pretest discussing "sexual gratification" as a reason for the touching could set them up properly.

END.....

posted 07-17-2012 09:11 PM            

quote:

---

I would eliminate the term "sexual gratification" in the exam question (not pretest) as I believe this could help in minimizing the sensitivity of this issue. It seems to me this wording could put a suspect a little more at ease. If they are "dirty" a good pretest discussing "sexual gratification" as a reason for the touching could set them up properly.

---

The subtext and foundational logic of this is that we somehow need to minimize the sensitivity of the target issue... as if asking about sexual gratification is somehow incorrect or improper or unfair when a person is accused of sexual touching for sexual gratification. This is, when you think about it, absurd.

It is also, when you think further, exactly what polygraph critics want. They want us to endorse the notion that simply asking direct questions is unfair.

The logic here is that we, the examiners, somehow put the the examinee "at ease." The unstated but clearly implicit and corollary part is that we examiners also increase the stress or dis-ease of the deceptive person. The problem with this argument, and this logic, is that it is exactly what polygraph critics want.

Critics want us to admit and endorse the accusation that we, the examiners, cause the examinee to react to the questions - both by asking questions that are somehow un-fair, and by engaging in a mano-a-mano contest with the examinee - a situation in which the examinee will react to the examiner as much or more that he reacts to the stimulus questions.

"Did you lie" always contains the implicit subtext "to me." This is because lying is a social behavior. One does not lie to oneself - only psychotic persons believe things that are not real. People lie to other people. In this case, people lie to the examiner. Whether you say the words "to me" or not the message is implicit.

Obviously, the posttest is different. It is an interrogation not a test. A test, like an interview, is supposed to be about neutral information and fact finding. A posttest interrogation, like other interrogations, is not about finding the facts or truth. During interrogation we have already reached a conclusion and the goal is to get the subject to admit to the facts and details as we understand them. We would also like to get additional unknown details in order to refute any concerns about the likelihood of a false confession.

As test is not an interpersonal contest (except if my wife asks me to go purchase feminine products, and I know how to pass that test).

On the other hand, a slippery psychopathic offender (as some sex offenders are), asked to take a polygraph test, might certainly love it if you did not actually ask him about his behavior, and did not actually describe his behavior when he sexually touched the child's vagina. Because, of course, asking a question that describes the examinee's behavior is likely to remind the examinee about his behavior and may even prompt the deceptive examinee to think about and possibly remember the details of his behavior.

If the person is innocent of the accusation, then he has nothing to remember and will appreciate the opportunity to tell his side of the story. Probing the details of the allegation will not harm the innocent person, it will help the innocent person. He will have the opportunity to have a competent professional listen to him. The potential for consequences will seem to diminish - as long as the examiner is not engaged in a personal (mano-a-mano) contest with the examinee.

A guilty person will, of course deny all the accusations and all questions about the details of the allegation. But the guilty person will also be reminded to think about and remember the details of his behavior and the potential consequences - because it will be necessary to do these things in order to deny the acts and lie.

The real problem with the logic of "too hot" or "too sensitive" is that it requires us examiners to engage in a bit of mind-reading with the examinee. It requires that we somehow know in advance of the exam how much the examinee should or should not react to the examination stimuli. Again this is, more or less, exactly what polygraph critics want us to admit to and endorse - the notion that we make judgments about how much we do or do not want the examinee to react (how much the examinee should or should not react) to the test questions - before we conduct the test. Critics contend that we fix the result the way we want them.

The correct way to conduct a test is with an attitude of neutrality.

Neutrality says we ask the same questions in the same manner with both deceptive and truthful persons. How the examinee reacts is up to him - whether he is deceptive or truthful.

There is NOTHING wrong with asking a truthful person to talk about and answer questions regarding the details of the crime for which he is accused.

If the person is innocent, then the basic principles of psychology (in this case behavioral learning theory and habituation) will ensure that the truthful examinee has a chance to accommodate the test stimuli that will describe the behavior in which he is accused. BTW, he already knows what he is accused of. He will pass.

If the person is guilty, the basic principles of psychology will sensitize the examinee to his own behavior, the test stimulis that describes that behaior, and the fact that he is being deceptive. He will fail.

All the rest is a convoluted application of the principles of psychology, via an attempt to read the examinee's mind (he will react too much) or predict in advance of the test

How did we end up agreeing and allowing ourselves to be backed in to some kind of professional corner in which it is viewed as psychologically unfair, incorrect or improper to ask test questions that directly address and describe a behavior for which someone is accused? In psychology we call this crazy-making (when you have to read someone's mind) because it is impossible to read someone's mind and people end up acting silly and looking a bit crazy when they try too hard.

Sex offenders and criminals love this game: you cannot ask them about their behavior - using direct behaviorally descriptive and factual questions - because it is too emotionally upsetting for them. They love it if we engage in all kinds of convoluted and constipated ways of attempting to ask them about something without actually asking it directly = and then fault ourselves when they react in dramatic and unreasonable ways.

As for this:

quote:

---

re you lying about why you put your hand in that child's diaper?

---

Lemme get this straight: we are going to ask a narcissistic sex offender (they nearly universally have strong narcissistic features even when they are actually diagnosed with other disorders) who is so self absorbed with his own perspective and goals that he could violate the sexual boundaries of a defenseless, and innocent child - a person who is so extremely distorted in his thinking that he can convince himself it is OK to sexually touch a child - a person who is so permanently psychophysiology out of whack that he could be sexually aroused to a pre-pubescent infant - or a person who is so hypersexualized and impulsive that he does not even bother to care about what other people think about the meaning of his behavior - a person whose narcisistic (i.e., lacks empathy for others) and deviant arousal is immune to his own knowledge that others consider his behavior to be wrong, immoral, disgusting and revolting (else he would not lie or keep secrets) that he is aroused anyway, because his arousal and his perspective re that situation is the ONLY one that matters to him - a person for whom truth and lying do not matter - a person for whom lying is simply a way to solve problems - a person who has found an oddly comfortable lifestyle in lying, deception, and deviancy - a person who has come to enjoy the benefits of lying so that he can continue to pursue his own deviant objectives - a person who has found comfort in lying because it allows him to achieve his deviant (though enjoyable to him) goals - a person who is completely devoid of any real conscience or any capacity for introspection in any real or product manner --- we are going to ask that person a question about lying and we expect that the question is supposed to reveal to us the truth about the existential meaning (the reason why?) of his behavior???

Well, OK.

I still suggest we just ask direct questions about what the person is accused of doing. There is nothing improper about this. It will help truthful people pass and deceptive people fail. It is also proven to work in multiple published studies.

As always,

.02

r

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

posted 07-17-2012 10:03 PM         

quote:

---

I still suggest we just ask direct questions about what the person is accused of doing. There is nothing improper about this.

---

What is improper about it is that some innocent people -- by virtue of their own shock (over the grotesque and obscene nature of the RQ), disgust (of the resultant notion that the RQ conjures up in their mind), anger (over being trussed up like a Christmas turkey and being put on the lie box), arousal (again, over the imagery conveyed by the RQs), resentment (of "having" to take the test), fear (of failing the single most controversial "test" known to all of modern jurisprudence), will exhibit reactions similar to those of the guilty.

BTW, where in the OP does it state the the accused is a "narcissistic sex offender"? Are you putting the cart before the horse?

Tell us, Ray, if it were your son who was the accused, would you advise him to take such a test?

Why not remove the stigma of the undeniably provocative direct-question RQ? Is it because the narcissistic SO can all too easily beat the test? I could have sworn I read that psychopaths don't have any advantage over the polygraph...

posted 07-17-2012 11:29 PM            

"Shock" is a medical term. I don't think you actually mean lack of perfusion of blood and nutrients or anything like that. I think you mean the sudden extreme emotional impact from hearing the RQs describe the behavioral concern. This is not "shock," and the evidence we have today indicates that truthful people can pass polygraphs. If sudden extreme emotional reactions are a common problem, then the problem may be with the lack of a proper and effective pretest interview.

Actually, there are studies that report zero or near-zero FP errors. Should we believe them? Maybe there are some known techniques that have already rectified this problem.

There is a quite a bit of published evidence om the polygraph, and not much at all suggesting that RQs actually produce the kinds of dramatic reactions you describe from truthful people.

There is no research suggesting shock during polygraph testing. It is usually (in my experience) deceptive people who express "disgust" as the basis for their signficant (DI) reaction.

Most of us (myself included) have never actually trussed an examinee like a Christmas turkey. Who teaches this? Anyway I am not sure exactly what you refer to by this.

IF there is no difference between the reactions of guilty and innocent persons who hear direct questions, then our profession is going to be in a lot of trouble some day. If this is the case, then we should just pack it up now and quit.

If there IS a difference (significant difference, even if imperfect difference) between the reactions of guilty and deceptive persons, then we simply have to use good procedures based on sound evidence during the pretest and testing phase. If there is a significant difference, we should study and use the methods that emphasize and exploit that difference to make the test work as accurately and reliably as possible.

If someone has evidence that "lie to me" questions or "lie on paper" questions are more accurate than questions that describe the examinee's behavior (either primary involvment, secondary involvement, evidence connecting or guilty knowledge), then I am all for it. These have simply been the mainstays of training and research for a while. There is evidence that these questions work at a certain known level of accuracy. Maybe the traditional approach is all wrong, and the test would be significantly better with questions like "did you lie during our discussion earlier." Maybe the bleeding-heart save-the-world do-go-for-all optimist therapist types are right and the polygraph would be more useful and more positive as a truth detector than a lie detector (not so negative).

Ultimately these are experimental questions that should be studied.

In the meantime, the practical issue for individual professionals and for the profession as a whole is how much do we allow or encourage ourselves to vary from what the present evidence tells us works at a know high level of accuracy?

Nobody, myself or any intelligent person, in recent years, has suggested narcissists or psychopaths can beat the polygraph or have any real advantage. But that doesn't mean we do not have to be careful. We should never forget that sex offenders are extremely distorted and dangerous people. Most sex offenders are not psychopaths.

Whether I advise a family member to take or don't take a polygraph might have something to do with whether the examiner was going to use proven evidence-based techniques or experimental techniques.

Bottom line: we don't know until after the test whether the person is guilty or innocent (of course if you don't believe in the polygraph then you don't know after the test either), so it is improper to make adjustments to the test based on whether they are guilty or innocent. We conduct the test the same way regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent. What then is the best way to select targets and formulate questions?

Regardless of all this, a proper pretest is intended to assist the truthful examinee to habituate to the test stimuli while sensitizing the deceptive examinee. Our job is to stimulate the issue, measure the response, do this several times, aggregate the data, compare the scores to the normative cutscores, resolve any significant reactions by gaining additional information in the posttest, and then report the results.

If we don't believe in the test then we won't try to use it properly or effectively. We might tend to use it simply as an interrogation prop, with little regard for the result. Or, we might tend to engage in too much complicated psychologizing about the results, instead of attempting to get more information, thereby confusing our own work and frustrating our own objectives.

There is a time and a place for complicated psychologizing. This forum perhaps, but not in the room with the examinee.

Excessive psychologizing about how and why an examinee would react too much is just excessive psychologizing. I recommend we not do that, and just run the test.

.02

r

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

posted 07-18-2012 02:40 AM            

I don't believe we need to automatically minimize the sensitivity of the target issue. But, if an examinee is hyped up or it appears they are angered, offended or embarrassed by a term such as "sexual gratification" I would have no problem in using the words in Skip's question. Mind reading has nothing to do with this.

In my opinion asking a question directly is not unfair and I won't have a problem being very direct. But, I won't use any word/term I suspect, or learn, is sensitive for an examinee or creates a response with a specific examinee (whatever the reason). I will give the examinee the benefit of the doubt so at the end of the exam I can be comfortable knowing I did all I could that was favorable to them. This philosophy should apply to all types of examinations not just sex related exams because we may believe they are sensitive and may be more difficult to conduct.

If an examinee is reacting to an examiner more than the stimulus questions, I'd suspect the examiner is probably not conducting a proper exam.

Isn't our responsibility as examiners to put the examinee "at ease?" And yes, during my pretest, I want to increase the deceptive examinee's stress during pretest by discussing the issue, demonstrating the capabilities of the instrument and structuring questions with words, that in my opinion, are best suited for the examinee relative to the issue. By example, I may not use the same terminology when testing a priest accused of molestation as I might if the examinee is a hard core sex offender. The obvious question to this statement is how do I know (the priest) isn't hard core. The answer is I probably won't know but I'll use my best judgment after pretest in constructing questions I believe are best suited for the examinee.

I see no problem with a "did you lie" question and I don't agree with your comment "the message is implicit" the examiner is involved (in the question?) whether or not the words "to me" are included. The examinee, if "dirty," may have already lied to any number of people and I would want to be specific (by name) in the structure of the relevant question. I agree, one cannot lie to oneself. Are we not simply testing the examinee's belief in their answer to a specific question?

I don't agree with your statement "A posttest interrogation, like other interrogations, is [not] about finding the facts or truth. During interrogation - the goal is to admit the facts and details as we understand them." In an interrogation I may have already reached a conclusion and I will be attempting to elicit from the examinee, facts and details that (did occur), not simply "as we understand them" but as they actually occurred.

I try not to get backed into a "professional corner" as you describe. The questions I include are questions that meet the needs of the issue and fit the examinee. No more or less the same reason we start an exam with an irrelevant question, the first question usually creates a response. During question construction I try to eliminate words, terms or phrases that I learn are a problem for the examinee and might create a response.

You ask in your third from last paragraph, if we expect a person, identified with all the negatives you listed, to tell us the reason for their behavior. This is a big part of what makes polygraph so interesting, fun to work with, challenging and rewarding. Structure a solid exam; if DI sit down and interrogate in a manner that hopefully causes the suspect to tell you what you need to know (and they obviously didn't want to disclose) in order to prosecute them.

posted 07-18-2012 06:46 AM            

Thanks. I think we agree much more than we disagree. Any you are absolutely right that it is all fascinating. And important.

I have worked with sex offenders who advise me (as a polygraph examiner) that there therapist told them that I am not supposed to ask any highly emotional words. They call these words "trigger" words. When we ask what are those trigger words they tell us this: sex, sexual contact, vagina, penis, breast, masturbation, pornography. These words are evidently too arousing and too emotional for them to hear during a polygraph. I say: 'scuses, 'scuses, and more 'scuses. Sex offenders are all about excuses.

No doubt the test would most likely work very nicely any way you do it.

The rest is just an interesting discussion.

Peace,

(I am on day three in Latin America without a translator - its getting easier, and I still have both eyes).

r

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