posted 05-01-2004 08:31 AM            

I recall many years ago graduating polygraph school puzzled as to how I would ever be able to find words for my comparison questions that could match the power of a strong relevant question, such as, “Did you shoot John?”, or “Did you have sexual intercourse with that child?” I remember one specific case, where I was examining a kindergarten teacher of many years, in her forty’s, who was accused of “fisting” a four year old girl in her class.

I came to realize that the strength of the comparison question is not in words, but in a very simple psychological concept. If the examiner successfully communicates to the examinee that if they lie to any question in the test they will fail, and the only questions the innocent examinee is lying to are the comparison questions, then, they will become the greatest threat for the examinee in the test, regardless of the words in the relevant questions.

I have great concern that using the victim’s name in the comparison questions may cause erroneous results. Placing the victim’s name in the comparison question may cause it to become over powering for the deceptive examinee, increasing the likelihood of false/negatives.

This becomes an even greater possibility as more and more examiners recognize the inherent problems of the MGQT, and move toward “Zone” techniques, which generally have a Green-Red (Comparison – Relevant) format. This format already is biased toward a truthful outcome, and placing the name of the victim in the comparison question may compound the power of the question.

There can also be a reverse phenomenon, resulting in false/positives. Imagine using the following comparison question, “Not related to the death of Jane, did you ever lie to get out of trouble?” Isn’t it possible some innocent examinees will perceive that the examiner is inferring they are lying about the relevant issue due to the phrasing of the comparison question in this manner?

I believe that if an examiner acts in a professional manner, conducts a proper pre-test interview (both of which will reduce the innocent examinee’s initial fear of error), and successfully communicates to the examinee that lying to any test question could result in failure, will result in psychological set being properly established for both the innocent and deceptive examinees.

“Art” is not always the result of complexity, instead, it is usually the result of simplicity.

Article by Nathan Gordon. You can post your feedback or replies here in the private forum.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator
http://www.polygraphplace.com

posted 05-01-2004 02:51 PM            

I believe what you said is correct. Using the victim's name in a comparison question hypersensitizes the question and could very well cause erroneous responses due to the psychological set you mentioned. Kinda like using masturbation C questions with a Catholic kid concerning a theft case, etc...

The problem with polygraph community is that "we" keep trying to invent a better bagel. I'm not against developement of technology or processes, or even test techniques which will make our jobs more reliable. I'm talking about when "we" try to get snazier and cute with it.

Like Skip W. always told me, "KISS" principle applies. Stick to the basics. This is the way we've used it for years correctly and accurately AND, how it was researched in the first place.

Developing alternative process is fine: In the lab! Once researched and deemed valid and reliable, then introduce the idea to the community. The use it in the field first and see how it works and then what the peers think (approach) is irresponsible and wreckless.

Getting "cute" will simply cause a round wheel to get big dents.

Jim

P.S. See you all later, I'm off to the AAPP Seminar and free lunch on Ralph. That is, if the Canucks will let my sorry ass in....

posted 05-03-2004 08:25 AM            

The school I went to (met APA / AAPP / ASTM standards, etc.) taught the victim's name must be used in the comparisons if it's used in the relevant questions. The reasoning: What happens if a person says he reacts (out of anger, for example) each time he hears the victims name because s/he is responsible for the accusation? That potential issue is eliminated if you use the victim's name in both or none. (It's not likely the examinee will disclose he "loses it" whenever he hears the name as that could appear to be too damning.)

(This "rule" was based on examiner experience, so it does happen - how much I don't think anybody can say.)

posted 05-08-2004 09:50 PM            

I'm back. AAPP was good and it was nice to finally put a face to Tedd and Jack's name.

As for the "excuse" of failing due to the name of the victim in the RQ's. I believe if a pre-test is done properly, the name of the victim will be used numerous times and therefore de-sensitize the lying suspect.

If the pre-test is done properly, simply hearing the victims name is an excuse for failing (remember, it's all about the lie) which should be followed up with a good interrogation. If one believes otherwise, then fine. Conduct anothers series without the victims name, using "that man (woman)" etc. Once you've conducted additional series and find the same results, then..OK, interrogate!

Further, putting the name of the victim in the the CQ's is not "separating" the crime from the CQ's and overlapping issues which is sure to cause more problems especially with the truthful (due to anger and resentment of false allegations).

Jim

P.S. Almost sounds like we're considering the "oh, I failed cuz I was nervous" excuse...

posted 05-11-2004 08:30 AM            

You make the instructor's other point: Why run two tests when you only need to run one by simply eliminating the name? (You pre-test "that woman," etc., so the examinee understands whom you are talking about.

I've run both. I still haven't made a decision yet, but you make a good point about egos. Even a lousy attorney could get us fighting over som many "little" issues the courts would throw their hands up because few "standards" are agreed upon.

posted 05-11-2004 02:08 PM            

very good! Highlights:

Neil Barker from the Canada school, gave his class on interviewing. He's toned down a little since he was in MO giving the class in 2001. But all the same, good class.

Dr Barland gave, as always, a great (and necessary) class on CM's. I just wish it was required for all examiners. Too many are out there getting beat daily, and have too much pride to believe its even possible.

Generally, Vancouver was beautiful, though the locals have a subtile idea of "partying", at least outside the hospitality suite. Janene and her Canadian contacts did a very good job overall.

It was great to see old friends and meet a few new ones.

Next... Chicago?

Jim

posted 05-15-2004 02:33 AM         

Did Dr. Barland (or any one else) have any new tips on dealing with countermeasures?

Your point about examiners having too much pride to believe they can be beaten is a very good one. Pride cometh before the fall.

Ralph,

Maybe we should include counter-countermeasures in the private Countermeasures Reading Room?

------------------
It's a thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it.

posted 05-17-2004 07:45 AM            

nothing new regarding C-CM's, but good insight into ID'ing them. It was an updated version of his past presentations if you have been fortunate enough to see them.

Jim

posted 05-18-2004 09:01 AM            

He also said they are more prevalent and subject are getting more sophisticated in the use of counter measures.

It was nice to see everyone in Vancouver and I hope Ted's wife made it home ok. The Pipers were great.

Jack