posted 12-14-2011 09:13 PM            

This can also eliminate the possibility of a response (if) the examinee did something similar to another person (not yet known/reported) and they are more concerned about the unreported issue.

END.....

[This message has been edited by Poly761 (edited 12-14-2011).]

posted 12-14-2011 11:36 PM            

Some believe (especially defense attorneys) using the specific name of the victm in a test is inflamatory or psychologically stimulating. You can get around this by using the same name in the CQ's as well.

For example:

RQ: Did you ... ... Ruth?

CQ: Before you met Ruth, dye...?

This takes away any argument of the inflamatory nature or excitability related to using the specific name.

Desensitizing throughout the pre-test like poly761 suggested is suggested as well.

Jim

posted 12-15-2011 12:30 AM            

A test, remember, is a matter of stimulus and response.

Put the victim's name in the CQ and you have the same stimulus in the RQ and CQ. OK if you have DI, but kinda hard to interpret the meaning of NDI results.

Also, I imagine that if I, a private practice examiner, submitted a and NDI result to a DA's office and did not have the alleged victim's name in the RQ I would not be surprised if the QC review raised a concern about RQs that were possibly weak and allowed the subject to focus off target.

Maybe it is best to stick to the basics: RQs include behaviorally descriptive details about what the examinee is alleged to have done to whom. CQs describe broader categories of behavior for which most people are probably lying when they answer 'no.'

It might be a mistake to try to assume that criminal suspects process verbal logic with the same level of precision as polygraph examiners with police investigation and psychology backgrounds. We professionals live and survive on carefulness and conscientious attention to details, rules, and boundaries. Criminals, on the other hand, live their lives on the premise of faulty logic, fuzzy permeable boundaries, and narcissistic judgement.

RQ: wah wah, wah wah, wah wah, Ruth?

CQ: wah wah, wah wah, wah wah, Ruth?

Therefore, I will argue that it may be best to refrain from excessive psychologizing and mind-reading about the examinee's possible response to the stimulus, and refrain from the impulse to manage the examinee's response. They respond they way they are supposed to respond. If they are deceptive they will show greater responses to RQs that describe their involvement in the behavior of concern. If they are truthful they will show greater responses to the CQs.

We should not let silly attorneys prompt us to engage in silly practices. Attorney's jobs are sometimes to make excuses (therapists also). But this does not mean we need to endorse those excuses.

And finally, this is a question that deserves research. Until then, it is probably best to refrain from any assumption that we know the final answer. Pretending we know may make us feel good and feel confident, but will ultimately impair us because we will neglect to study the question while pretending we already know the answer.

As always,

my .02

r

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

posted 12-15-2011 08:45 AM            

Regarding the shooting death of John Smith on November 14th, do you intend to answer truthfully each question about that (or whatever your terminology is for the sacrifice relevant). This would be specific about what we are talking about.

In the relevant questions, use something like…..Did you shoot that man (in that parking lot)?....Did you point a handgun at that man in that parking lot?

posted 01-21-2012 03:18 PM            

Dindo and Fowles (2008), The skin conductance orienting response to semantic
stimuli: Significance can be independent of arousal.

I corresponded with professor Dindo over this and she felt it could be applicable to this very issue.