posted 12-05-2009 10:33 PM         

Did Joe hold a knife against your throat?
Answer: Yes

Any thoughts or known research?

Thanks

Ted

posted 12-05-2009 10:50 PM            

We don't have access to many of the questions asked in the research, so it's hard to say what's out there. Dr. Horvath's research used "victims" (you're not a victim if you're lying about it), which presumably had similar questions, and those results were good. However, Dr. Barland reviewed it and says he found that most of the errors were with the victim cases, so it's hard to say anything with much certainty.

posted 12-06-2009 10:55 AM         

In the case I was asked about, the subject is claiming to have been kidnapped and forced to participate in a crime. Thoughts on RQs with a yes answer and CQs?

Ted

posted 12-06-2009 12:14 PM            

1Int Do you understand that I will not ask you any question that I have not already reviewed with you? (YES)

2S Do you plan to answer truthfully each question about your involvement in the robbery of the Hibernia Bank on April 15, 1974? (YES)

3N Is your first name Patty? (NO)

4C Prior to 1974, did you ever tell an lie when you had done something for which you could be arrested? (NO)

5R Did the members of the SLA kidnap, sexually assault, drug you and torture you prior to your invovlement in that robbery at thge Hibernia Bank? (YES)

6N Do you live in the United States? (YES)

7C Before the year 1974, did you ever tell a lie that would betray the trust of your family or community? (NO)

8R Were you sexually assaulted and tortured prior to your involvement in that bank robbery on April 15, 1974? (YES)

9N Did do ever eat caviar? (YES)

10C Before you turned age 20, did you ever try to tell a lie when you knew you had done something that was unlawful or dangerous?

11R Are you telling the truth about being locked in a closet, drugged with LSD, and physically and sexually assaulted prior to the robbery of the Hibernia Bank on April 15, 1974? (YES)

XX Fin.

Espuma.
Enjuague.
Repetir.

-----

What we are concerned about is the selection of an examination target for which the truthful person should not react, while the deceptive person does react.

It is silly of us to suppose that polygraph reactions are defined by or limited to fear of detection. There is nothing in all of phsychology or psychophysiology to suggest that cognition and behavioral conditioning do not alway play an important role in the polygraph, and there is some indication that cognition may be more important than our common rhetoric allow us to appreciate. Cognition is the origin of both emotion and behavior. Similarly, there is nothing (except our hyperbole) to suggest that polygraph can distinguish the reason for an emotion or different types of strong emotions (e.g., fear, anger, disgust, or embarrassment).

So we have to evaluate the viability of our targets with respect to all dimensions of psychology which may influence a physiological reaction - cognition, emotion, and behavioral conditioning.

The question now is whether a truthful examinee might react to the RQs more than the CQs - due to some memory of detail (cognitive activity) would be prompted by the presentation of a stimulus for which the examinee was involved. Another question is whether that memory of detail might produce a strong physiological reaction from a truthful person. Related to that is whether we thing that memory of detail might produce a strong emotional reaction, and corresponding physiological reaction, from a truthful person. And finally, we have to consider whether, independent of articulate cognition and emotion, behavioral experience in the events described by the stimulus (kidnap, drugs, isolation, physical and sexual assault - and involvement in the bank robbery) might cause a person to react to this type of RQ even if the person was telling the truth about the kidnap and violence prior to the crime.

The only way we could realistically and confidently say that a truthful person would not react strongly to such questions would be to somehow control the examinee's cognition, emotion, and conditioned response potential during the test - which would make us rather highly manipulative or omnipotent. Of course, if we could manipulate and control the emotional, cognitive, and conditioned responses of the truthful person - sufficiently to cause them to not react and pass the test - then could we not also, under other circumstances exercise such control to cause a truthful person to fail, or cause a deceptive person to pass.

No.

Proper testing procedures require that we present the stimulus and observe the reaction. They react because they react - due to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral conditioning - which results from involvement in the issue under investigation. It is not our job to manage or control those reaction - we simply provide the stimulus and observe 'em.

I don't think any of the published and available validity studies adequately address the 'yes' answered RQ.

Aside from all that, I think there might be some types of polygraph programs that may need to use these questions - as when testing the veracity of some information source or informant before engaging in some kind of potentially hazardous action or decision based on that person's info. Even then, the polygraph should not, itself, make the decision, but may provide additional information to evaluate the person's credibility.

.02

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

posted 12-06-2009 01:40 PM         

What about a "No" answer to the same RQs;

"Are you lying about being raped, tortured ...."

Thanks

Ted

posted 12-06-2009 03:18 PM            

"5R Did the members of the SLA kidnap, sexually assault, drug you and torture you prior to your invovlement in that robbery at thge Hibernia Bank? (YES)"

Suggest: DY voluntarily participate in the bank robbery?

If I were a police investigator my primary concern is whether or not she voluntarily participated in the robbery. (Why) she participated is certainly an issue to address during the pre-test interview but I would not include these issues in the same question and probably not during the same exam.

Where can I find the research related to answering "yes" to relevant questions during a specific issue examination?

END.....

posted 12-06-2009 04:09 PM            

Dat's the point. I wasn't suggesting this would be a good test.

You can simplify the compound issues all you want, and it's still prolly not a good idea.

There doesn't seem to be much of any research on this. What I am doing is illustrating that the theoretical premise is weak.

Keep mind that "voluntary" is question about a person's state-of-mind, motivation, or intent. There is no research on that either - and the presently accepted best-practice approach is that RQs should not address mental state, motivation, or state of mind.
These are clinical concerns. Sure, they may pertain to criminal and legal culpability, but that is for the courts to decide - not the polygraph.

We want the deceptive person to think about and re-live the experience, so that they access whatever emotional, cognitive, and behaviorally conditioned response potential are available to drive their polygraph reactions. The way we cause that there re-living is by interviewing the person about the detail of the event. For a truthful person who was not involved there is nothing to re-live and nothing to cause any significant emotional, cognitive or behaviorally conditioned reaction - only annoyance that they have to take the dg polygraph and answer the questions. For a "truthful" person who was involved in a possibly traumatic experience, this gets complicated pretty fast.

YES answers may not work, because we might expect the truthful victimized person to reactn - possibly.

Questions about motivation may not work either, and violate our best-practice dogma.

NO answered questions regarding lying or falsifying the details may be the most realistic approach, but we still don't know. Also, a truthful person answering 'no' may be faced with the same psychological issues as with 'yes' answers.

There may not be a good solution to this.

Did Patty voluntarily rob the bank. Voluntary from whose perspective? She was photographed holding an M1 rifle at the time.

What about Stockholm Syndrome, in which people identify or bond with their captors? Would a person experiencing that known and accepted syndrome of experience be doing so voluntarily or involuntarily? They might say it was voluntary at the time, and afterwards re-identify with their pre-captive ego and lifestyle - they saying it was involuntary. But sometimes the boundaries are not clear.

Patty re-identified with her old life rather quickly. But still would not provide the names or information about others.

Why?

Do we think the polygraph can tease all this out accurately?

.02

r

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

posted 12-06-2009 05:21 PM            

answered NO

places focus on examinee's behavior - for which he or she might face (additional) consequences

requires only minimal review of the possibly traumatic incident

.02

r

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

posted 12-07-2009 07:19 PM            

Did you lie about that man forcing you to participate in that "crime"?

posted 12-07-2009 08:57 PM            

When we ask her to probe the memory, for, say, the physical description of the rapist, she can't simply recall the rapist's face and suppress everything else. All that is attached to the memory of the face - including the context in which the face was stored in memory - will be recalled too. If the 'face' memory record also contains a strong emotion (as if it wouldn't), then that emotion will be experienced when the memory is probed by our memory cue (or stimulus) - the question.

Thus, Skip's questions should all be expected to cue the emotions we really want to avoid. The question, of course, is will those emotions result in physiological responses that are greater to those of the CQs if she is truthful. I think there is a good chance they would be, which leads to the question (but doesn't beg it): how confident can one be in a DI in such circumstances?

Try a little experiment: for the next 30 seconds, don't think about your mother - not her name, hair color, voice, scent... nothing. Or maybe, don't think of the name of this website. Easy? Of course not. Yet we want to ask a what could be a true victim (the only kind of victim, mind you), to do the same thing.

posted 12-08-2009 12:24 AM            

quote:

---

When we ask her to probe the memory, for, say, the physical description of the rapist, she can't simply recall the rapist's face and suppress everything else. All that is attached to the memory of the face - including the context in which the face was stored in memory - will be recalled too. If the 'face' memory record also contains a strong emotion (as if it wouldn't), then that emotion will be experienced when the memory is probed by our memory cue (or stimulus) - the question.

Thus, Skip's questions should all be expected to cue the emotions we really want to avoid. The question, of course, is will those emotions result in physiological responses that are greater to those of the CQs if she is truthful. I think there is a good chance they would be, which leads to the question (but doesn't beg it): how confident can one be in a DI in such circumstances?

---

You have very good points about memory.

Part of what we should remember is to ask these important questions about what are the possibilities, and then refrain from the impulse to want to answer the question with nothing but our expert thinking (hypothesizing). The questions are important. Attempts to answer them should be through data.

It is also possible that Skip's questions would not cause a truthful victim to react more the the RQs than the CQs. This type of question (regarding falsifying reporting and lying to the investigators) could be presented with less emphasis on the abuse detail and greater emphasis on the act of truthful or untruthful reporting. The examinee's attention should be drawn primarily to the issue of reporting and secondarily to details of the abuse. In the other example (truthful about the abuse?) the primary focus is on the abuse.

Skip's are probably about as good as it gets. Sure we could always tweak them more for each individual examinee. But there will probably always be a need to have some reference to the threat or abuse and the crime while we are testing the issue of false reporting. To do otherwise would be vulnerable to accusations of being incomplete or inadequately stimulating the issue. So, I have no real problem with these suggestions.

We just don't really know, until we get to the point of actually experimenting with the problem - in a research study, not some anecdotal field incident, and not some unresearched expert hypothesis.

Sure, we'd' rather use "did you do it...?" regarding the behavior itself. But this discussion was a a 'what if' situation in the context a crime for which the examinee's involvement is already established.

.02

r

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

posted 01-29-2010 11:21 AM            

My quick thought about asking RQ's with "did you lie to me " or "Did you lie about" is this:

Put Lie in the CQ's if you use Lie in the RQ's.....many people get angry, annoyed or offended (however slightly) by the accusation that they are lying.....so to keep it equal in intensity, if I use "Are you lying to me about" in the relevant, I use something like "have you ever lied to your boss" in the comparison.

My two cent's