- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 06, 2003, 12:38 PMGordon,
The National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph concluded (at p. 213 of it's report) that the theoretical basis of polygraphic lie detection is "quite weak":
What do you think about that?
The National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph concluded (at p. 213 of it's report) that the theoretical basis of polygraphic lie detection is "quite weak":
QuoteTheoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.
What do you think about that?
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 01, 2001, 03:58 PMPS: Dr. Barland, could I trouble you to post the information concerning your upcoming lecture? A cursury exam of the UVA website did not reveal any information concerning it. Thank you,
BT
BT
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 01, 2001, 10:41 AMQuote from: Gordon H. Barland on Sep 28, 2001, 10:56 PM
Anonymous, Beech trees, George, & Drew,
Thanks for your interest. It will be a while before I can respond. As I said in one of my early posts, the ONLY reason I retired was to free up my time for other tasks. I am deliberately limiting the amount of time I devote to the detection of deception, and the time spent with Internet discussion groups can be only one component of that. I was out most of September, will be out all of October, half of November, and most of December. I must ration my remaining time accordingly.
That's a pity, as you seem to be the only 'pro-polygraph' contributor with a learned opinion.
QuoteAlthough theories are indeed dear to my heart -- I will be presenting seven hours of lectures on them next week at the University of Virginia -- my next substantive postings on AntiPolygraph will probably be discussing the scientific research supporting the accuracy of the polygraph, as that seems to be the core of AntiPolygraph's argument against it.
This layman feels that scientific research should first address the underlying theories of polygraphy before turning to the efficacy of polygraph exams. For example, where is the evidence that physiological responses differ between the deceptive subject of a polygraph exam and the subject who has fear of the consequences of being accused of deception during a polygraph exam?
Can any scientifically accurate test exist that wholly depends upon the examinee embracing a set of assumptions (told to him by the examiner) that is false and misleading?
QuoteI may not be able to turn my attention to this until the new year.
Dr. Barland, this message board is the center of a growing movement to toss polygraphy onto the scrapheap of history where it (in my opinion) certainly belongs. If I could impose upon you just five minutes of your time to fulfill your promise to respond it would go a long way towards demonstrating good faith in the debate here.
I think any reasonable person would express incredulity and suspicion in taking eight months to respond to a simple, straightforward question that cuts to the heart of the controversy here. Please note I am not calling your honesty or professionalism into question, I am merely asking you to honour your publicly posted promise to respond.
Si vis pacem para bellum,
BT
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Sep 28, 2001, 10:56 PMAnonymous, Beech trees, George, & Drew,
Thanks for your interest. It will be a while before I can respond. As I said in one of my early posts, the ONLY reason I retired was to free up my time for other tasks. I am deliberately limiting the amount of time I devote to the detection of deception, and the time spent with Internet discussion groups can be only one component of that.
I was out most of September, will be out all of October, half of November, and most of December. I must ration my remaining time accordingly.
Although theories are indeed dear to my heart -- I will be presenting seven hours of lectures on them next week at the University of Virginia -- my next substantive postings on AntiPolygraph will probably be discussing the scientific research supporting the accuracy of the polygraph, as that seems to be the core of AntiPolygraph's argument against it.
I may not be able to turn my attention to this until the new year.
Peace.
Gordon
Thanks for your interest. It will be a while before I can respond. As I said in one of my early posts, the ONLY reason I retired was to free up my time for other tasks. I am deliberately limiting the amount of time I devote to the detection of deception, and the time spent with Internet discussion groups can be only one component of that.
I was out most of September, will be out all of October, half of November, and most of December. I must ration my remaining time accordingly.
Although theories are indeed dear to my heart -- I will be presenting seven hours of lectures on them next week at the University of Virginia -- my next substantive postings on AntiPolygraph will probably be discussing the scientific research supporting the accuracy of the polygraph, as that seems to be the core of AntiPolygraph's argument against it.
I may not be able to turn my attention to this until the new year.
Peace.
Gordon
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 10, 2001, 02:05 PMThe theory of "fear of consequences" for why a polygraph exam does NOT work may have some additional important ramifications beyond what Anonymous has already provided us with. If the real-life consequences of relevant question material are what is driving polygraph results, this would tend to make the test more accurate for guilty people (who would be identified through present polygraph scoring if they are focused and respond more strongly to relevant-question consequences than control) and less accurate for innocent (whose focus and response to relevant-question consequences would be a confound for present polygraph formats and scoring stratagems). It could well be that polygraph accuracy and paradigm validity is greater for guilty subjects than innocent subjects (perhaps the latter being accurately claimed by Lykken and Iacono to be somewhere near fifty percent (random chance) and zero (or completely lacking), respectively).
This would also explain why criminal polygraph examiners might be at least partially blind to the error they propagate. In a real field criminal setting polygraph examiners do not develop their own cases. Investigating case agents present them with cases and polygraph examinees. A high percentage of those cases brought are from case agents who believe the suggested examinee is guilty of a crime and, in fact, are likely correct as evidenced through their investigation(s). This phenomenon (a disproportionately high number of guilty subjects), the "fear of consequences" effect, plus any bias developed by the polygraph examiner as a result of having the case agent's investigative hypothesis would all tend to produce a higher degree of accuracy for the preponderance of criminal tests (those given to guilty subjects), but would leave examiners completely blind to and surprised by the error they produce with innocent criminal suspects and the legions of screening examinees who are largely innocent of relevant matters examined.
The theory of "fear of consequences" also has great implications for polygraph research. Any paradigm which did not have sufficient consequences to invoke this phenomenon (assuming it to be a valid explanation) would have very little external validity and would tend to underestimate false positive results. A typical polygraph screening study of the past would be a simulated crime scenario having college students or military recruits play the roles of programmed guilty or innocent subjects. I strongly believe that neither the crimes nor the polygraph exams would have sufficient consequences to invoke such a reaction and physiological response and therefore be largely meaningless. Let me explain. A typical crime would be something like a theft of $10.00 from a desk drawer (again of no particular consequence--I have witnessed participants even laugh at the notion of such a crime and that an FBI agent would be investigating such). Typically, examinees would be given some sort of financial reward (perhaps even $100.00) if they could pass the polygraph exam related to the simulated crime. This latter exercise not only does not represent the consequences associated with real life polygraph exams, but in fact is quite the opposite--a reward for some sort of achievement. Following the polygraph exam, both guilty and innocent subjects leave the suite not to be further contacted, investigated or to have any further involvement with those who conducted the exercise---again, all this having been accomplished in the absence of any true consequences.
All of this put together would lead to a variety of absurdities--not only the reward (as opposed to punishment/consequences) associated with polygraph decisions but the notion of having the would-be criminal committing a crime, not for the spoils of the crime, but for the privilege of entering the polygraph lottery where the rewards might be ten times as great as those associated with the original crime. People do not commit crimes for the opportunity to profit from polygraph exams. Aside from all the humor involved in such an exercise, the serious downside and flaw is that the lack of any consequences would result in an underestimate of the true rate of false positives in the real world and be severely lacking in external validity as a test paradigm. Bill Iacono has quite correctly pointed out how field-based polygraph research that utilizes confessions for determining ground truth about subject guilt would also lead to the underestimation of the rate of false positives occuring in real life polygraph exams. Polygraph research and how we fundamentally view polygraphy may well need to go back to the drawing board...
This would also explain why criminal polygraph examiners might be at least partially blind to the error they propagate. In a real field criminal setting polygraph examiners do not develop their own cases. Investigating case agents present them with cases and polygraph examinees. A high percentage of those cases brought are from case agents who believe the suggested examinee is guilty of a crime and, in fact, are likely correct as evidenced through their investigation(s). This phenomenon (a disproportionately high number of guilty subjects), the "fear of consequences" effect, plus any bias developed by the polygraph examiner as a result of having the case agent's investigative hypothesis would all tend to produce a higher degree of accuracy for the preponderance of criminal tests (those given to guilty subjects), but would leave examiners completely blind to and surprised by the error they produce with innocent criminal suspects and the legions of screening examinees who are largely innocent of relevant matters examined.
The theory of "fear of consequences" also has great implications for polygraph research. Any paradigm which did not have sufficient consequences to invoke this phenomenon (assuming it to be a valid explanation) would have very little external validity and would tend to underestimate false positive results. A typical polygraph screening study of the past would be a simulated crime scenario having college students or military recruits play the roles of programmed guilty or innocent subjects. I strongly believe that neither the crimes nor the polygraph exams would have sufficient consequences to invoke such a reaction and physiological response and therefore be largely meaningless. Let me explain. A typical crime would be something like a theft of $10.00 from a desk drawer (again of no particular consequence--I have witnessed participants even laugh at the notion of such a crime and that an FBI agent would be investigating such). Typically, examinees would be given some sort of financial reward (perhaps even $100.00) if they could pass the polygraph exam related to the simulated crime. This latter exercise not only does not represent the consequences associated with real life polygraph exams, but in fact is quite the opposite--a reward for some sort of achievement. Following the polygraph exam, both guilty and innocent subjects leave the suite not to be further contacted, investigated or to have any further involvement with those who conducted the exercise---again, all this having been accomplished in the absence of any true consequences.
All of this put together would lead to a variety of absurdities--not only the reward (as opposed to punishment/consequences) associated with polygraph decisions but the notion of having the would-be criminal committing a crime, not for the spoils of the crime, but for the privilege of entering the polygraph lottery where the rewards might be ten times as great as those associated with the original crime. People do not commit crimes for the opportunity to profit from polygraph exams. Aside from all the humor involved in such an exercise, the serious downside and flaw is that the lack of any consequences would result in an underestimate of the true rate of false positives in the real world and be severely lacking in external validity as a test paradigm. Bill Iacono has quite correctly pointed out how field-based polygraph research that utilizes confessions for determining ground truth about subject guilt would also lead to the underestimation of the rate of false positives occuring in real life polygraph exams. Polygraph research and how we fundamentally view polygraphy may well need to go back to the drawing board...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 10, 2001, 04:54 AMGordon,
I, too, would be interested in your thoughts on the theory of CQT polygraphy. Recently, at the 23 July 2001 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Professor Charles R. Honts said that he had no theory to explain it:
The above remarks begin about 29 minutes and 30 seconds into the 2nd RealPlayer audio file for that meeting.
I, too, would be interested in your thoughts on the theory of CQT polygraphy. Recently, at the 23 July 2001 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Professor Charles R. Honts said that he had no theory to explain it:
Quote
Q: You said that research designed to address important but controversial issues is not funded [by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute]. What's your short list of important but controversial issues that they haven't done research on?
A: Automation is one of them which I have a personal interest in. And I think that's, I think that's one. Countermeasures. I think we need people involved in countermeasures outside. The other one's theory development. We need basic science. Listen, I can't -- I don't have a good theory for telling you why this test works. You know, we're at an engineering stage. We've got a bridge; I think it stands fairly well for certain uses -- resolving specific issues. I can't tell you why it stands. I don't have the theory. So I think, so I think effort needs to be devoted in the basic science to understand what's going on here -- why it works sometimes, why it doesn't work, you know, what, what are the mechanisms underlying... So that's my short list.
The above remarks begin about 29 minutes and 30 seconds into the 2nd RealPlayer audio file for that meeting.
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 09, 2001, 03:43 PMQuote from: Gordon H. Barland on May 11, 2001, 07:36 PM
Anonymous,
Now this is exactly the type of discussion I had hoped for, on a topic dear to my heart. I will give you my views in the coming days and weeks, but wish to clear up some of the back log first.
Peace.
Mr. Barland,
I would sincerely appreciate it if you would address the questions posted at the beginning of this thread. Any other polygraphers are of course welcome to respond as well. I look forward to your reply,
BT
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- May 11, 2001, 07:36 PMAnonymous,
Now this is exactly the type of discussion I had hoped for, on a topic dear to my heart. I will give you my views in the coming days and weeks, but wish to clear up some of the back log first.
Peace.
Now this is exactly the type of discussion I had hoped for, on a topic dear to my heart. I will give you my views in the coming days and weeks, but wish to clear up some of the back log first.
Peace.
Posted by Anonymous
- May 11, 2001, 03:15 PMGordon,
While I have enjoyed our exchanges regarding countermeasures/counter-countermeasures involving the CQT polygraph exam and don't in any way want to discourage you from continuing that thread (responding to the numerous outstanding questions/comments put to you as well as adding your own additional thoughts), I thought I'd introduce another fundamental line of discourse regarding the CQT. That would be to take a look at the fundamental theory of its practice. Although many theories have been offered over the years, it appears that polygraphers seem to return over and over again to the notion involving "Fear of Detection" on the part of both guilty and innocent (of relevant issues) examinees. Theory has it that, following the proper "setting" of test questions (a very subjective pre-test procedure worthy of its own discussion--another post) guilty subjects, upon in-test presentation, will respond most strongly to relevant questions and innocent subjects to control questions, thereby giving a basis for the general overall and spot scoring used (scoring, yet another future topic for our consideration) in evaluating CQT polygraphy.
The notion that I would like to raise at this point is a diametrically opposing theory for why CQT polygraphy would NOT be expected to work (would be expected to result in false positives): "Fear of Consequences." I am not suggesting that there are not other reasons (anger, surprise, revulsion, etc.) for why the "test" might be confounded on any given use, but I believe the suggested general mechanism is why one would question its working in a large number of situations. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that anyone would react to being asked about involvement in certain crimes, not because of fear of being caught in a lie, but because of a fear of the consequences of having been so branded, independent of and regardless of whether that one (the polygraph examinee) had actually told the truth or told a lie during a polygraph exam regarding matter(s) under investigation.
Is it not reasonable to expect an examinee to respond to the relevant question "Did you rob the bank?" physiologically because he knows that deception-indicated polygraph results may lead to prosecution and conviction, denial of freedom, access to family, friends and worldly resources, etc.? Furthermore, is this not even successively more and more likely in the case involving a capital crime, and one in which the examinee's being subject to the death penalty may have been mentioned in the course of the investigation prior to an exam? Perhaps the worst real-case scenario relates to a well-publicized case in which a CQT polygraph exam was given to a death row inmate within hours of the administration of his death penalty sentence. Is there any sane rationale for such an action, and, with the obvious psychological pressures commensurate with such a scenario, is there any way one could reasonably expect an innocent polygraph examinee, under such conditions, to focus on control questions (via some fear of detection mechanism) as opposed to the relevant questions that directly relate to his imminent demise (via a fear of consequences mechanism)? I think not.
Admittedly, I have gone from a rather commonplace criminal investigation (bank robbery) to what to me is one of the most egregious uses of CQT polygraphy on record, but one can imagine the same issues applied to a job applicant having an offer of employment riding solely on a polygraph exam or even look to a rather routine non-criminal setting to see evidence of what I am suggesting. It is not uncommon for an individual who is having his blood pressure measured to respond with a sudden increase in systolic blood pressure (as much as 30 mm Hg), not because he is necessarily hypertensive but because he may well be hyper-reactive. The nature of this hyper-reactivity, the so-called "white coat effect," may well stem from a fear of consequences, i.e., the inability to maintain a certain job, inability to get or maintain life insurance, inability to participate in certain athletic activities, etc., following a determination of hypertension. Is not this sort of phenomenon that we see fairly routinely evidenced with blood pressure readings (perhaps occurring through the suggested mechanism via the same autonomic response system in play with CQT polygraphy) actually what may well be happening with polygraphy? I would appreciate your thoughts on these issues.
Note: I expect to be preoccupied with other matters over the next several days, but do look forward to continuing our discussion(s).
While I have enjoyed our exchanges regarding countermeasures/counter-countermeasures involving the CQT polygraph exam and don't in any way want to discourage you from continuing that thread (responding to the numerous outstanding questions/comments put to you as well as adding your own additional thoughts), I thought I'd introduce another fundamental line of discourse regarding the CQT. That would be to take a look at the fundamental theory of its practice. Although many theories have been offered over the years, it appears that polygraphers seem to return over and over again to the notion involving "Fear of Detection" on the part of both guilty and innocent (of relevant issues) examinees. Theory has it that, following the proper "setting" of test questions (a very subjective pre-test procedure worthy of its own discussion--another post) guilty subjects, upon in-test presentation, will respond most strongly to relevant questions and innocent subjects to control questions, thereby giving a basis for the general overall and spot scoring used (scoring, yet another future topic for our consideration) in evaluating CQT polygraphy.
The notion that I would like to raise at this point is a diametrically opposing theory for why CQT polygraphy would NOT be expected to work (would be expected to result in false positives): "Fear of Consequences." I am not suggesting that there are not other reasons (anger, surprise, revulsion, etc.) for why the "test" might be confounded on any given use, but I believe the suggested general mechanism is why one would question its working in a large number of situations. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that anyone would react to being asked about involvement in certain crimes, not because of fear of being caught in a lie, but because of a fear of the consequences of having been so branded, independent of and regardless of whether that one (the polygraph examinee) had actually told the truth or told a lie during a polygraph exam regarding matter(s) under investigation.
Is it not reasonable to expect an examinee to respond to the relevant question "Did you rob the bank?" physiologically because he knows that deception-indicated polygraph results may lead to prosecution and conviction, denial of freedom, access to family, friends and worldly resources, etc.? Furthermore, is this not even successively more and more likely in the case involving a capital crime, and one in which the examinee's being subject to the death penalty may have been mentioned in the course of the investigation prior to an exam? Perhaps the worst real-case scenario relates to a well-publicized case in which a CQT polygraph exam was given to a death row inmate within hours of the administration of his death penalty sentence. Is there any sane rationale for such an action, and, with the obvious psychological pressures commensurate with such a scenario, is there any way one could reasonably expect an innocent polygraph examinee, under such conditions, to focus on control questions (via some fear of detection mechanism) as opposed to the relevant questions that directly relate to his imminent demise (via a fear of consequences mechanism)? I think not.
Admittedly, I have gone from a rather commonplace criminal investigation (bank robbery) to what to me is one of the most egregious uses of CQT polygraphy on record, but one can imagine the same issues applied to a job applicant having an offer of employment riding solely on a polygraph exam or even look to a rather routine non-criminal setting to see evidence of what I am suggesting. It is not uncommon for an individual who is having his blood pressure measured to respond with a sudden increase in systolic blood pressure (as much as 30 mm Hg), not because he is necessarily hypertensive but because he may well be hyper-reactive. The nature of this hyper-reactivity, the so-called "white coat effect," may well stem from a fear of consequences, i.e., the inability to maintain a certain job, inability to get or maintain life insurance, inability to participate in certain athletic activities, etc., following a determination of hypertension. Is not this sort of phenomenon that we see fairly routinely evidenced with blood pressure readings (perhaps occurring through the suggested mechanism via the same autonomic response system in play with CQT polygraphy) actually what may well be happening with polygraphy? I would appreciate your thoughts on these issues.
Note: I expect to be preoccupied with other matters over the next several days, but do look forward to continuing our discussion(s).