Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty

[G Scalabr]

In the six years since the initial publication of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it is no surprise that the primary response from polygraph operators has come in the form of ad hominem attacks.

Who I am is irrelevant to my criticism of polygraphy. My writing is well-referenced and stands on its own.

[Paradiddle]

It should be noted that despite the platitudes of Mr. Scalabrini, the point of this thread is to discuss the study and it's implications, not to air Gino's ancient vendetta (hard on) for polygraph screening and APA politics. Although a fascinating read  , I am inclined to say that Gino is "decompensating."

Skip wrote;

The participants were given the downloadable manual "The lie Behind the Lie Detector" from this site and told to study the book as it could help them to pass the polygraph test.  After having the book for a week, the guilty subjects with the book were no better at passing the test than were the guilty group without the book.  However, the innocent group with the book failed the test at a higher rate  (false positives) than the innocent group without the book.  Makes one wonder if this site is doing more harm than good.  If it doesn't help the guilty to pass and it causes the innocent to fail the test at a higher rate then why would one use the book?  This study indicates the exact opposite from what this web site predicts will happen!

Gino;

First, and foremost, the APA could have completely distanced itself from polygraph screening. While we can agree to disagree about the validity of specific issue testing, there is unanimous contempt among scientists and researchers for polygraph screening.  

Please site in a seperate thread your sources for this "unanimous contempt for applicant screening." There are many questions, but unanimous contempt-----you should temper your bluster with facts and not mere wartime projection. Some choose not to run those tests for reasons other than the test's construct or validity.

Short of that, the APA could have taken the advice you just gave us and insisted that polygraph screening never be used as a sole determining factor in making any kind of adverse employment decision.

They did give such advice and the advice has been taken for years now.

Again, for this to have been substantive, it would have involved speaking out against the FBI and Secret Service (who have done this for years), coming to the support of applicants who were wrongly dismissed following a single failed polygraph, and most importantly, the issuance of severe sanctions (e.g. expulsion) against any APA member who performed screening "exams" for an agency using them as a sole determining factor in employment.

Who on earth has ever been able to pierce the veil of secret operations of the FBI and Secret Service? Your statement is embarrassingly naive, and your surmise that the APA has some sort of power over federal agencies is pure folly. If anything, it has been my impression that the APA has been pushed around more than they have been able to push back when it comes to Fed Bureaucracy. My opinion though.

Lastly, with so many members polygraphing applicants and asking questions about deception on employment applications, the APA can have no public credibility whatsoever while looking the other way against verified allegations of "luminaries" in the field who have presented demonstrably false educational credentials (read: FAKE PhDs) to examinees, clients and even the courts. Again serious sanctions against violators would have been the only way to communicate sincerity here

You clearly have mistaken the APA for a licensure/certification body. They have zero power regarding sanctions in many states and can only suspend memberships. Perhaps Ed could have been suspended (membership)---and perhaps he was suspended as when a member is suspended, it is a confidential matter----either way---it is off topic. The topic is that studies show that the use of countermeasures by innocent individuals oftentimes results in a failed attempt.

If some in your industry had not been so greedy and taken an objective look at what was happening (namely, the rampant abuse of polygraph screening) and actually done something to curtail the problem, this huge threat to polygraphy would not exist (and your members could make better use of their evenings than an organized effort participating here in an attempt to do damage control).

No one is doing damage control, we are taking back our profession. We have learned a valuable lesson from you that we need to better self-evaluate our members and our methods. But for you to state with braggadocio that this site is a "huge threat to polygraphy" is very grandiose. What is a threat is that countless good applicants are failing tests (as indicated by research) by way of countermeasure temptations and overthinking the test. You and your narrow crusade have created far more errors in polygraph than normative errors from construct weaknesses. And don't get me started on the fact that this site encourages  sex offenders to disengage from treatment process and disclosure protocol thereby putting children at risk, as we know from research that treatment-engaged sexual predators show less recidivism. I have 3 kids, how many do you have? This fact is what keeps me participating. You sir are apparently oblivious to your clumsy crusade and furthermore, it is you who are damaged, not the polygraph profession.

[Squeezecheeze]

This study seems to have the anti-polygraph folks at a loss for words. I hope it does not over shadow the fact that we are still waiting for any posts that support Dr. Drew's claims of being an expert.

I also hope that first time visitors to this site are seeing it for what it really is-a bunch of "smoke and mirrors".

Regards,

The Squeeze

[StudebakerHawk]

I knew it!  Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

[tbld]

This study seems to have the anti-polygraph folks at a loss for words. I hope it does not over shadow the fact that we are still waiting for any posts that support Dr. Drew's claims of being an expert.

I also hope that first time visitors to this site are seeing it for what it really is-a bunch of "smoke and mirrors"

Nothing has me at a loss for words.. there is always point counter points to everything.. Anti folk will post something..and the pg's will come out with their ad homs and their same song and dance... I can finally attest to what a joke the polygraph is its not accurate its not effective too many good people get tossed from a hiring process because of it. Im not impressed by Skips post just another counter point. Someone could come out tommorow with a study that totally debunks the polygraph and someone would still try to say it works.  If you think a polygrapher is effective I got some swamp land in death valley if anyone is interested

T

[Fair Chance]

Gentlemen,

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself.  My experiece with the polygraph screening process was completely inaccurate.  At this point, I do not need pro-polygraph or anti-polygraph advocates to argue anything concerning my experiences.  They were wrong in their assumptions.  It was not scientific.  The expense was not necessary.  It was a waste of time and money.  I cannot endorse its use in any way, shape or form in its current use as a stand-alone pre-screening tool deciding the fate of an FBI applicant.  The FBI as an agency and the nation as a whole are losing valuable applicants to the irrationale trust placed in this procedure.

Regards.

[George W. Maschke]

George,  Thank you for commenting on the study I posted.  It appears to have struck a nerve!  Your comments about the value of the study require some explanation to those who might not routinely avail themselves of research and prefer to accept what they read on the internet as the Gospel.

Skip, I would never suggest that anyone uncritically accept anything they read on the Internet (or elsewhere) as the Gospel (not even the Gospel). It is for this reason that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is documented with ample citations that skeptical readers may (and are encouraged to) check for themselves. It is also for this reason that (unlike any pro-polygraph organizations), we keep our message board open to dissenting viewpoints.

You stated the following:

Weaknesses of this methodology include:

Motivational conditions were low. Participants were students who volunteered their time in exchange for class credit. There were no adverse consequences for failing to pass the polygraph, and the only "reward" for passing was paltry (movie passes);

RESPONSE: George to be fair, you should point out that virtually all mock crime studies, indeed all psychological studies usually involve students as participants who volunteer their time in exchange for class credit or a minor monetary reward or token.  This certainly isn't a weakness in this or any other study.

Skip, that study subjects were student volunteers with virtually nothing at stake is a weakness of this study to the extent that it makes generalization to field conditions, where stakes are typically high, problematic.

Although participants provided with copies of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector were "encouraged to study the book before taking their examination," there is no way of knowing to what extent they actually did so. Students received class credit whether or not they read the book. While participants reported spending an average 1.58 hours reading it (with a standard deviation of .96), these self-reported study times may well have been overstated by participants wishing to be perceived as having heeded the encouragement to study the book;

RESPONSE:  The conditions you describe are exactly the same as the "real" people who come onto your site and read your book.  There is no way to determine the amount of time they spend or the degree to which they "study" the book prior to their examination.

It's true that we don't know how much time visitors to AntiPolygraph.org who face polygraph "testing" spend reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. But it seems reasonable to suppose that those for whom the outcome of a polygraph examination may have life-changing consequences are likely to devote more time and attention to studying the material than undergraduate students with precious little to gain or lose, and who will receive their class credit whether or not they read and master the material.

The study relied on examinee self-reporting of whether examinees used countermeasures. Perhaps this was unavoidable, as there is no reliable technique for detecting countermeasures. Nonetheless, such self-reporting may or may not have been truthful;
RESPONSE:  Now George, let's don't even go there.  Everything on your site is self reporting and there is certainly no way to determine the truth about what the people on your site report when they deny crimes or allege successful countermeasures used.

Skip, the AntiPolygraph.org message board is a discussion forum, not a scientific study, and it is presented as nothing more than a discussion forum. The fact that the Honts & Alloway study concerns (among other things) self-reported countermeasure use, as opposed to independently verified countermeasure use, is salient.

There is no indication that examiners were blind with regard to examinee status (e.g. guilty/innocent, informed/uninformed). And examiners were almost certainly not blind with regard to base rates for each category.

RESPONSE:  Now George, that was beneath you.  You are much smarter than that and so are most of the people who read the information on this site.  You certainly know that Dr. Honts would not bother to conduct a study in which the examiners were not blind to the condition of the participants.  That's simply reaching on your part.  I'm embarrassed for you on that one.

The blindness of examiners to a particular test condition is something that is commonly explicitly stated in scientific studies. Google "examiners were blinded" (in quotation marks) and you'll find numerous examples. The Honts & Alloway study makes no mention of the examiners' blindness to any condition.

Finally, studies are just that...studies.  They allow thoughtful people to form conclusions and opinions based upon what they see happen in the scenario presented.  This one was particularly insightful as it replicated a previously conducted study that indicated the same result.  I placed the study here so that thoughtful people might read it and make decisions for themselves about the use of countermeasures.  Many, like you, won't change their mind but some smart, truthful people might just read this and decide that they don't want to put their career and their fate into the hands of someone who has become so entangled in his own web that he can no longer step back and look objectively at anything that challenges his belief system.  Smart people might just decide not to drink the kool aid George.

Skip, I would point out for those who might not be aware that what you've posted (in the opening post of this thread) is not the entire study, but only the article abstract. This is certainly nothing that we would wish to hide from our readers, and as I noted above, I previously posted the same abstract in my Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma, as Rovner made reference in his testimony to this then-in-press article.

As for entanglement in webs and drinking of Kool-Aid, I'll let others draw their own conclusions. But with regard to the Honts & Alloway article, it is worth noting (as the authors properly do in their "Declaration of interests"), that "Charles Honts is a licensed polygraph examiner and derives income from the conduct of polygraph examinations and giving testimony in courts of law." His recent testimony regarding the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences report led to his being discredited by a federal judge.

[G Scalabr]

I knew it!  Mr. Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

The first thing we know is that we have the courage to post under our own names.

Something that cannot be said for virtually every polygraph supporter who has posted here besides Dr. Gordon Barland (real Ph.D, not fake) and Skip Webb.

[Paradiddle]

I knew it!  Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

The first thing we know is that we have the stones to post here under our real names.

Something that cannot be said for virtually every polygraph supporter who has posted here besides Dr. Gordon Barland (real Ph.D, not fake) and Skip Webb.

Being called names by anonymous cowards is actually kind of amusing for me, really.

So what you are saying is that Digithead, EosJupitor, tlbd, BeachTrees, Fairchance, Sergeant, Administrator---and the rest of the crew here "have no stones" due to not wanting to be identified? And I suppose that all of the above except for Amdin and Sarge are cowards as they throw stones, call names, delete posts, ridicule and condescend our field from their squeeky chairs?
You are "amused" eh?
I suspect you are not amused at all. Your pencil is running out of lead pison.

[G Scalabr]

The posters you listed are adding the discussion by posting substance that adds to the discourse here. The same cannot be said of your own.

[Paradiddle]

The posters you listed are adding the discussion by posting substance that adds to the discourse here. The cowards such as yourself are keyboard warriors, throwing personal insults while hiding behind a veil of anonymity.

And yes, you are cowards.

Uh....yeah......rrrright. Gee, I have been reading this site for 5 years now and I have seen examiners suffer adhom attacks without them even being able to defend themselves. I have seen tireless circular argument that polygraph is pseudoscience from people who spell science as "siance." I along with other examiners have been called frauds, charlatans, tea-leaf readers, idiots, phonies--and now add "cowards" to the list of "thoughtful discussion" and "substance." Spare me your sanctimonious cherub impression. The anti-members have long been throwing turds at us year after year. We have been above the fray. But your time of reckoning has begun. Sure, we have lampooned you critters for a few months---as you can't debate a broken record. I have seen some really informative posts from Examiners who at last have decided that this cozy little place should not exist soley for absentee bashing.
You sir are the coward who ignores the fact that you are a direct contributer for sexual predators disengaging from treatment, good applicants who get screwed by taking horrific advice from you and others as evidenced by the forementioned research study, and let's not even begin to account for the scores of inconclusive tests by murderers and their ilke who decide to not stay still for a test. Your cause is the embodiment of narcissism, plain and simple.

[Barry_C]

Hello all,

The conversation is, at times, interesting here, so I thought I'd join the discussion now and then (time allowing, of course).  For the record, I am a polygraph examiner from Portland, Maine.  Some of you know me already.  Before I decided on polygraph, I too conducted my own research, and I read this site and George's book back then, so I do recall what it was like to come here "blind" so to speak.  I appreciate the opportunity to offer the thoughts and reasoning of "the other side" as time permits.  On some things we agree; on others, well, no so much agreement.

As far as Charles' study goes, I don't think it matters much if the examiners (or examiner) were (was) blind to ground truth.  The tests were "scored" by the computer.  As long as the data was collected correctly (and I hope we're not ready to say Charles was up to something), then scoring reliability is as good as it can be.  Charles, who at one time considered CMs a threat to polygraph, wouldn't write up a doctored study in which the examiners influenced the results.  (It would be difficult to do even on a subconscious level with this study.)  Keep in mind that the peer-reviewed journal in which this was published apparently doesn't share your views that the study's methodology was seriously flawed.

This isn't a new study by the way.  Charles and Wendy released this info in 2002 in a paper presented to the Rocky Mountain Psych. Assoc. in April of that year.  This has gone five years without a challenge, and now, after a substantial delay, I find it odd that only George Mashke has serious reservations about the study.

I've got to run.

Barry

[Barry_C]

Sorry George.  I just noticed my fingers didn't work when I typed your last name.

[George W. Maschke]

Barry,

In the Honts & Alloway study, blinding with regard to subject status would have been desirable to avoid the possibility of examiner bias influencing the outcome, notwithstanding that chart scoring was done by computer, because such variables as the examiner's demeanor, tone of voice, and so forth can influence outcomes.

I haven't seen the 2002 paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association meeting (which I did not attend), and thus have not been in a position to comment on it.

[1904]

Questions for Barry:

1   Were there any software scoring systems that were APA accredited or scientifically verified in 2002 ?

2   Are there sss that are sc verified and / or APA accredited in 2007 ?

3   Are there any peer-reviewed studies that will tell us who scores more accurately...
   namely, the examiner or the software ?