Took Poly a Few Years Ago and Have to Take it Again...

[John Doe]

I took a polygraph for a pre-employment LEO position in 2006 and passed. Due to family circumstances I never accepted the job which was offered.

I have to take another polygraph in a few months. All things being the same, would my chances of passing this next one be better than if I had never taken one?

And what I mean by that is, if a polygrapher knows you took one in 2006 and passed, it would seem that in order for them to better validate their machine, one would be more likely to pass the 2nd time around. Either that, or I guess that they could accuse you of being a liar in the few short years in between.

Also I'm 37 years old so I would think that anything they were looking for that I had done in the past would have been vetted out in my previous test.

[George W. Maschke]

Mentioning that you passed a pre-employment polygraph three years ago would indeed have the expected result of biasing the polygrapher in your favor. But it's no guarantee that you'll pass. Polygraphy remains a pseudoscientific procedure, one that is heavily biased against the truthful, and false positives are common.

[nomopolys4me]

Remember what you did the last time, and repeat it!!!  Hey, the law of averages says you have at least a 50% chance of passing, but if you don't take it, you have a 100% chance of not passing.  Your choice.

[Indiana73]

Mentioning that you passed a pre-employment polygraph three years ago would indeed have the expected result of biasing the polygrapher in your favor. But it's no guarantee that you'll pass. Polygraphy remains a pseudoscientific procedure, one that is heavily biased against the truthful, and false positives are common.

The head of polygraphy at an intel agency I will not name freely admits that polygraph machines are *not* "lie detectors."  All they do is measure changes in pulse, blood pressure, respiration etc. where a significant change of those factors during an exam may be indicative of deception because a normal person exhibits certain changes in those "markers" while lying.  If you have nothing to hide you should be fine.  What I did was just stare at the wall, clear my mind, relax, listen to the questions asked and answer them without "thinking" too much about them.  I passed first time.

[nomopolys4me]

Mentioning that you passed a pre-employment polygraph three years ago would indeed have the expected result of biasing the polygrapher in your favor. But it's no guarantee that you'll pass. Polygraphy remains a pseudoscientific procedure, one that is heavily biased against the truthful, and false positives are common.

The head of polygraphy at an intel agency I will not name freely admits that polygraph machines are *not* "lie detectors."  All they do is measure changes in pulse, blood pressure, respiration etc. where a significant change of those factors during an exam may be indicative of deception because a normal person exhibits certain changes in those "markers" while lying.  If you have nothing to hide you should be fine.  What I did was just stare at the wall, clear my mind, relax, listen to the questions asked and answer them without "thinking" too much about them.  I passed first time.

Pretty good answer Indy73.  The problem rests in the minds of law enforcement administrators, who what a black and white answer to the issue.  Heck, in WA State, it is a law that everytime a cop changes jobs, he must be subjected to the arbitrary Polygraph and "pass" it.  Needless to say, not many cops change jobs often anymore.