Activity Work

Q. How is it possible to ditch lie detector tests?

Firstly, Polygraphy is not science. Like its discredited sister disciplines, phrenology and
graphology, it is codified conjecture masquerading as science. As such, it can have no
scientific validity. There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique
to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest
person may be non-anxious. The computerization of polygraph chart reading has no more
made the underlying procedure “scientific” than has the computerization of astrological chart
reading. The reason that lie detector tests have not gained acceptance into the courts appears
to be one of legal theory and not lack of proof of the underlying scientific theory. The
American Psychological Association has recommended against using polygraph tests in
investigations or employee screening. Research has consistently shown that polygraphs are
not an effective way to reduce recidivism among sex offenders. And the National Research
Council has gone so far as to say that federal agencies' overconfidence in the test for
screening "presents a danger to national security objectives."

Secondly, unreliability and lack of general scientific acceptance are not the only objections to
the admission of lie detectors. The validity of the test results relies too much on the skill of
the operator and the test results are not susceptible to cross-examination. One area of special
concern in personnel security screening is the incorrect identification of innocent persons as
deceptive. All other factors being equal, the low base rates of guilt in screening situations
would lead to high false positive rates, even assuming very high polygraph validity. For
example, a typical polygraph screening situation might involve a base rate of guilt of one
guilty person out of 1,000 employees. Assuming that the polygraph is 95 percent valid, then
the one guilty person would be identified as deceptive but so would 50 innocent persons. The
predictive validity would be about 2 percent. Even if 99 percent polygraph validity is
assumed, there would still be 10 false positives for every correct detection.

Thirdly, lie detectors are not effective on the psychologically abnormal subject. The idea that
psychopaths may be able to "beat" a standard polygraph ("lie detector") test remains a
controversial issue. The one published study to date that has addressed this question directly
has been challenged on the grounds that: 1) the polygraph testing situation lacked a 'realistic
threat component, and 2) the examiner's decisions were not based on blind chart analyses.
This study re-assessed the accuracy of the polygraph with psychopaths using a revised
procedure, in response to Lykken's criticisms. Subjects were 24 psychopathic and 24 non-
psychopathic male prison inmates (aged 18-54) selected on the basis of psychopathy checklist
scores (Hare, 1980) and DSM-III ratings within each diagnostic sample, equal groups of
"guilty" and "innocent" subjects were tested regarding their involvement in a mock theft by
experienced professional polygraphers using control question procedures. Methodological
innovations included: a) a "group contingency threat" manipulation which produced a
realistic motivational; atmosphere for the polygraph test, b) simultaneous recordings of
physiological activity on field and laboratory polygraph instruments, and c) blind numerical
analyses of the field polygraph charts. Consistent with Raskin and Hare's results, the guilty
psychopaths in the present study were detected just as easily as the guilty non-psychopaths,
and the majority of guilty subjects (87%, excluding inconclusives) were correctly identified,
even when the decisions were based on blind chart analyses. However, in contrast to Raskin
and Hare's 91% accuracy figure for innocent subjects, the overall hit rate for innocent
subjects in the present study was only 56%. Quantitative analyses of the laboratory polygraph
recordings revealed few meaningful differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths,
and the results for guilty and innocent subjects closely matched those obtained with the field
polygraph. The findings were discussed in terms of their implications for the field validity of
the control question test and the responsivity of psychopaths to threat.

Submitted by Zochamliani