Welcome to the I Can't Sleep Podcast,
Where I help you drift off one fact at a time.
I'm your host,
Benjamin Boster,
And today's episode is about polygraphs.
Thanks to Dana for sponsoring today's episode.
A polygraph,
Often incorrectly referred to as a lie detector,
Is a pseudo-scientific device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators,
Such as blood pressure,
Pulse,
Respiration,
And skin conductivity,
While a person is asked and answers a series of questions.
The belief underpinning the use of the polygraph is that deception answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers.
However,
There are no specific physiological reactions associated with lying,
Making it difficult to identify factors that separate those who are lying from those who are telling the truth.
In some countries,
Polygraphs are used as an interrogation tool with criminal suspects or candidates for sensitive public or private sector employment.
Some United States law enforcement and federal government agencies,
As well as many police departments,
Use polygraph examinations to interrogate suspects and screen new employees.
Within the U.
S.
Federal government,
A polygraph examination is also referred to as a psychophysiological detection of deception examination.
Assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate,
May easily be defeated by countermeasures,
And are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.
A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of Existing Research concluded that there was little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy,
While the American Psychological Association has stated that most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
For this reason,
The use of polygraphs to detect lies is considered a form of either pseudoscience or junk science.
The examiner typically begins polygraph test sessions with a pre-test interview to gain some preliminary information,
Which will later be used to develop diagnostic questions.
Then,
The tester will explain how the polygraph is supposed to work,
Emphasizing that it can detect lies and that it is important to answer truthfully.
Then a stim test is often conducted.
The subject is asked to deliberately lie,
And then the tester reports that he was able to detect this lie.
Guilty subjects are likely to become more anxious when they are reminded of the test's validity.
However,
There are risks of innocent subjects being equally or more anxious than guilty.
Then the actual test starts.
Some of the questions asked are irrelevant.
Is your name Fred?
Others are diagnostic questions,
And the remainder are the relevant questions that the tester is really interested in.
The different types of questions alternate.
The test is passed if the physiological responses to the diagnostic questions are larger than those during the relevant questions.
Criticisms have been given regarding the validity of the administration of the control question technique.
The CQT may be vulnerable to being conducted in an interrogation-like fashion.
This kind of interrogation style would elicit a nervous response from innocent and guilty suspects alike.
There are several other ways of administering the questions.
An alternative is the Guilty Knowledge Test,
GKT,
Or the Concealed Information Test,
Which is used in Japan.
The administration of this test is given to prevent potential errors that may arise from the questioning style.
The test is usually conducted by a tester with no knowledge of the crime or circumstances in question.
The administrator tests the participant on their knowledge of the crime that would not be known to an innocent person.
For example,
Was the crime committed with a.
45 or a 9mm?
The questions are in multiple choice,
And the participant is rated on how they react to the correct answer.
If they react strongly to the guilty information,
Then proponents of the test believe that it is likely that they know facts relevant to the case.
This administration is considered more valid by supporters of the test because it contains many safeguards to avoid the risk of the administrator influencing the results.
Assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are inaccurate,
May be defeated by countermeasures,
And are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.
Despite claims that polygraph tests are between 80% and 90% accurate by advocates,
The National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.
In particular,
Studies have indicated that the relevant-irrelevant questioning technique is not ideal,
As many innocent subjects exert a heightened physiological reaction to the crime-relevant questions.
The American Psychological Association states,
Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
In 2002,
A review by the National Research Council found that in populations untrained in countermeasures,
Specific incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth-telling at rates well above chance,
Though well below perfection.
The review also warns against generalization from these findings to justify the use of polygraphs.
Polygraph accuracy for screening purposes is almost certainly lower than what can be achieved by specific incident polygraph tests in the field,
And notes some examinees may be able to take countermeasures to produce deceptive results.
In the 1998 U.
S.
Supreme Court case,
United States v.
Schaeffer,
The majority stated that there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable.
Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the juror's knowledge,
Such as the analysis of fingerprints,
Ballistics,
Or DNA found at a crime scene,
A polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another option.
The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin.
In 2005,
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community.
In 2001,
William Iacono,
Professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Minnesota,
Concluded,
Although the CQ-2 control question test may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions,
It does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test.
CQ-2 theory is based on naive,
Implausible assumptions,
Indicating a.
That it is biased against innocent individuals,
And b.
That it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions.
Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQ-T,
Both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals.
Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQ-Ts admitted as evidence in court,
There is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it.
Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQ-T are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents.
Polygraphs measure arousal,
Which can be affected by anxiety,
Anxiety disorders,
Such as post-traumatic stress disorder,
PTSD,
Nervousness,
Fear,
Confusion,
Hypoglycemia,
Psychosis,
Depression,
Substance-induced states like nicotine,
Substance withdrawal state,
Alcohol withdrawal,
Or other emotions.
Polygraphs do not measure lies.
A polygraph cannot differentiate anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by something else.
Since the polygraph does not measure lying,
The silent talker lie detector inventors expected that adding a camera to film microexpressions would improve the accuracy of the evaluators.
This did not happen in practice,
According to an article in The Intercept.
In 1983,
The U.
S.
Congress Office of Technology Assessment published a review of the technology and found that there is at present only limited scientific evidence for establishing the validity of polygraph testing.
Even where the evidence seems to indicate that polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance,
Significant error rates are possible.
An examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.
In 2003,
The National Academy of Sciences,
NAS,
Issued a report entitled The Polygraph and Lie Detection.
The NAS found that overall the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak,
Concluding that 57 of the approximately 80 research studies that the American Polygraph Association relied on to teach their conclusions were significantly flawed.
These studies did show that specific incident polygraph testing in a person untrained in countermeasures could discern the truth at a level greater than chance,
Yet short of perfection.
However,
Due to several flaws,
The levels of accuracy shown in these studies are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific incident testing in the field.
By adding a camera,
The silent talker lie detector attempted to give more data to the evaluator by providing information about microexpressions.
However,
Adding the silent talker camera did not improve lie detection and was very expensive and cumbersome to include,
According to an article in The Intercept.
When polygraphs are used as a screening tool in national security matters and for law enforcement agencies,
For example,
The level of accuracy drops to such a level that its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violations from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.
The NAS concluded that the polygraph may have some utility,
But that there is little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy.
The NAS conclusions paralleled those of the earlier United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment report,
Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing,
A Research Review and Evaluation.
Similarly,
A report to Congress by the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy concluded that the few government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity,
As opposed to its utility,
Especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment,
Indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions.
Despite the NAS finding of a high rate of false positives,
Failures to expose individuals such as Aldrich Ames and Larry Wu-Tai-Chin,
And other inabilities to show a scientific justification for the use of the polygraph,
It continues to be employed.
Several proposed countermeasures designed to pass polygraph tests have been described.
There are two major types of countermeasures.
General state,
Intending to alter the physiological or psychological state of the subject during the test,
And specific point,
Intending to alter the physiological or psychological state of the subject at specific periods during the examination,
Either to increase or decrease responses during critical examination periods.
General state.
When asked how he passed the polygraph test,
Central Intelligence Agency officer turned KGB mole Aldrich Ames explained that he sought advice from his Soviet handler,
And received the simple instruction to get a good night's sleep and rest,
And go into the test rested and relaxed,
Be nice to the polygraph examiner,
Develop a rapport,
And be cooperative and try to maintain your calm.
Additionally,
Ames explained,
There's no special magic,
Confidence is what does it.
Confidence in a friendly relationship with the examiner,
Rapport,
Where you smile and you make him think that you like him.
Specific point.
Other suggestions for countermeasures include for the subject to mentally record the control and relevant questions as the examiner reviews them before the interrogation begins.
During the interrogation,
The subject is supposed to carefully control their breathing while answering the relevant questions,
And to try to artificially increase their heart rate during the control questions,
For example,
By thinking of something scary or exciting,
Or by pricking themselves with a pointed object concealed somewhere on the body.
In this way,
The results will not show a significant reaction to any of the relevant questions.
Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies in the United States are by far the largest users of polygraph technology.
In the United States alone,
Most federal law enforcement agencies either employ their own polygraph examiners or use the services of examiners employed by their agencies.
Susan McCarthy of Ceylon said in 2000 that the polygraph is an American phenomenon with limited use in a few countries such as Canada,
Israel,
And Japan.
In Armenia,
Government-administered polygraphs are legal,
At least for use in national security investigations.
The National Security Service,
NSS,
Armenia's primary intelligence service,
Requires polygraph examinations of all new applicants.
Polygraph evidence became inadmissible in New South Wales courts under the Lie Detectors Act 1983.
Under the same Act,
It is also illegal to use polygraphs for the purpose of granting employment,
Insurance,
Financial accommodation,
And several other purposes for which polygraphs may be used in other jurisdictions.
In Canada,
The 1987 decision of R.
V.
Belland,
The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court,
Finding that they were inadmissible.
The polygraph is still used as a tool in the investigation of criminal acts and sometimes employed in the screening of employees for government organizations.
In the province of Ontario,
The Employment Standards Act 2000 prohibits employers from asking or requiring employees to undergo a polygraph test.
Police services are permitted to use polygraph tests as part of an investigation,
If the person consents.
In a majority of European jurisdictions,
Polygraphs are generally considered to be unreliable for gathering evidence,
And are usually not used by local law enforcement agencies.
Polygraph testing is widely seen in Europe to violate the right to remain silent.
In England and Wales,
A polygraph test can be taken,
But the results cannot be used in a court of law to prove a case.
However,
The Offender Management Act 2007 put in place an option to use polygraph tests to monitor serious sex offenders on parole in England and Wales.
These tests became compulsory in 2014 for high-risk sexual offenders currently on parole in England and Wales.
The Supreme Court of Poland declared on January 29,
2015,
That the use of polygraph in interrogation of suspects is forbidden by the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure.
Its use might be allowed,
Though,
If the suspect has been already accused of a crime,
And if the interrogated person consents to the use of a polygraph.
Even then,
The use of polygraph can never be used as a substitute for actual evidence.
As of 2017,
The Justice Ministry and Supreme Court of both the Netherlands and Germany have rejected use of polygraphs.
In 2018,
Wired Magazine reported that an estimated 2.
5 million polygraph tests were given each year in the United States,
With the majority administered to paramedics,
Police officers,
Firefighters,
And state troopers.
The average cost to administer the test is more than $700,
And is part of a $2 billion industry.
In 2007,
Polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states,
And was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court.
The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial,
Although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision.
In Daubert v.
Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
,
1993,
The old Fry Standard was lifted,
And all forensic evidence,
Including polygraph,
Had to meet the new Daubert Standard,
In which underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue.
While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the U.
S.
,
No defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test unless they are under the supervision of the courts.
In United States v.
Schaeffer,
1998,
The U.
S.
Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases.
Nevertheless,
It is used extensively by prosecutors,
Defense attorneys,
And law enforcement agencies.
In the states of Rhode Island,
Massachusetts,
Maryland,
New Jersey,
Oregon,
Delaware,
And Iowa,
It is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing.
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests,
Either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment with certain exemptions.
As of 2013,
About 70,
000 job applicants are polygraphed by the federal government on an annual basis.
In the United States,
The state of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in jury trials under certain circumstances.
Most polygraph researchers have focused more on the exam's predictive value on a subject's guilt.
However,
There have been no empirical theories established to explain how a polygraph measures deception.
A 2010 study indicated that functional magnetic resonance imaging may benefit in explaining the psychological correlations of polygraph exams.
It could also explain which parts of the brain are active when subjects use artificial memories.
Most brain activity occurs in both sides of the prefrontal cortex,
Which is linked to response inhibition.
This indicates that deception may involve inhibition of truthful responses.
Some researchers believe that reaction time-based tests may replace polygraphs in concealed information detection.
RT-based tests differ from polygraphs in stimulus presentation duration and can be conducted without physiological recording as subject response time is measured via computer.
However,
Researchers have found limitations to these tests as subjects voluntarily control their reaction time.
Deception can still occur within the response deadline,
And the test itself lacks physiological recording.
Lie detection has a long history in mythology and fairy tales.
The polygraph has allowed modern fiction to use a device more easily seen as scientific and plausible.
Notable instances of polygraph usage include uses in crime and espionage-themed television shows and some daytime television talk shows,
Cartoons,
And films.
Numerous TV shows have been called lie detector or featured the device.
The first lie detector TV show aired in the 1950s,
Created and hosted by Ralph Andrews.
In the 1960s,
Andrews produced a series of specials hosted by Melvin Belli.
In the 1970s,
The show was hosted by Jack Anderson.
In early 1983,
Columbia Pictures Television put on a syndicated series hosted by F.
Lee Bailey.
In 1998,
TV producer Mark Phillips,
With his Mark Phillips Films and Television,
Put Lie Detector back on the air on the Fox network.
On that program,
Ed Gelb with host Marsha Clark questioned Mark Furman about the allegation that he planted the bloody glove.
In 2005,
Phillips produced Lie Detector as a series for PAX ION.
Some of the guests included Paula Jones,
Reverend Paul Crouch,
Accuser Lonnie Ford,
Ben Rowling,
Jeff Grannon,
And swift boat vet Steve Garner.
In the Fox game show,
The Moment of Truth,
Contestants are privately asked personal questions a few days before the show,
While hooked to a polygraph.
On the show,
They ask the same questions in front of a studio audience and members of their family.
In order to advance in the game,
They must give a truthful answer,
As determined by the previous polygraph exam.
In episode 93 of the US science show Mythbusters,
The hosts attempted to fool the polygraph by using pain when answering truthfully,
In order to test the notion that polygraphs interpret truthful and non-truthful answers as the same.
They also attempted to fool the polygraph by thinking pleasant thoughts when lying,
And thinking stressful thoughts when telling the truth,
To try to confuse the machine.
However,
Neither technique was successful for a number of reasons.
Michael Martin correctly identified each guilty and innocent subject.
Martin suggested that when conducted properly,
Polygraphs are correct 98% of the time,
But no scientific evidence has been offered for this.
