Search

In the current article, we discuss the application of cognitive science in Israeli law enforcement agencies. Applying cognitive-based techniques requires adjustment to the operational realities. Therefore, we used the Theory–Protocol–Procedure paradigm, which specifies the framework for the required adjustments to specific challenges, state and institutional regulations, target populations, and conditions (e.g., time, human resources, and adequate expertise). Specifically, we followed the path of evidence-based techniques for collecting information, detecting memory, and assessing credibility, from research to operational manuals in Israel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper demonstrates a combined method of statistics and algebra for computing the base rates of deceptive vs. truthful examinees that take polygraph tests in defined populations, based on the proportions of the deceptive and truthful test results. It also evaluates the degree to which a specific test outcome of the polygraph comparison question test (CQT) examination can be trusted to be correct. A concrete example was taken from the Israel Police. It shows that the confidence with which a deceptive outcome (DI) can be trusted to be correct is only about 0.65. In contrast, the posterior probability of a truthful outcome (NDI) to be correct is 0.98. The method is generalized to a wide range of hypothetical proportions of outcomes. The significance of the finding is discussed concerning the dilemma of using polygraph results as evidence in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Inconclusive Zone, in one form or another, is an integral part of almost any data analysis method of CQT. It represents the existence of built-in uncertainties in the test and indicates how the test, in general, and the examiners, in particular, bear this limitation in practice. Unfortunately, it is so common that most examiners tend not to spend too much time and attention wondering about its meaning. The following are some reflections on the concept of an Inconclusive Zone, and its actual use, including some resulting recommendations. Th at includes internal aspects of the test, such as the relation between the extent of using multiple comparison points between relevant and comparison questions and the optimal Inconclusive Zone size. External aspects affecting the Inconclusive Zone's size and shape are also stressed when looking at the CQT through a prism of aiding decision-making rather than a mere means to sort truth from lies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fifty years ago, in a trenchant analysis that challenged applied lie detection theory and science, David Lykken (1974) brought polygraphic interrogation methods to the attention of academia with the hope that these techniques would come under the purview of psychology and psychophysiology. In this perspective, I examine how this application of psychophysiology has evolved over the last half century and how its status has changed for 1) the comparison (control) question test (CQT), used in forensic applications; 2) polygraph screening tests, used to evaluate examinee integrity; and 3) the concealed information technique (CIT), used to assess recognition memory of crime details. The criticisms of the CQT and screening tests advanced by Lykken have been amplified and focused by the academic community over the last half century. However, this has had little effect on how these methods are practiced and has not curtailed their use. Although most private sector employee screening tests are now prohibited, personnel screening of government employees has increased, and screening tests of sex offenders are now commonplace. Even though the CIT has captured the interest of psychophysiologists as a scientifically defensible technique, its field use is negligible. A primary purpose of polygraphic interrogations continues to be the extraction of admissions and confessions. The lack of change in the polygraph testing status quo stems in large part from unwavering government support for the use of these methods. As a result, polygraph theory and research support continues to rest on shaky ground while practice continues unfettered by valid criticism. • Fifty years of research has not significantly improved lie detection practices. • Concerns persist that the comparison question test has a high false positive rate. • Despite their promise, concealed information tests are seldom used. • Polygraph screening of government employees and sex offenders has increased. • Government promotion of the lie detector industry helps to insulate it from criticism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a meta‐analysis on the most commonly used forensic polygraph test, the Comparison Question Test. We captured as many studies as possible by using broad inclusion criteria. Data and potential moderators were coded from 138 datasets. The meta‐analytic effect size including inconclusive outcomes was 0.69 [0.66, 0.79]. We found significant moderator effects. Notably, level of motivation had a positive linear relationship with our outcome measures. Information Gain analysis of CQT outcomes representing the median accuracy showed a significant information increase over interpersonal deception detection across almost the complete range of base rates. Our results suggest that the CQT can be accurate, that experimental studies are generalizable, and no publication bias was detected. We discussed the limitations of the field research literature and problems within polygraph profession that lower field accuracy. We suggest some possible solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the inherent difficulties in validating the comparison question polygraph test (CQT) by using a wide range of the conventional two categories of studies--field and laboratory--(NRC - The polygraph and lie detection, 2003), the innovative method presented by Ginton (Psychology, Crime & Law, 2013, 19, pp. 577-594), has been considered to be a breakthrough (Raskin & Kircher, 2014, Validity of polygraph techniques and decision methods. p. 82). In their recent review of the current status of polygraph validity, Iacono and Ben-Shakhar (Law & Human Behavior, 2019, 43, pp. 86-98), dedicated a significant portion of their article to scrutinising that novel approach. They did applaud Ginton's innovation for the development of the new methods but criticised its outcomes to the point that nullified any contributions it might have had in dealing with the long-lasting controversy regarding the CQT validity. The present response to that critique examines their argumentations in dismissing Ginton's study point by point, indicating reliance on some speculations that had nothing to do with reality and a profound misunderstanding or misinterpreting of the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article compared three CQT polygraph studies, each indicating a different degree of the prior information effect in triggering confirmation bias while scoring polygraph examinations. The comparison led to the conclusion that the sample of the examiners who did the scoring in the Krapohl and Dutton’s study, (2018) was a better representative of the examiners’ population; however, the robust effect found in it is somewhat questionable since an unspecified part of it could be related to an uncontrolled contamination of a conformity factor. So, we are left with the findings of the other two studies, which indicate a smaller effect. The comparison between the studies also raised the option that using the conservative inconclusive zone of +/-5 in the numerical scoring might mitigate the prior information impact by reducing the possibility that it may change results from Deception Indicated (DI) to No Deception Indicated (NDI) and vice versa. With such cut scores, at most, the effect would be shown in entering or leaving the Inconclusive zone, which is less problematic in terms of increasing the number of potential errors. The danger of being affected by prior information is still there and should be paid attention to; however, as for now, research evidence indicates that it affects only a small percentage of the total volume of field CQT tests. That is compatible with Ginton's (2019) findings that the adverse effect in practice may concern less than 5% of the specific event-related CQT examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The detection of deception has attracted increased attention among psychological researchers, legal scholars, and ethicists during the last decade. Much of this has been driven by the possibility of using neuroimaging techniques for lie detection. Yet, neuroimaging studies addressing deception detection are clouded by lack of conceptual clarity and a host of methodological problems that are not unique to neuroimaging. We review the various research paradigms and the dependent measures that have been adopted to study deception and its detection. In doing so, we differentiate between basic research designed to shed light on the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying deceptive behavior and applied research aimed at detecting lies. We also stress the distinction between paradigms attempting to detect deception directly and those attempting to establish involvement by detecting crime-related knowledge, and discuss the methodological difficulties and threats to validity associated with each paradigm. Our conclusion is that the main challenge of future research is to find paradigms that can isolate cognitive factors associated with deception, rather than the discovery of a unique (brain) correlate of lying. We argue that the Comparison Question Test currently applied in many countries has weak scientific validity, which cannot be remedied by using neuroimaging measures. Other paradigms are promising, but the absence of data from ecologically valid studies poses a challenge for legal admissibility of their outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a mock crime experiment with 250 paid participants (126 females, Mdn age = 30 years) contrasting the validity of the probable-lie and the directed-lie variants of the comparison question test (CQT) for the detection of deception. Subjects were assigned at random to one of eight conditions in a Guilt (Guilty/Innocent) × Test Type (Probable-Lie/Directed-Lie) × Stimulation (Between Repetition Stimulation/No Stimulation) factorial design. The data were scored by an experienced polygraph examiner who was unaware of subject assignment to conditions and with a computer algorithm known as the Objective Scoring System Version 2 (OSS2). There were substantial main effects of guilt in both the OSS2 computer scores F (1, 241) = 143.82, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.371, and in the human scoring, F (1, 242) = 98.92, p < .001, η p 2 = .29. There were no differences between the test types in the number of spontaneous countermeasure attempts made against them. Although under the controlled conditions of an experiment the probable-lie and the directed-lie variants of the CQT produced equivocal results in terms of detection accuracy, the directed-lie variant has much to recommend it as it is inherently more standardized in its administration and construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper introduces the basic logic and assumptions underlying the most widespread polygraph technique, the Comparison Question Test. It then indicates that two of these assumptions encounter difficulties in cases involving victims of violence, which could increase the danger of error on the test. To handle this problem, it is required to take a few decisions related to specific professional procedures as well as to implement a special policy. Another line of problems stems from ethical considerations. The main point in this respect is that being polygraphed is quite an unpleasant experience. This is more so when the examinee is an authentic victim of violence whose complaint is under investigation. Polygraphing such a person adds to the suffering of the victim. The ethical question becomes a practical one, namely how to determine the situations in which polygraph examination on an alleged victim is, nevertheless, justifiable and differentiate them from other situations. A conceptual cost-benefit analysis is presented in this regard, and the need for taking specific decisions by the polygraph examiner, the criminal investigator, and the commanding officer, when facing the option of using the polygraph for investigating complaints about violence, is pointed out, together with a recommended policy. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about the validity of the comparison question test (CQT) will continue to create controversy until a well-validated theory is developed that explains how the polygraph test detects deception. One theory that provides a plausible explanation states that deceptive behavior on the CQT and corresponding physiological arousal on the polygraph are associated with neural activation in areas of the brain that process personally-relevant, emotionally-arousing information. Although the literature on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and the detection of deception suggests that certain brain areas may be active when someone lies, no study has examined whether deception on the CQT produces activation in specific areas of the brain and corresponding physiological arousal as measured by the polygraph. Using fMRI to test Kleiner's theory may provide support for his theory of how the polygraph detects deception and may also improve the predictive validity of the CQT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Criminal Investigation & Criminology / Revija za Kriminalistiko in Kriminologijo is the property of Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia, Police and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Forensic applications of polygraph techniques rely primarily on the control or comparison question test (CQT). The author describes the CQT and its theoretical basis, and how it is used and evaluated by the polygraph professionals, and by scientists at arms length from the polygraph community. Because the CQT (a) has a weak theoretical foundation, making it unlikely that it can be as accurate as polygraph proponents claim, (b) is biased against the innocent, and (c) may be subject to countermeasures used by the guilty to appear truthful, CQT results cannot constitute evidence of either deception or truthfulness. In the absence of insight into brain mechanisms that underlie deception, it may be difficult to develop a valid lie detector. However, methods are available for detecting guilty knowledge, information that only the perpetrator of a crime and the police possess, which are ripe for further development as forensic applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a mock crime study of the comparison question test (CQT), 35 subjects decided to participate as guilty and 30 as innocent. Two conditions were varied: Explaining the comparison questions in the pretest interview and re-discussing comparison questions between charts. Higher identification rates (~90% for guilty and innocent participants) were achieved in groups with explanation of comparison questions than in groups without explanation. Re-discussing comparison questions had no effect on identification rates. Ratings of subjective stress due to relevant and comparison questions were also obtained and can be seen as indicators of the significance of the questions. The significance of comparison questions was hardly affected by the different testing conditions. When effects are detectable at all, they contradict theoretical expectations in their direction. Results are discussed in terms of the significance of comparison questions used in polygraph testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present study, the authors examined the effects of outside issues on the validity of the Comparison Question Test in a laboratory mock-crime paradigm. In a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, 192 participants either did or did not commit (a) a mock theft of a dollar (about which they were tested), or (b) a mock theft of $20 (the outside issue); and they either were or were not asked questions about an outside issue. The presence of the outside issue had a strong differential impact on the participants who were innocent of the tested issue, and it dramatically moved their scores toward deception. The impact of an outside issue on the guilty was minimal. Test questions about possible outside issues were ineffective in detecting the presence of the outside issue, but they did function as comparison questions. The results have implications for understanding the high rate of false positive outcomes in some studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palmatier and Rovner (2015) argued that the same psychophysiological processes underlie the outcomes of the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). They also argued that Barry's Preliminary Process Theory (PPT) explains the patterns of physiological reactions that occur during polygraph examinations. There is ample empirical evidence that the CQT and CIT produce similar physiological effects. Although PPT may account for those effects, the authors' argument was not persuasive. Demonstrations of effects on targeted response systems that are predicted by PPT but are not predicted by Sokolov's orienting theory would bolster their case and encourage much needed conceptual development and construct validation of polygraph techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palmatier and Rovner (2015) discussed the possible interplay of two major methods of polygraph examination, the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). In this comment, we argue that such an attempt overlooks fundamental differences between the two methods. Specifically, both methods differ in their criterion variables; detecting deception versus detecting memory traces. This difference can lead to a different evaluation concerning their outcomes within a forensic context. However, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) attempt may blur the distinction between the two methods. Furthermore, at least for the present, it is difficult to give a unified explanation of physiological responses in the CQT and CIT based on the preliminary process theory of the orienting response. In sum, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) paper may add further confusion to the research and practice of polygraph testing. Additionally, their paper has no relevance to the current practice of Japanese polygraph examination, because Japanese law enforcement uses only the CIT for memory detection in real-life criminal investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]