Polygraph testing
The polygraph examination is associated with psychological testing. In light, polygraph testing is best defined not in the singular form, instead appears to be as a tests sequence. Such tests are designed in assessing truthfulness or deception in occasions that range from the screening job seekers or applicants, and individuals suspected to be psychopaths to investigate the criminal incidents which might have occurred. Polygraph examiners who are employed either by government agencies or non-government agencies tend to use polygraph testing technique to examine individuals caught in criminal cases (Vrij,2016).
There are a variety of the polygraph testing approaches which have different basic logic and established validity in the examination of the criminal suspects. The choice of the polygraph approach to use depends basically on the situation under which the polygraph testing is being used. The test of an individual suspected to involve in specific criminal offense typically incorporates the application of a different polygraph procedure than the examination probable government employee who might require only one method to do its investigation about the deceptiveness. The paper overviews the validity nature of the polygraph testing along with test procedures used in the criminal suspect’s research.
Test Procedures
The validity of the polygraph test mostly is influenced by the conditions developed by the examiner during the investigation of criminal incidents. Most of the time spent in a study is used to create questions and evaluation of procedures regarded as creating a ‘psychological set.’ According to the examiners, the ‘psychological set’ involve three to four hours to complete the whole examination (Han,2016). The first fifteen minutes of the set time is spent to obtain the physiological recordings, whereas, the rest of the time become utilized in a pretest interview and stimulation tests. The procedure used in the investigation includes the pretest interview and simulation tests. Firstly, in the pretest interview, the conversation between the examiner and examinee before conducting the real polygraph test has been considered as an essential factor in the examination. The reason is that, the discussions tend to provide the subjects with information about the assessment. Besides, it aids in generating the psychological environment, which is necessary for conducting the testing. On such case, the examiner will majorly focus on investigating the subject which might have influenced the deceptiveness of the examinee (Han,2016).
On the other hand, the stimulation tests are often given instantly after the pretest interview. The stimulation tests comprise of either ‘number’ or ‘card’ tests (Han,2016). The examinee is usually instructed to choose, from a sundeck, a card that might have a word or a number. However, the cards are secretly marked. Thus the examiner can know the correct answer. In such a scenario, the examiner tends to demonstrate the strength of the polygraph in detecting the right card or number. The main objective of a stimulation test is to prove to the subject or examinee the accuracy of the polygraph assessment. Moreover, the stimulation tests intend to assure truthful subject as well as provoking the anxiety in the deceptive issue, thus increasing the differential responsibility of both false and truthful subjects to distinct questions on the examination (Nelson,2015).
Polygraph tests validity overview
Over the decades after Marston proposed the use of physiological recordings in detecting criminal suspects deceptiveness, the debate over the polygraph tests (lie detectors) has continued in the various psychological congress about the validity of such tests (Vrij,2016). The lie detectors tests have been notable debated in the courtrooms, United States Congress, and even in the scientific as well as non-scientific settings. Within or even outside experimental psychology, loyalists have shown up either by actively supporting or even opposing the use of polygraph tests to determine the deceptiveness nature of the criminal in a country. Nevertheless, much of the debate experienced in public about the lie detectors tests may focus on the moral problems, at the center of the argument is the validity of the polygraph testing. The fundamental question of controversy being whether physiological procedures can have the capacity of assessing truthfulness and deception of an individual caught in the criminal offense.
It occurred severally in the United States, whereby the Congress held to hear polygraph testing as well as considering the legislation used to limit the use of such tests in the country. The Administration suggestions stimulated congressional assessment of expanding the use of polygraph tests in preventing unauthorized exposes of classified information along with other official misconduct experienced in the employees of the government (Vrij,2016). For instance, an analysis of lie detector testing conducted as part of the Congressional debate in the U.S Congress. The aim was to develop a report for the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which could help in the achieving of the goal of providing an evenhanded simulation of scientific knowledge exciting at that time about the polygraph tests (Nelson,2015).
The study conducted for Office of Technology focused on the exploration of the scientific matters which concerned polygraph testing, besides the study, helped in reviewing and synthesizing available research evidence. Moreover, the comprehensive reviewing of the polygraph testing literature was conducted, supplemented through site visits, and deliberations between polygraph examiners with government officials. A scientific advisory team becomes into existence which could help the investigators, and as well the information from an extensive range of sources which could be required to validate the validity of the lie detectors tests in determining the truthfulness or the deception ability of an individual. The resulting report tried to have a combination of careful data evaluation, which concentrated on the valuation and development of theory concerning deception detection (Honts,2015).
According to the study, even though there is no device such as ‘lie detector’ a number of the techniques to concluding truth or deception nature developed based on the measurement physiological intellectual of the investigators or researchers. The kind of the method or approach used in the evaluation of the tests depends on the situation upon assessment. Unfortunately, according to the psychologist’s, none of the approach used in the experiments is foolproof (Raskin,2015). Whether an individual becomes recognized as being deceptive or even truthful mostly depends on the skills of the examiner and the behavioral characteristics of the examinee.
From the congressional discussions, neither the available data nor hypothetical analysis shows that polygraph tests function as appealed by their supporters. Therefore, the considerable numbers of truthful or deceptive persons may become misunderstood by using the polygraph tests. In regard, there is no supporting evidence which could prove the use of such tests. Thus the reliability of lie detector testing would become a problem in protecting national security (Palmatier,2015).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the term polygraph can be described as a set of moderately complex techniques used to ask questions and measure physiological responses from the suspected criminal for detecting deception or even in the establishment of the truth required in the investigation. Polygraph testing is of use in many perspectives which range from finding out the guilt of criminal suspects and assess the honesty of prospective employees in job opportunities interviews. To shed some light, since the different polygraph procedures might depend on the intended purpose, it is of much importance to note the applicable polygraph method and situation at that very point of ascertaining the guilt or the honesty of the subject.
References
Han, Y. (2016). Deception detection techniques using the polygraph in trials: Current status and social scientific evidence. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 8(2), 115-147.
Honts, C. R., Handler, M., Shaw, P., & Gougler, M. (2015). The vasomotor response in the comparison question test. Polygraph. 44 (1), 62-78.
Nelson, R. (2015). The scientific basis for polygraph testing. Polygraph, 41(1), 21-61.
Raskin, D. C., Honts, C., Nelson, R., & Handler, M. (2015). Monte Carlo estimates of the validity of four relevant question polygraph examinations. Polygraph, 44(1), 1-27.
Palmatier, J. J., & Rovner, L. (2015). Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 95(1), 3-13.
Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). Which lie detection tools are ready for use in the criminal justice system? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 302-307.