Polys... What is the real deal?

[SketchyMcG]

OK I see quite a few posts of people claiming to have failed polygraphs even after telling the truth. If I have nothing to hide, should I be worried about a polygrapher saying otherwise?

[PhilipCal]

Polygraphs

We have a couple of Polygraph Examiners on the forum, and maybe they can provide you with some additional insight. From the perspective of an Officer who has been involved in background investigations, a polygraph is an investigative tool. It can point an investigator to some areas he/she might not have gone otherwise. In most polygraph exams, the examiner will pretty well go over the questions he is going to ask you. Ideally, there really won't be any surprises. Beyond that, I'm going to hope one of our members who does polygraphs will come on with more information for you.

[bdunndchi]

I have never personally known of anyone who failed a poly, and actually told the truth about everything. Like the above post said, you will know every question before they actually start the test.

[JSandi]

It takes over 8 weeks to train a polygraph operator, it takes 8 hours to train you to effectively counter one. It's junk science, but proponents say it can be a useful tool in interrogations, and even a deterrent. But that relates to dealing with criminals where a good investigator already has a good idea what the truth is or already knows the truth and is simply using the poly as a tool to break a suspect.

The poly should not be used in the place of a well covered human BI, and in most cases that is exactly what is happening. Agency's are using them to skip from step 3 to step 5, undercutting everyone involved but letting a few bad apples sneak in and keeping more than a few great potential applicants out.

[AzDogs]

I have never personally known of anyone who failed a poly, and actually told the truth about everything. Like the above post said, you will know every question before they actually start the test.

Good to meet you. Although we haven't met in person, you know one person as described.

[DetectorAz]

I have conducted polygraphs for many years, in that time I have seen a few individuals that I believed to be truthful fail a first polygraph. It became my job to find out why I did not believe the results of the examination. Research indicated that thought process during an examination will cause what we call reactions to certain questions as well as strong emotions regarding the question. You should discuss all issues prior to the examination, anything that might be on your mind should be discussed and allow the examiner to word the question in such a manner to avoid strong emotions when being truthful.

Examiners are generally very good at this and understand individuals having strong emotional feelings on certain questions. I have very stong feelings about the drug questions, not because I have used them. I have lost several individuals to death because of thier use of drugs. I have to discuss this prior to my taking an exam.

You would think being an examiner, I would know how to pass a polygraph without a problem!! I cannot pass a polygraph with a good examiner while having strong emotions about a question and not discussing it prior to the actual exam.

The statement that it takes 8 hours to teach you to defeat the examination has not been demonstrated to me at any time, we find persons attempting to do this on a regular basis, and you are disqualified from further condiseration.

Hope this helps you

[SA13]

OK I see quite a few posts of people claiming to have failed polygraphs even after telling the truth.

You should consider those people are probably lying. Both about telling the truth and failing, and about whatever topic caused them to have a deception indicated result on the test.

Just relax and tell the truth.

[mobrien316]

Just relax and tell the truth.

Doing that caused me to fail three of my four polygraphs, for three different reasons.

As an interrogation intimidator they are useful. If the polygraph examination ends without any damaging admissions then its utility has been fully expended. Attempting to use it to determine truth or deception is a waste of time.

In 2001, the Department of Energy funded a research review by the National Academy of Sciences, which published its findings in its report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Key findings of that report included:

• Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy (p. 212);

• The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions (p. 213);

• Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner (p. 213);

• The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy (p. 213);

• Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice for…employee security screening between too many loyal employees falsely judged deceptive and too many major security threats left undetected. Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies. (p. 219);

• Overconfidence in the polygraph--a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence--presents a danger to national security objectives. (p. 219).

A counterpoint sometimes heard when the NAS study comes up is the claim that the study concluded that accuracy in polygraph testing is “better than chance.” However, on page 214, when the term “better than chance” was used it was to describe specific-incident testing (not non-specific issue pre-employment screening, which is what you are subjected to as a police applicant) and it was pertinent only when the subject population was untrained in countermeasures.

Notwithstanding the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

There is absolutely no way to ensure that a test subject is unfamiliar with the testing procedure and unfamiliar with countermeasure use.

The Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, and all other federal, state, and municipal agencies that rely on polygraph screening have willfully ignored the findings of the nation's premiere scientific organization, just as they ignored the overwhelmingly negative findings of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, A Research Review and Evaluation) in 1983 and a 1976 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations report (“The Use of Polygraphs and Similar Devices by Federal Agencies”, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, Report No. 94-795). The 1983 report by the OTA concluded, in part, that:

In sum, OTA concluded 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 (when using the control question technique in specific-incident criminal investigations), significant error rates are possible, and examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.

and

"It is the recommendation of the committee that the use of polygraphs and similar devices be discontinued by all Government agencies for all purposes."

Given all that why does any agency in the country use polygraphy as part of its pre-employment screening? I have no idea.

[Traffic_82]

OK I see quite a few posts of people claiming to have failed polygraphs even after telling the truth. If I have nothing to hide, should I be worried about a polygrapher saying otherwise?

I'm taking my 5th one next week. If you're a baseball fan, I'm 3 for 4 thus far .

Over-analyzing it isn't going to accomplish much, and will only get you even more worked up. Just know that whatever you have to admit to, chances are somebody who is wearing a badge has sat in that same chair and admitted to much worse (assuming you're not a really slick bad guy).

I'm assuming you have one coming up....just fess up and let the chips fall where they may.

[SketchyMcG]

Thanks to everyone for the good info. I'm not really worried because Im about as squeaky clean as they come. On the same token, it would suck to be denied my dream job because of a stupid machine.

[aftermath]

Squeaky clean, lol. You might be denied based on the fact you're too boyscout-ish or too green. Most police I've spoken to have pasts, they've done things that were illegal in one aspect or another before becoming a poliec officer. Nothing was ever REALLY serious, but it shows you make mistakes, but can learn from them. The poly in my opinion is a waste, as is the cvsa. Like was said, people that can out and out lie can get hired, but the good candidates passed over because of bullcrap....

[Traffic_82]

Squeaky clean, lol. You might be denied based on the fact you're too boyscout-ish or too green. Most police I've spoken to have pasts, they've done things that were illegal in one aspect or another before becoming a poliec officer. Nothing was ever REALLY serious, but it shows you make mistakes, but can learn from them. The poly in my opinion is a waste, as is the cvsa. Like was said, people that can out and out lie can get hired, but the good candidates passed over because of bullcrap....

Being "squeaky clean" or a "choir boy" will get you hired alot quicker (and with more ease) than people who have baggage in their background.

You may have been joking, and that's fine, but it's probably best that the original poster understands that .

[DetectorAz]

Squeaky clean, lol. You might be denied based on the fact you're too boyscout-ish or too green. Most police I've spoken to have pasts, they've done things that were illegal in one aspect or another before becoming a poliec officer. Nothing was ever REALLY serious, but it shows you make mistakes, but can learn from them. The poly in my opinion is a waste, as is the cvsa. Like was said, people that can out and out lie can get hired, but the good candidates passed over because of bullcrap....

Not often that a good candidate gets passed over because of failure of a polygraph. And people that can OUT AND OUT lie don't generally get past the polygraph examination. Just stay squeaky clean, we have hired many of them and are looking for more. Mistakes are learning blocks if used to correct actions and are looked at in that manner. I have not seen any angel halos on any police officers, we have all made mistakes. Just be honest about them, that is integrity which in my opinion is the most important asset you have.

[Taylor1430]

Our agency does not tell you if you passed or 'failed' the polygraph...at least they did not for me. For those that are DQ'ed, they take EVERYTHING into account and the poly fits in with the background. Whether you lied during the BI or during the poly...or too much of a negative history, they will DQ you. I've never heard of anyone failing our poly's...but DQ'ed for unknown reasons.

[DetectorAz]

I would agree with you Taylor, that the totality of circumstances should be the reason for a DQ, not just one portion of the process. Good point and thanks for the response.