Big Lies about Products and Services We Buy
Advertising plays a vital role in selling services and products. Billions of pounds are spent every year forcing us to purchase or utilize them. But some big lies about services and products that we buy have been unashamedly told for years.
Here are some you may recognise which have fallen foul of their consumer protection bodies in terms of their claims.
In 2014 the US Consumer Protection Counsel complained to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) about Snapchat. This arose due to a claim the multimedia messaging program made seeing photos and videos that consumers shared between them. Users believed that it was impossible for their photos to be saved (it was easy to save them). In addition, Snapchat was enticed by the FTC of lying on its personal data mining action. More big lies.
Snapchat settled its issues with the FTC saying that less attention was paid to certain details of the app as it was being developed. The misleading claims have now been addressed.
Olay Eye Cream
When an image of Twiggy appeared on the new Definity eye cream in 2009, the former model’s skin seemed flawless. It had been devoid of wrinkles, not a hint of crow’s feet or grin lines. She most certainly didn’t have the appearance of an average 52 year-old woman. This was because people might look at utilizing the lotion would attain the exact same flawless look.
Olay confessed to improving the photograph and immediately replaced it with a more credible one. They also promised to examine their procedures to avoid repeating the mistake. Yet more big lies.
In the last several decades Kellogg’s has attracted the attention of the FTC for slogans suggesting a number of the breakfast cereal products have health benefits. They’ve been warned to not make such claims without technological back up.
A scandal erupted this season when Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook said mistakes were made from how Facebook shares data with third party applications. This confession just came about after a whistle-blower revealed that Cambridge Analytica had utilised the information of 50 million users when working on the Trump election campaign.
More lies about services and products
If you find any lies about products and services let us know. How many marketing executives do you believe need to take lie detector tests?Read More
3 Reasons people take a lie detector test
There can be many reasons people contact us to discuss making a booking however for this article I have selected the main three that we see daily.
- Proof of Innocence
This is the number one test that we as a company run, often when clients have no other way to prove to a significant person in their life, either a partner or a family member that they are telling the truth they take a lie detector test. They often book the test themselves and find this a powerful way to put trust back into a relationship especially when things have broken down. Whilst we don’t actually do many couples tests the theory behind an accusing partner can often be down to ‘transference of guilt’ this is when a partner has cheated and finds it easier to push the blame and guilt to another, its an easier way for them to deal with the guilt of their infidelity. The majority of ‘proof of innocence’ lie detector tests yield positive results and feedback from clients has been really good.
2. Accusation / Theft
When you have been accused of doing something you haven’t done, a popular test we run here is ‘theft’. I personally like a theft case as its very black and white, you have either taken what you have been accused of or you haven’t. Alot of people taking this type of test are a mixture of angry and nervous however this does not affect a lie detector test, if it did everyone would fail ! We also deal with alot of different accusations, some are not very nice cases that families need closure on.
If you suspect your partner may have cheated on you then ask them to take a lie detector test, its possible you may get your answer without needing us. A common guilty reply is if I am taking a test then so are you. Or a flat no will give you your answer, however for many people a lie detector test will give them the closure they need and allow them to move on in a relationship one way or another.
Lie Detectors UK have been in business over 6 years and employ full qualified and experienced APA Examiners. We cover the complete UK and are one of the very few companies to have our own offices close to London, our prices are fixed. We also won the award of Best Polygraph Testing Company in 2019. Contact us here.
Campaigners Demand Sex Offenders take Lie Detector Tests in Scotland
Back in England and Wales serious sex offenders, including paedophiles, that are released on licence are legally obliged to carry bi annual lie detector checks on petition. Should they deny, they are re- incarcerated. Now campaigners are calling for sex criminals to take lie sensors in Scotland where the legislation is not the same.
This follows the achievement of polygraph tests in England. Over 160 sex offenders are returned to prison to serve out the rest of their sentences because lie detector checks were released in 2014.
THE number of sex offenders convicted of crimes such as rape and murder has more than doubled over the past year. New figures show that 112 Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) committed either Group 1 or 2 crimes – the most serious categories – in 2018/19.
Mark Cummings instance
The case of Mark Cummings perfectly highlights why campaigners need the tests to be implemented. Margaret Ann Cummings, Mark’s mother had no concept a convicted sex offender lived near by. She discovered that this just after her son was sexually molested and strangled to death. Leggate is presently serving a minimum 20 year sentence in prison.
Read more on the case here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mother-8-year-old-mark-6949671
Rapists, paedophiles and other sex offenders are currently able to deny lie detector tests in Scotland. On the other hand, the Scottish police would like them to become compulsory.
Margaret Ann Cummings believes that polygraph tests are valuable and needs to be placed at the disposal of officials, who she believes are readily deceived by sex offenders. Referring to evaluations in England that make”positive results” she wants the law from Scotland to catch up with that of England.
Scottish Authorities awaits data
Whilst the Scottish authorities has an interest in such technologies a spokesperson said that evaluations will be considered if data is available as to how successful the evaluations have been. There are just a few police forces in England who use them but the amount is increasing.
Of the 4089 registered sex offenders living in Scotland, nearly 300 are thought to be’high risk’.
Lie detector tests in Scotland
We can only speculate whether or not Stuart Leggate would happen to be roaming the roads had compulsory lie detector tests in Scotland been introduced in 1999 when he was first released from prison.
Often when told that they must have a lie detector exam, gender offenders acknowledge their crimes. In our opinion anything which prevents them in re-offending has to be a good thing.
If you would like more information on the Best Way to book a lie detector test in Scotland, contact us at 0207 859 4960 or visit our Site Lie Detectors UKRead More
3 Reasons people Lie
You might imagine that the only reasons people lie are because they have something to hide or have committed a crime. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are so many reasons that motivate people to lie a fairly large book can be written about them.
By understanding why some people are dishonest it’s a lot easier to spot the fibs. Here are 3 fairly common motivations:
- A dull life
A typical example of the dull life scenario is that of an expat living abroad for the first time. You would be astounded by how many brain surgeons and flying doctors you are able to meet at a Spanish or French pub. Where no one knows them they could reinvent their lives to be whatever they want to be. A person who had the most mundane of occupations in Britain can enchant an audience with tales of what their lifestyle never was. They might say have rescued people from the brink of death. You are able to ensure that whatever they have done, will always be infinitely superior to anything you’ve done.
Quite often they will choose an occupation that nobody in the group has any knowledge of, for example Nuclear Scientist. If they happen to meet someone who coincidentally had that occupation, the liar will either leave or alter the subject rapidly.
So strong is the driveway to become something that they are not, they may invest in Bluffer’s Guides. These small books give only enough info to make you seem as if you understand what you’re talking about, unless a real expert is in the area. When you believe that over 5 million of these guides have sold worldwide, it’s a good indication of the number of liars there really are in the field of life reinvention!
Should you meet somebody like this a fantastic birthday or Christmas gift would be a lie detector test. The outcomes could be shared in a surprise party!
A lot of men and women would continue to keep the peace in any way costs. Your friends should tell you the truth however hard it may be to hear. The great ones will however some won’t. The latter are usually flattering once you know the dress you bought really doesn’t suit you or you made a mistake with a hair style or color.
Liars will agree with you as opposed to have any kind of battle. Though white lies may have their place occasionally it is essential to be honest, no matter how hurtful it might be. Liars aren’t people you need in your lifetime.
- Attention seekers
There are two types of attention seeker. People who feel they’re not getting enough of the limelight and people who want to defraud you.
Little children have been known to throw tantrums to get attention but typically grow from it when they’re older. As adults, attention seekers produce all sorts of approaches to be noticed.
Social networking provides the perfect platform for all these folks. Others might have suffered fake bereavements. It’s fairly astonishing how low an attention seeker will proceed to get noticed. Frequently they want your sympathy but sometimes your cash also. Countless people are scammed when sent pictures of”perishing” relatives propped up in hospital beds.
Unless you know a individual very well, posts asserting any of the above should be treated with extreme distress. A fantastic suggestion for could be fraudsters is to ask them to take a private lie detector test — you will not ever hear from them again!
More reasons that motivate people to lieRead More
Essex Lie Detector Test
When our client’s son’s behavior and attitude changed over time, she decided to book our Essex lie detector test service to find out and establish why.
Abby’s 19 yr old son, James, had always been a well-adjusted teenager until his parents divorced and father left the home. During the six months following his father’s departure Abby noticed significant changes in her son that became a concern. He stopped going to college and started staying out late and hanging round with a different group of friends. James had become very withdrawn and extremely secretive in where he had been or what he was doing taking questions from Abby as an inconvenience.
One night as she sat up waiting for James to come home, she decided to look through James bedroom for clues as why his behavior had changed so drastically, was it the divorce or was it something else. In the back of her mind, she knew James was close to his dad and really missed him. In lots of ways she felt so guilty searching through his belonging’s but was alarmed when she found a small bag hidden in a drawer that contained a small amount of white powder.
Rather than conform James with this Abby waited until the morning and spoke to him, he denied the drugs were his and refused to answer any more questions which really worried Abby. Was he telling the truth or had her son been using drugs?
Essex lie detector test and results
Abby consulted with James father and they decided to book a polygraph test in Essex to get the truth from James, as he was reliant upon their financial support, he was unable to refuse. In the pre-test James broke down with the examiner and admitted he had been using Cocaine for the last six months but he had recently stopped. Questions for the test were set accordingly and we were able to offer not only a confession to Abby but proof certain aspects of James drug abuse were true. He is now having counselling and his relationship with his mother has improved and he is back at college.
If you are concerned with changes in behavior by someone close to you, consider a lie detector test to get to the truth. A polygraph examination is a quick way to resolve and dispel any doubt whatever the problem might be. Call us for more information on 0207 859 4960 or email us on email@example.com for a chat in confidence to see if we can help.Read More
Lie detectors being used on sex offenders in Norfolk
Sex offenders are being given lie detector tests in a bid to assess the risk they pose to children.
The force trained up three members of staff in January as part of the American Polygraph Association, and bought three lie detector kits for around £15,000.
And Norfolk is now one of the “most active users of the tactic” in the country. Just four other forces in the UK currently use lie detector tests.
The constabulary says a study being conducted at Kent University, published this month, could open up potential for polygraphs to be used in court, despite concerns over their reliability.
Since January registered sex offenders have been offered polygraph tests as part of their risk assessment.
Officers said if they refused they could be classed as a higher risk.
To date 116 in Norfolk have taken the polygraph test, and 65 have refused.
A polygraph records changes in a person’s blood pressure, pulse, respiration and skin conductivity.
A major change in any pattern, known as a “response conflict”, is said to be a sign a person is lying.
The tests are not 100pc accurate, but are said to have a high accuracy level.
Evidence is not generally accepted in criminal courts in the US and most of Europe.
Police said the tests were not being used to determine guilt or innocence, but to “manage future risk”.
Det Chief Supt Christopher Balmer said in a report: “It is important to stress that the polygraph tactic is just one of a number of options available within the sex offender risk management process.”
He added the results had helped safeguard children in the county.
“In nine cases the team’s work and analysis has led to direct positive interventions that have safeguarded children,” he said. “These responses have included such actions as the disclosure of an individual’s previous convictions to better inform those they are associating with.”
Det Chief Supt Balmer added the findings from the Kent University study “may well open up further opportunity around the use of the polygraph test in a wider range of policing activity”.
He said: “Beyond the obvious consideration as to its validity in court it offers the opportunity to scope its inclusion in other risk assessment processes both for the persons we interact with as well as our own staff.”Read More
As a London polygraph examiner, I visit misconceptions about lie detector tests all over the net. Sometimes they infiltrate other media outlets and newspapers. It is time we dispelled them to provide a balanced view. Below are some of the most frequent misconceptions.
Lie detector tests detect lies
No, they don’t. By monitoring psycho-physiological responses to formulated questions lie detector tests discover deception. Polygraph equipment finds changes in cardiovascular, respiration and electro dermal activity. The latter relates to perspiration that alters the properties of the skin.
Arguments that these answers are found in conditions when an individual is not lying are valid. Natural anxiety can cause psycho physiological reactions that are similar if not exactly the same. Until the evaluation is administered professional polygraph examiners take natural nervousness into account and the gear is set.
Examination results aren’t wholly reliant on the equipment. The examiner’s qualifications and expertise are equally vital in the procedure. Let us face it, if you want a carpentry job you are not likely to use a hammer. You may employ a carpenter who understands what he’s doing with it and wields the hammer. Likewise, you don’t use a machine without an examiner.
Polygraph tests don’t work
This misconception is all about because those saying it believe that the polygraph finds lies. It does not, as mentioned.
It functions as an investigate tool. It’s hardly likely that the Ministry of Justice at the UK would make taking examinations a compulsory state for specific kinds of offenders when they are discharged from prison on probation, if this wasn’t the case. It’s even less likely that they would be used by many UK police forces, including the Met and Essex yet they do. Indeed, they have grown increasingly utilised.
In the justice system the polygraph is instrumental in pointing detectives to boost their investigations. By way of example, a requirement of a pedophile’s release on probation might be that he shouldn’t get or download pictures on the internet. Questions can be asked in periodic, compulsory lie detector tests to determine whether he’s broken that state. If deception is located, the computer will probably be confiscated and examined. Since these polygraph tests have been implemented over 300 offenders are sent back to jail. The polygraph is functioning well in these cases.
You can beat a lie detector test
As a London polygraph examiner and capable psychologist, I have to admit to being amused by efforts. The favorite is bad breathing exercises timed incorrectly and not only obvious to the polygraph but the examiner as well. The proven theory is that these responses will create inconclusive results or achieve a fail with the result of Purposeful Non-Co-Operation PNC.
Our training in forensic psychology has provided qualified examiners me with the ability to spot a scammer a mile off as well as the polygraph identifying unusual trends.
The above are the most frequent misconceptions but there is also confusion regarding the use of polygraph results in courts.
Lie detector evaluation proof
It has been responsible for turning frustrating investigations into ones that were effective although evidence is not often used in courts. The polygraph can open new avenues for them to explore when detectives reach a dead end.
However, just as a judge would not convict eye witness testimony on, he or she wouldn’t do so based on polygraph results. All evidence of any type must be backed up with additional evidence for a successful prosecution or defense.
Lie detector tests are frequently permitted in industrial tribunals and are often noted in court.
If you would lie to learn more about polygraph providers are used within the private, public or commercial sectors email us on firstname.lastname@example.org or contact us on 0207 859 4960. Our solutions are not confined to London but are nationwide. We have our own offices in Kent close to London we can also come to you or use an office close to you.Read More
Measurement Theory and Lie Detection
It is sometimes said that it is not possible to actually measure a lie by lie detection. Simplistic and concrete thinkers, and those opposed to the polygraph test, are content to end the discussion at this point and offer the impulsive and erroneous conclusion that scientific tests for lie detection and credibility assessment are not possible. This conclusion is erroneous, a non-sequitur, because many areas of science involve the quantification of phenomena for which direct physical measurement is not possible. The theory of the polygraph test, and lie detection and credibility assessment in general, in fact does not involve the measurement of deception or truth-telling. Nor does it involve the measurement, or recording, of fear or any other specific emotion.
Polygraph Test Accuracy 90% – Read Case Studies and Research
This publication attempts to introduce and orient the reader to measurement theory and its application to the problem of the polygraph and scientific lie detection or credibility assessment testing. The analytic theory of the polygraph is that greater changes in physiological activity are loaded at different types of test stimuli as a function of deception or truth-telling in response to the relevant target stimuli (Nelson, 2015a, 2016; Senter, Weatherman, Krapohl & Horvath, 2010).
In the absence of an analytic theory or hypothesis of polygraph testing, polygraph theories have previously been expressed in terms intended to describe the psychological process or mechanism responsible for reactions to polygraph test stimuli. Although much has been learned about the recordable physiology associated with deception and polygraph testing, less work has been done to investigate psychological hypotheses about deception. In general, the psychological basis of the polygraph is presently assumed to involve a combination of emotional, cognitive and behaviorally conditioned factors (Handler, Shaw & Gougler, 2010; Handler, Deitchman, Kuczek, Hoffman, & Nelson, 2013; Kahn, Nelson & Handler, 2009).
The analytic theory of polygraph testing implies that there are physiological changes associated with deception and truth-telling, and that these changes can be recorded, analyzed, and quantified through the comparison responses to different types of test stimuli. Comparison and quantification are objectives central to measurement theory. Application of measurement theory to the polygraph test will require at least a basic understanding of measurement theory.
Types of measurement Stevens (1946) attempted to provide a framework for understanding types of measurement. At that time, part of the intent was to clarify the selection of statistical and analytic methods associated with different types of measurement data. It was evident almost immediately that the selection of statistical was a more complex endeavor than could be characterized by the reduction of the array of data types and scientific questions to a small set of categories. Nominal scales are without any rank order meaning (e.g., cat, mouse, dog, ostrich, zombie, robot). Mathematical transformation of nominal items is not possible. Ordinal measurements have rank order meaning but have imprecise meaning about the distance between items (e.g., knowing the first, second and third place winners of an ostrich race does not provide information about the difference in race times). Some mathematical transformations are possible with ordinal measurements, with the requirement that they preserve the ordinal information and meaning. Interval scale measurement have both rank order meaning and provide meaningful information about the difference between items. However, the zero point of an ordinal scale is arbitrary and therefor meaningless.
A classical teaching example for the arbitrariness of an interval-scale zero point is a temperature scale for which we have both the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales with different arbitrary zero points, and no expectation that zero means that there is no temperature or no heat to be measured. Ratio measurements include combination of rank order meaning and interval distance meaning along with the notion of a non-arbitrary zero point. In ratio scales measurements zero means none (e.g., no difference). Later, Stevens (1951) offered a set of prescriptions and proscriptions as to the type of statistics that are appropriate for each type of data. The most common form of criticism of Stevens have focused on the fact that it is unnecessarily restrictive (Velleman & Wilkinson, 1993), resulting in the overuse of non-parametric methods that are known to be less efficient than parametric methods (Baker, Hardyck, & Petrinovich, 1966; Borgatta & Bohrnstedt, 1980), and that the type of analysis should be determined by the research question to be asked (Guttman, 1977; Lord, 1953; Tukey, 1961). Luce (1997) asserted directly that measurement theorists today do not accept Stevens’ overly broad definition of measurement. Nevertheless, Stevens’s work provides a useful introduction to the conceptual language and problems of measurement theory.
Measurement theory is an area of science concerned with the investigation of measurability and what makes measurement possible. Helmholtz (1887) began the tradition of scientific and philosophical inquiry into measurement theory by asking the question “why can numbers be assigned to things”, along with other questions such as “what can be understood from those numbers”? According to Campbell (1920/1957), measurement is the process of using numbers to represent qualities. In general, the properties of measurable phenomena must in some ways resemble the properties of numbers. Later work by Suppes (1951) on the differences between measurable and un-measurable phenomena and began to formalize the tradition of measurement theory by clarifying our understanding of the requirements for measurement and gave rise to a modern representational theory of measurement (Diez, 1997; Suppes, 2002; Suppes & Zinnes, 1963; Suppes, Krantz, Luce, & Tversky, 1989; Niederee, 1992). Stated simply, the representational theory of measurement involves the assignment of numbers to physical phenomena such that empirical or observable relationships are preserved.
The existence of order (rank order) relationships between measurable objects is central to the requirements for the measurability of any phenomena. We must be able to quantify one instance of the phenomena as have greater magnitude than another. Another central requirement of measurable phenomena is that there must be a way of combining measurable objects in a way that is analogous to mathematical addition. This is, the addition of measurable phenomena must have a sensible physical interpretation. These are among the main differences between measurable and un-measurable phenomena. For example: measurements can be applied to physical phenomena such as a person’s height, weight, and blood pressure. This is possible because these things involve physical phenomena: the linear or unitized distance from head to toe, the gravitational force on a person’s physical mass, and the unitized pressure required to overcome and occlude arterial pressure relative to a reference point such as average atmospheric pressure at sea level (i.e., 29.92inHg or 760mmHg).
These phenomena can be combined in ways that are in some way analogous to numerical addition. That is, there is some coherent physical interpretation to additive combinations of different instances of these physical phenomena. Time limited events can also be measured. For example: if a person jumps into the air two times and if we mark the physical height of each jump and then combine the two distances, then this is also analogous numerical addition. However, attempts to record physiological changes to polygraph stimuli does not necessarily conform to these requirements for rank order relationships and additivity. The details of how recorded polygraph data can result in the quantification of deception and truth-telling are addressed in the remainder of this publication. Firstly, it has long been established that responses to polygraph stimuli cannot be taken or interpreted directly as a measurement of deception. Nor can responses to polygraph stimuli be interpreted as a recording or measurement of fear or any other specific emotion. Responses to polygraph stimuli are a form of proxy or substitute data for which there is a relationship or correlation with deception and truth-telling.
The reactions and recorded data themselves are neither deception nor truth-telling per se. Secondly, although it may be possible to interpret rank-order the relationships between test stimuli according to the magnitude of response, polygraph recording instrumentation today has not been designed to provide data that satisfy the additivity requirement for measurement data. In other words, attempts to make any sensible additive combination of the actual response data within each of the respiration, cardio, electrodermal and vasomotor sensors is neither intended or established. Instead, polygraph data must be transformed to a more abstracted form before it can be further analyzed and interpreted as to their meaning. Polygraph scoring and analysis algorithms, whether manual or automated, are intended to accomplish and facilitate such transformation, analysis and interpretation.1 Fundamental and derived measurements Some measurements can be referred to as fundamental and require no previously measured phenomena to achieve their determination. The main requirement for a fundamental measurement is that there are some physical phenomena for which there is 1. A major difference between manual an automated polygraph analysis algorithms is that manual scoring protocols were developed during a time when field practitioners did not have access to and were unfamiliar with use of powerful microcomputers. Manual scoring algorithms therefore rely on mathematical transformations that are, of necessity, very simple, if not somewhat blunt. Earlier versions of manual scoring protocols did not make use of normative reference distributions, statistical corrections or confidence intervals. Another major difference is that manual scoring protocols accomplish feature extraction tasks – the extraction of signal information from other recorded information and noise – using subjective visual methods. Automated analysis algorithm will make use of more advanced statistical methods, and will rely on objective and automated feature extraction methods that are less vulnerable to subjective interference.
Some quantity that can be understood as either more or less (e.g. is it heavy) as opposed to phenomena that are better understood as all-or-nothing (e.g., is it an ostrich). If we have two ostriches, it makes some sense to ask a question such as which ostrich is heavier because there is meaningful intuition around the idea that some ostriches are heavier. But it does not make sense to ask the question which is more an ostrich, because there is no meaningful intuition that can be gained from its answer. Being an ostrich is a property, not a quantity. The weight of an ostrich is also a property, and this illustrates that some properties can also be quantities. The physical phenomena of weight or heaviness can be quantified to achieve greater precision than simply saying very heavy or very very heavy when attempting to compare the weight of two ostriches. Without the use of numerical quantities, two different observers might reach two different conclusions about which ostrich is heavier no matter how we attempt to use our descriptive adjectives. Different observers are more likely to reach similar conclusions when using measurements vs. the alternative of not using measurements. The use of measurements permits us to think about, understand, describe and plan the world around us with greater precision, which is to say greater reproducibility. When a measurement is not intended or not expected to be a precise or exact quantity it is sometimes referred to as an estimate.
Probabilities, because they are not expected to be exact, are estimates. Although some may use or express the notion of probabilities subjectively, reproducibility of computational probability estimates is an important difference between the scientific and unscientific use of the concept of probability. Some measurements can be thought of as derived, because these are achieved not through the direct quantification of a physical phenomenon, but through the comparison of an unquantified physical phenomenon with another known physical phenomenon. In principle, we can measure an unknown distance if we have some other distances and angles that are already known. For example, if we place a set of satellites in orbit around the earth we can calculate and know the locations of those satellites relative to a set of objects for which the locations are known on the earth. Then, if we have some means of receiving information from the satellites with known locations, we can use the information from the satellites to calculate and measure our own location if our location is unknown.
This would be like older practices in which if we can calculate the location of objects in the solar system according to a system of counting or quantifying the number of days since a previously observed event, then we can use the location of the object in the solar system. And the location of objects in the solar system could be used, along with a defined system of scientific and mathematical rules, to measure or quantify our current location on the earth. Another example of a derived measurement is the measurement of blood pressure, for which we use our knowledge about atmospheric pressure to quantify our assessments of cardio pressures during the systolic and diastolic phases of the cardiac cycle. Scientific testing as a form of (probabilistic) measurement As it happens, many interesting and important phenomena cannot be either observed directly or are not subject to physical measurement.
This is sometimes because the phenomenon of interest is amorphous (without physical substance), and sometimes because the information does not conform to the order and additivity requirements of measurement. If we want to improve the precision of our assessment and decisions for these phenomena we will need to rely not on measurements but on scientific tests that quantify a phenomenon of interest using statistics and probability theory. Nelson (2015b) provided a description of how a polygraph test, and tests in general, can be thought of as a single subject science experiment. Scientific tests can also be thought of as a form of probabilistic measurement, in which statistical and probability theories are used to quantify a phenomenon that is not amenable to actual measurement.
An example of scientific testing as a form of probabilistic measurement is the testing measurement of amorphous and un-measurable psychological phenomena such as personality and intellectual functioning, during which an observed quantity of data from an individual is compared mathematically to a known quantity in the form of normative reference distribution, or probability reference model, that characterizes our knowledge of what we expect to observe. Reference models can be calculated empirically, through statistical sampling methods, and can also take the form of theoretical reference distributions that characterize our working theories about how the universe, or some small part, works by relying only on facts and information that are subject to mathematical and logical proof. In the case of the polygraph test – for which the basic analytic theory holds that greater changes in physiological activity will be loaded for different types of test stimuli as a function of deception and truth-telling in response to the relevant stimuli – it is not the comparison of relevant and other test questions that forms the basis of our conclusions. Instead, it is the comparison of differences in reactions to relevant and other test questions to a reference distribution that anchors our knowledge about the expected differences in responses to relevant and other questions among deceptive or truthful persons. Ideally, other questions would have the potential to evoke cognitive and emotional activity of similar quality, though perhaps different in magnitude, then the relevant target stimuli. However, it is not necessary that other questions have similar ecological value compared to the relevant stimuli to be a useful and effective basis for statistical comparison. An example of this can be seen in the use of directed
lie-comparison (DLC) questions, for which Blalock, Nelson, Handler & Shaw (2011) provided a summary of the research on their effectiveness (and for which the name DLC should not be taken to imply that response to these questions are actual lies).
Scientific tests as a form of prediction If we want to quantify or improve the accuracy or precision associated with our assessments and conclusions about future events that have not yet occurred – assuming we want to quantify our conclusions now without waiting for the event to occur – then we are once again attempting to quantify a phenomenon that is not amenable to direct observation or measurement. For this we need a test, with which we can make probabilistic conclusions about the future outcome. Tests used in this way can be thought of as a form of scientific prediction. It is not a form of magic or divination. It is a form of probabilistic modeling. An example of the quantification of a future event is the measurement or quantification of risk level for some hazardous event – for which it is implicit that the future event has not yet occurred and therefore cannot be physically quantified or observed. Yet another example, involving the prediction of a future event, will be the quantification of an outcome for an election that has not yet occurred. Both examples – risk outcomes and election outcomes – can involve a future event for which the associated value is binary (e.g., an event has or has not occurred, or an election has been won or not won). At any single point in time, the event has either occurred or has not occurred. We might, at times, want to simply wait to observe the result to achieve a deterministic conclusion. Deterministic observation of an outcome would, of course, obviate any need for testing and quantification. A notable difference between the prediction of risk events and scheduled outcomes is that election outcomes can be expected to occur at a scheduled point in time, at which time it is possible to observe the result. After the scheduled event the outcome is a matter of fact, not probability. Prior to the scheduled event, the outcome can be thought of as a probability, such that there are some factors that are associated with the different possible outcomes. A goal of scientific prediction involves the identification these associated factors so that they can be characterized as random variables and used to develop a predictive test or model. Probabilities associated with the outcomes of scheduled events that have not yet occurred can be thought of as the proportion of outcomes that would occur a certain way, given the random variables that influence the outcome, if it were possible to observe the event over numerous repetitions.
Effectiveness or precision of a test as a predictive model will depend on our ability to correctly understand the random variables related to the possible outcomes. Ultimately, the outcome will be a certainty, and not a probability. Prior to the outcome occurrence, it remains a probability or prediction. When prediction errors occur, their causes can be due either to random variation, or to misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the random variables related to the possible outcomes. Some types of outcomes are expected to occur at an unknown time, or they may not occur at all for very long periods of time. We can think of these outcomes as probabilities. For example: what is the probability that a known criminal offender will re-offend, or what is the probability of an earthquake in Mexico City, or what is the probability of a flood? These events can also be regarded as certainties after they have occurred, and are also subject to some relationship with related factors that are associated with their occurrence. As with other prediction models, identification and characterization of the associated factors is an important objective in the development of risk assessment or risk prediction models. Probabilities associated with risk prediction outcomes can be thought of in terms of frequencies, such that high probability events occur with greater frequency, while low probability events occur with lower frequency. Nearly everything – including events for which our intuition tells us the likelihood is very low – can thought of as a probability. This can, at times, be taken to absurdity.
For example: what is the probability of a zombie horde attack, or what is the probability of a robot apocalypse? For these extreme examples our intuition tells us the probability is either absolute zero or essentially zero, but we can still engage some imagination as to the factors that could become associated with their occurrence. If we expand the period under consideration, then the probabilities associated with rare events can become conceivably greater. For example: what is the probability that an ostrich will fall from the sky? If we expand our dimensions for time and location to the notions of ever and anywhere, we can intuitively understand some non-zero probability associated with an ostrich falling from the sky, along with the kinds of factors that might APA Magazine 2016, 49(6) 90 be associated with its possible occurrence (e.g., emergency ostrich airlift from a flooded ostrich farm). Quantification of future events such as hazards or election outcomes requires that we treat the future outcome in the same manner as any other amorphous phenomena that we may wish to quantify. We treat the future outcome as a probability. Quantification of an outcome is useful only when it is a future outcome – an outcome that has not yet occurred. If information exists, and is available for observation or measurement, then the outcome is not amorphous but is a physical phenomenon. Direct observation or measurement of a future outcome will require that we wait until the future point in time. Until then, if we want to try to predict a future outcome that has not yet occurred we will need to rely on probabilities to describe the amorphous future event. Similarly, observation or measurement of a past event will require that some physical phenomena from the event are available for observation or measurement. If we wish to quantify a past event for which no physical phenomena are available, then we will once again need to rely on probability theory to quantifying the amorphous phenomena. A famous quotation of unknown Danish authorship during the years 1937- 1938 states, [in English] “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” This simple and humorous quotation reminds us that predictions of all kinds are inherently imperfect, including predications based on scientific test data. Probabilistic conclusions are inherently imperfect. Indeed, they are not expected to be perfect. Probabilistic conclusions are expected only to quantify the margin of uncertainty associated with a conclusion. Statistical predication is an inherently probabilistic and statistical endeavor for which any conclusion is both probably correct and probably incorrect. Conclusions about deception or truth-telling, despite the desire for certainty and infallibility, will be inherently probabilistic and inherently imperfect. Conclusion: scientific polygraph tests as a form of statistical classification Polygraph test results can be thought of a form of prediction that some other evidence exists and can be identified as a basis of evidence to confirm or refute a test result. A simpler and more general way to think about these tests will be as a form of statistical classification. Like other scientific tests, statistical tests intended for classification are not expected to be perfect, infallible or deterministic. Neither are statistical classifications expected to provide the same level of precision as an actual measurement of a physical phenomenon.
Like other probabilistic endeavors, scientific tests intended for classification are expected only to quantify the margin of uncertainty or level of confidence that can be attributed to a conclusion. Most importantly, the method for statistical quantification should be accountable and the results should be reproducible by others. The ultimate measure of effectiveness of a statistical test is not in the achievement of perfection or infallibility, but in the observation of correct and incorrect real-world classifications that conform to our calculated probability estimates. If the basic analytic theory of the polygraph test is incorrect – if no physiological changes are correlated with differences between deception and truth-telling – if all physiological activity in mere random chaos with regard to deception and truth-telling, then humans have virtually no chance of ever known if they are being lied with any precision greater than random chance.
The only way to protect oneself from deception will be to remain cynical and suspicious of all, while trusting no-one. Although perhaps tempting, this will be unrealistic and unsustainable over time. On the other hand, if it is correct that some changes in physiological activity are associated with deception and truthtelling at rates significantly greater than chance, then it is only a matter of time before technologists, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians and data analysts devise some means to increase the availability of useful signal information amid the chaotic noise of other physiological activities and exploit those signals with some new form of scientific credibility assessment or lie detection test. If the polygraph test is ultimately an interrogation and not a scientific test, then measurement theory is of no concern and no consequence to the polygraph profession. But in this case, people will begin to turn to other scientific methodologies when they desire a scientific test for credibility assessment, and the polygraph test may eventually be replaced. On the other hand, if the polygraph test is a scientific test, then it will serve the interests of all for polygraph professionals to become familiar with the basics of measurement theory and the discussion of scientific polygraph test results, including categorical conclusions about deception and truth-telling and conclusions about countermeasures, using the conceptual language of measurement and probability theories. Polygraph conclusions are not physical measurements; they are probability estimates. In the absence of probabilistic thinking applied to the polygraph test, there will be an impulse for some to engage in naïve and unrealistic expectations for deterministic perfection.
There will also be a desire or impulse for some to feign infallibility, due to superior professional wizardry or skill, and this can for a time appear to be an effective marketing strategy. But feigned infallibility will lead to confusion and frustration when it is inevitably observed that testing errors can, and do, occur. A temporary corrective solution to this frustration will be to find fault with the professional, not the test – thereby restoring the false assumption of infallibility, so long as we avoid those less competent wizards less competent experts. Although gratifying for a time, this type of approach is unscientific, and will be unsustainable in the context real-world experience and scientific evidence. Polygraph test result should be understood and described like other scientific test results, using the conceptual language of statistical probabilities. Expression of purportedly scientific conclusions, including conclusions about deception and truth-telling and conclusions about the use of countermeasure, without the use of probability metrics will invite accusation that polygraph is mere subjective pseudoscience cloaked in overconfidence. A scientific approach to polygraph testing will recognize that the task of any test is to quantify a phenomenon probabilistically when direct observation or physical measurement are not possible, and to recognize and make accountable use of the potential for testing error when deciding what value to place upon and how to use or rely upon the test result. Like other scientific tests, polygraph tests are intended to make probabilistic classifications of deception and truth telling in the absence of an ability to directly observe or physically measure the issue of concern. If physical phenomena were available for observation or measurement, then a scientific test would not be needed.
Because deception and truth-telling are amorphous constructs, scientific lie detection and credibility assessment are, ultimately, epistemological concerns that are sometimes the subject of complex and important philosophical questions such as: what does it mean to say that something is true, and what kind of things can be said to be true? Although deeply interesting, these must be the subject of another publication.Read More
Lie Detector Test in Surrey
Yesterday we had a very common case for a couple from Surrey who visited our Kent offices. Throughout the relationship arguments had been started and the usual accusations of sleeping with someone else was directed at the person we were due to test. Unfortunately in this case the person we tested broke down mid argument and admitted to something they didn’t do, once you say something like this its very hard to then take it back and ultimately prove you didn’t cheat on your partner. Fortunately this lady turned to Lie Detectors UK to take a lie detector test to prove to her partner she had been faithful to him, we call these tests ‘Proof of Innocence Tests’ and they are popular.
On arrival at our head office we discuss the case with both in full and work on three suitable questions based on fact, in the pre test we discuss how the polygraph works, including a full walk through of the sensors we use as well as a lot more. The testing stage comprises of four tests, we repeat questions multiple times and take an average for the results which are given on the day both verbally and in report format. An average lie detector test will last two hours. An example of a popular question we use is ‘Since being in a relationship besides your partner have you engaged in sexual intercourse with anyone else?’.
In this particular lie detector test with the couple from Surrey the client we tested was telling the truth and we were pleased to be able to help her prove this to her partner and get their relationship back on track. Its very easy in an argument to say things we do not mean purely to hurt someone or to gain a reaction, in this case what was said in anger caused a huge rift with no other way to prove it wasn’t true but to take a lie detector test.
Lie Detectors UK have our own offices and offer fixed price tests at £399, we are members of the American and UK Polygraph Association and are fully qualified and experienced to help our clients and deliver an accurate result.Read More
ITV have released its duty of care for those participating in TV shows, more below. Shame a series of unfortunate incidents occurred to make this happen.
Following media, public and parliamentary scrutiny of its practices in the wake of the suicide of a participant in British tabloid talk show The Jeremy Kyle Show, UK commercial PSB ITV has outlined its guidelines on protecting participants in programmes made for broadcast on ITV, whether made by its own ITV Studios production house or third party suppliers.
Earlier in 2019, ITV Studios introduced, throughout its content making business, refreshed processes and guidance to manage and support the mental health and well-being of programme participants before, during and after production. The processes and guidance rolled out in ITV Studios were developed with the assistance of Dr Paul Litchfield CBE.
This guidance includes reference to the proposed new Ofcom rules in relation to protecting adult participants.
“The health and safety of everyone who takes part in our programmes is our highest priority, which is why we are sharing our best practice guidelines with producers,” stated Kevin Lygo, ITV’s Director of Television.
“This is not intended to be prescriptive but is draft guidance we are rolling out to all producers working with ITV, so we have a framework for the discussion around what the levels of risk might be and what proportionate processes producers therefore may need to have in place.”
“We and our producers already have comprehensive duty of care processes in place which reflect our knowledge and experience of making shows featuring members of the public. As these programmes have evolved, so have the pressures on those entering the public eye through appearing in our shows, from media and social media interest. To continue to make television that reflects and represents a wide and diverse range of people who want to take part, we need to ensure those people are aware of the implications – both positive and negative – that appearing on TV can lead to, so they can make an informed decision on their participation.
“We believe that television is all the better for the energy, talent and diversity of the people who share their experiences, lives and stories with the nation, and this guidance offers a framework for discussion with producers of how best practice can be achieved in making shows for our network, for the benefit of all.”
“Pact and its members take the welfare and protection of programme participants very seriously, and we welcome ITV sharing its best practice guidelines with producers,” added John McVay, Chief Executive of independent producers trade body PACT.
The updated guidelines set out a framework for assessing welfare and mental health risks for participants, identifying six general factors to be considered.
The guidelines also include information on measures that ITV suggests producers should consider putting in place to address welfare and mental health risks. Any measures or processes should be proportionate to the likely risks, given factors such as the programme format and the individuals concerned, and this continues to be taken into account when discussing programme commissions and considering the method and cost of production.
Where productions have medium or higher risk elements, producers should discuss their participant protection processes with their ITV commissioner and the ITV compliance lawyer or advisor allocated to their programme. This should cover periods of pre-production and casting, the period of production and broadcast of the programme and, where appropriate and proportionate, post production and broadcast. It may also involve the need to engage expert psychological advice and support.
Medium or higher risk productions should have a written risk management plan and processes/protocols in place for protecting the welfare of programme participants, which should be shared with ITV. Regular reporting of risk in programmes and the control measures introduced is a key element of risk reporting within ITV.Read More