Polygraph Testing for Lie Detection – Used by Essex Police
Essex Criminals and Sex Offenders Continue Lie Detection Tests in 2020
“The polygraph examination itself is carried out in three stages, with an interview, followed by the polygraph test and a post-test discussion. We have seen some participants tell us about reoffending during the pre-test interview and others make admissions after undergoing the polygraph. We have had occasions where offenders have admitted further offences or breaches of preventative orders, which have triggered investigations that are ongoing.
We have also seen some admit that they may have potential contact with children, which has allowed us to directly intervene and keep people safe.”
Article originally published in 2016Read More
Liverpool Lie Detector Test UK Polygraph Testing
Lie Detector company (Jason Hubble) offers free test after suspended Wallasey Labour member challenges MP – The offer followed row over whether threats and homophobic comments were made at party meeting
Jason Hubble the owner of a leading lie detector company has offered to carry out tests to resolve a dispute within a Merseyside Labour party as reported in the Liverpool Echo Lie Detector Test article back in 2014.
Suspended Wallasey Labour member Paul Davies called for the tests after allegations of threats and homophobic remarks at a party meeting earlier in the summer.
The accusations have been strongly denied but are understood to be one of the factors which led to the suspension of Wallasey Constituency Labour Party (CLP) by national party bosses.
An investigation is now taking place but Mr Davies said he would submit to a lie detector test and called upon MP Angela Eagle or those who had made the allegations to also take one.
After the ECHO revealed Mr Davies’ challenge Jason Hubble, chief examiner of Lie Detectors UK offered to carry out the tests for free.
Lie Detector Tests £399 UK Nationwide in Local Locations
Normally, the company would charge £399 for a UK lie detector test, but Mr Hubble said he “would love to polygraph a politician” and said “there has to be a sense of jeopardy for it to work”.
Mr Hubble says the tests provide 92% to 98% accuracy and the Ministry of Justice has been training probation officers to use polygraphs to ensure serious sex offenders adhere to their licence conditions.
The test works by measuring body functions such as blood pressure, pulse, and breathing while the person is asked questions.
Jason Hubble from Lie Detectors UK who has offered free polygraph tests after Wallasey MP Angela Eagle was challenged by a local party member Paul Davies
Jason Hubble said some people try to beat the test but they have different techniques for spotting this and compensating.
He admitted the offer to do the test is “good publicity for us” but insisted he would be able to help, and said he had tested more than 1,000 people in cases ranging from infidelity to theft and said: “Around 70 to 80% of people we test pass.”
He said: “I would love to polygraph a politician. I’m not involved with any political party, but we get so many promises from them, but I don’t think any of them would put themselves though it.”
Paul Davies, who is co-vice chair of the suspended CLP, has been the most outspoken critic of the Wallasey MP since the allegations were made, and even spoke at length at a public meeting organised by Wirral TUC and attended by hundreds of local party members, insisting the claims of threats and homophobic comments could not be true.
Mr Davies said he would be happy to take the test, and said: “I’m looking forward to it.”
Jeremy Kyle Lie Detector Testing – Real Polygraph Test Results
However, earlier this week a source close to Ms Eagle dismissed the idea of the MP taking a polygraph saying they are “are only extensively used in Britain on the Jeremy Kyle show” and adding: “In most European judicial systems, polygraph tests are not considered reliable evidence.”
The ECHO understands that Labour’s National Executive Committee is now taking evidence for their investigation into the allegations about Wallasey CLP and Mr Davies will be given an opportunity to give evidence to them.
Original article date: 14 AUG 2016 by LIAM MURPHY
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
A survey was conducted among Russian polygraph examiners 2003 through 2016. There were three stages of the survey with the first stage conducted 2003 through 2004, second stage in 2012 and third stage 2015 through 2016. Results of all stages of the survey were compiled and analyzed and found its reflection in the following publication.Read More
How UK Polygraph Testers Handle Awkward Clients
This is a good question, what do you do when a person you’ve been asked to conduct a polygraph examinations with is annoying, deliberately offensive and it seems like he or she makes everybody uncomfortable. What examiner hasn’t ever experienced this? This is someone who continually displays anger or conceit, or maybe even superiority. If the subject is on probation of course, you can say something like the person is “non-cooperative” or just do things to fuel that haughtiness or threaten them with lock up, and nothing ever changes. Yeah, and I realize that there are also sources who would give advice just to deal with it, it’s the guys or gals problem, and not yours.
Lie Detector Tests UK Nationwide Locations – Liverpool Birmingham and Nottingham
However, if this person is, for example, someone who is a PCSOT individual who will be on probation for several years and will probably be in your examination chair about every four to six months, you might want to think of a possible avenue that will not only help you but might even be of great assistance to this subject.
One thought might be to understand the source of your own annoyance before you react. This kind of helps you figure out whether you’re being realistic in taking offense to this person’s demeanor. If you call the person out, you might even create more unnecessary tension. With that in mind, here’s a few thoughts that might work pretty well for your own follow up behavior.
First, “Ignore it.” An obnoxious individual may simply want attention. Is he or she just trying to get a rise out of you, or any others that he or she has contact with. If ignored, I’ve seen that behavior diminish on its own. Oh, maybe not right away, but about the third, or maybe even the second time I have contact with them. I have to tell you that change of attitude or behavior change always does amaze me when it occurs. I find that you have to be consistent in ignoring the behavior.
Of course, another alternative is to confront the offender but recognize that your confronting or corrective action might only anger him or her. One thing that I thought was interesting that individuals that I’ll call “prejudiced people” seem to be much more likely to change if they can first be made to feel good about themselves. Try asking good, self-affirming questions of a person whose behavior you’re trying to soften. Shining up someone’s self-esteem may help him or her feel less threatened. Similarly, if the offender won’t seem to soften up, another approach could consist of a little praise when the humor is more mature.
Polygraph Examiners: Not A Lie Detector, it’s a Truth Determinate
The experts on pre-test interviews and related observations and behaviors like the John Reid Associates and Stan Walters note in their work that the attitude displayed by the examiner during pre-test interviews should include being cordial and polite, interested and sincere. I agree, and I feel it should stay even-tempered and avoid challenging the examinee’s statements or alibis. An emphasis that I have found myself repeating that also seems to help is relating that the polygraph test is a “NOT A LIE DETECTOR” as much as it is a “TRUTH DETERMINATE” procedure.
The popular belief is of course is that it is a lie detector and the automatic attitude from the subject taking the test is that it is an instrument process to “Catch me doing something I’m not supposed to be doing” or “Catch me lying.” However, in bringing up that this is a “Truth Determinate” process, I’ve found that the belief of this event appears to subconsciously change a thinking that “This guy wants to prove I’m telling the truth. Everyone else things I’m guilty,” or that he did it, or whatever. I’m saying that this has worked for me.
Also, your own appearance and behavior has to match this attitude. This includes facial expressions of understanding and acceptance. Obviously, expressions of disgust, disbelief or anger work against this presentation. The behavioral attitudes of examinees obviously differ from composed and cooperative to nervous, angry and even fearful. We experience examinees who are overly anxious and even overly polite, guarded and complaining, plus an much even longer list. But I feel that our own behavioral attitude is an important game changer.
Challenges of a new Polygraph Examiner by by Jared Rockwood, LCSW
Just over a year ago I completed my basic training with Ben Blalock and Chip Morgan from PEAK Credibility Assessment Center. Being a young idealist I was excited to move from the training center into the real world of practical application. I can attest that the 10 weeks of basic polygraph and an additional 40 hours of PCSOT training are a great foundation for the real-world work we face with in our profession. That stated, there were challenges and even ethical dilemmas – that I had not foreseen during the training stages. One year after leaving the academy I know more acutely than ever that I have much to learn and that the “school of experience” will be the refining fire that sharpens my skills as a polygraph examiner. I would like to share a few experiences of success and struggle. My hope is that in sharing some of these ethical dilemmas and emotional struggles I remind you of just how challenging this profession can be. My belief is that these are not unique but have been experienced by many of us starting out on this path. I would also assume that even with years of experiences there are times when you are looking at charts debating with yourself what the next best step will be as you prepare to present information to the anxious eager-eyed client sitting just across from you. I will share two stories of tragedy, and two of triumph. All names have been changed to maintain confidentiality. My goal in sharing these case studies is to explore some of the more impactful lessons I have learned in my first year. While they may not be illustrative of my daily testing, these are examples that stood out due to their impact and the lessons I learned from them. Stanford Psychologist Alford Bandura said; “Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. The value in sharing the outliers is the gold nuggets of learning that can generalize to less extreme cases. Before I get into the specifics of the I would like to say that having a trusted mentor to talk things over, review charts, and illuminate research has been the key to much of my success. The foundations for good practice were taught and enforced in polygraph school. Once leaving polygraph school, the clash of the real-world versus the “school-world” became evident. I will be eternally grateful for John Pickup and his careful tutelage, mentorship, and patience with my inquisitive and at times petulant nature.
Case Study #1: Stew Umped
We have a variety of clients including; many of the local police agencies’-employment testing and PCSOT testing for adults on probation for sexual offenses. We also work with many organizations that treat adolescents who demonstrate sexual behavioural problems. Stew Umped was one of these adolescent boys we were testing under the umbrella of a PCSOT full disclosure exam. Stew was the 10th formal test that I had ever completed in real-world practice. I was a bit rough around the edges and took a long time to review the material during our semi-structured pre test interview. This was due in part to lacking competency with the forms we use and I would stumble through the question format, at times getting lost periodically and occupying time in my own disorientation. In addition, the boy was a bit of a talker and keeping him on target was a skill challenge during the interview. Because of the thorough nature of our semi-structured interview, we expect a pre test interview to last between an hour and ninety minutes, before moving into test construction and data acquisition. In this case the interview had lasted almost 3 hours. This was clearly not effective management of the flow of the interview on my part. After the lengthy interview, I formulated the questions and reviewed them with Stew Umped. I explained the instrumentation and placed it on Stu. As I began the exam it was immediately evident that something was going on. His physiology was measuring as unstable and distorted during the acquaintance test. The distortion were so bad that it was difficult to imagine what was going on with the charts. I assumed it was an issue with the instrumentation and my component placement so I first tried a different cardio cuff (kids size vs adult). When that did not help, I put the cuff on his forearm vs bicep. When that didn’t work, I raised the chair arm to be level with his heart. No matter what I did I could not find stable data. In futility, I attempted to run some charts which culminated at one point in the complete disruption of a heartbeat. It trailed off from the traditional diastolic systolic line into an upward squiggle in a single line; like it had been compressed into a death trail. I was so frustrated, and upset, and self-conscious about my incompetence I wanted to crawl under the desk and disappear. In the end, in consultation with my mentor, it was decided to call the test a “no opinion” and he was scheduled to retest the next week. John ran the follow-up exam because I was too insecure about the first round to face the situation and feared it was my fault that readings came out so distorted. In the end John tested him with more stable physiology. This second time he failed the exam while attempting countermeasures. Months later I was assigned his follow-up test. This time the data were as expected. He added significant disclosures to his original sexual history, and he confessed to trying to alter the outcome of the exam through a combination of movement, flexing, and biting his cheek. One of the lessons, that I learned (and keep in mind), is that bad data is not always about instrumentation, but often is a by product of direct manipulation by the client.
Case Study #2: Kasey Fillmore
My professional background is in counselling and therefore the pre test interview has always been the most comfortable phase of a polygraph for me. It models after all the principles of good therapy: building rapport, allowing for open ended questions and discussion, and a supportive non-confrontational approach. On the other hand, the post test interview is not my most competent area yet. It is more strategic, confrontational, and accusatory. I have used a soft approach in the post test interview such as saying things like: “this did not go well for you, what do you think happened?” Sometimes I think this soft approach is less about the rapport building therapeutic stuff, and more about some of my own doubts about the results and if I did it correctly. Especially early on; I was constantly questioning the science and the validity of the test itself (that is part of my petulant nature I referred to earlier). Kasey was an adult on probation for engaging in sexual abusive behaviours with a child. He had a history with intensive binges of pornography use and he had an interest in child pornography. We completed a semi-structured interview—about his compliance with the terms and conditions of his probation and his engagement and honesty in therapy—and then formulated the test questions. Some of the questions addressed in the exam included if Mr. Fillmore had sexually touched any minors, if he had viewed child pornography, and if he had been alone with any minor (he had several nieces and nephews he had contact with but under supervision as approved by probation). In the screening exam the charts highlighted a specific area of sensitivity regarding the question about child pornography. I had recently attended the local polygraph association training with Skip Webb who provided a day of training on the post test interview. He talked about the need to trust implicitly in your results and when you move to enhanced interview that you set aside any excuses or blame in favor of the core issue of “You are lying to me, tell me about it.” I saw the results of the charts and in place of my passive “what do you think happened” default statement; I leaned in and said, “Let’s talk about the child pornography that you have been watching. ”Kasey Fillmore put his head down and started to talk about nudist websites he had been viewing for the explicit purpose of finding nude children. He talked about his justifications as to why he thought it was ok and laid the problem on the table. One thing I had not expected from such an exchange was the surge of adrenaline that coursed through my veins. I was on “cloud nine” completely convinced that the polygraph could never be wrong. Obtaining that first confession based on the accurate results of the polygraph was both empowering and reinforcing. The goal of polygraph is not to get people in trouble, but it is to hold people accountable and to create a safer society. That day was an important day for me as it enhanced faith in the science, in the process, and in the purpose for polygraph.
Case Study #3: Reggie Ected
Unlike the first two case scenarios where there were formal systems involved the next client was a referral from a family therapist that had been working with a couple around trust issues. There had been some infidelity in the marriage both in terms of an affair and Reggie, the husband, had been frequenting ‘massage parlors’ where he paid for sexual favours. His wife stumbled upon some emails where he was setting up one of these ‘massages’ and that created the current crisis that brought them into therapy. The therapist working with the couple has a unique situation where he works over the internet with couple in therapy, often from out of state. When there was some concerns about trust (had been more infidelity than Reggie had disclosed) the therapist suggested they fly out to Utah, have Reggie take a polygraph, and then they could have an in-person, couples session to review the results and to move things to the next level in therapy. Some of the background that I had learned later on was that the wife had made an ultimatum,… “if you don’t pass the polygraph and you have been lying to me, we are done.” So for Reggie, this potentially could signify the end of the relationship. Reggie is a very intelligent, highly successful, and charming man. He had clearly been working hard on a lifelong struggle with sexual compulsive behaviours as he laid out a very lengthy and complicated sexual development and history in the full disclosure. Often when people are able to talk about, albeit reluctantly, some of the indiscretions and improprieties of their past, it fosters a sense being honest and straight forward. This is someone I expected to do well because he seemed sincere and open in the interview. With some work we were able to define specific time periods, after which, he had stopped specific behaviours. The test had two phases; one addressed infidelity, the other, pornography. The pornography questions were specific to a period of time of sobriety he had identified while attending a 12-step program for support. During the data acquisition phase, Reggie showed some odd patterns of physiology. At times he was almost panting and his body would subtly shake. This was not consistent throughout the entire test but strategically at moments where directed lie questions were presented. After the initial chart I told him he needed to allow his body to “do its thing”, that he should not control it, and that the first test was likely tainted because of some “odd movements.” In the follow-up charts the odd pattern persisted. The breathing channels had clear changes from relevant questions to comparison questions, and if anything, in the follow up test were even more aggressive. In school we had learned a few things about suspected countermeasures.1) Most people cannot pull them off successfully, 2) If you suspect countermeasures score your charts because they are probably going to fail, and 3)Don’t pass them if it seems they are trying to cheat. In this case our session had run very long. In fact immediately after the polygraph Reggie Ected was scheduled to be at a family therapy session with his wife to review the results. I was already late for that family session but I am staring at these charts wondering if I was paranoid and perhaps misjudging the pattern that I see. The scores were strongly in the truthful direction and the computer scoring validated that. He seemed pretty open in the interview but my gut was telling me something was wrong. I believed that Reggie had intentionally manipulated the data. I remember talking with some of my mentors about how many anti-polygraph websites will say that you need to ‘help yourself’ to pass a polygraph. That you can’t trust the process and even if you are being honest you need to aid the process along to make sure it comes out in your favour. I, in that moment, feeling like I did not have time to consult with anyone and needing to make a decision told Reggie he passed, AND that I questioned the quality of the data. Then when I called his therapist I simply told the therapist that his scores were passing scores, neglecting to mention the questionable data. I was so afraid of falsely accusing him of cheating that I hid behind the logic that he had passing scores and most cheaters fail anyways. After he left my office I debated if I should quality control the charts. At the end of the day I think I knew what the results would be and I was hesitant. If I filed this away and did not bring it up, even if I was wrong, no one would likely ever know about it. This was a real struggle, because there is ego involved. To be wrong (which I knew I was) would require reversing a call, looking incompetent, compromising the perception of the infallibility of the polygraph. In the end I had to put my ego to the side and I sent my charts to be reviewed making a note… “these look weird, what do you think?” Inevitably the response that I expected was returned, “There is no question about it, in my opinion, these appear to be classic examples of well-executed countermeasures. Most people can’t pull that off quite as well as he did.” Then the moral dilemma was around the issue of chalking this up as a learning experience, versus contacting the therapist and reversing the call and dealing with the ramifications of all of that. Thankfully I was able to sustain my integrity and do the right thing, even if it was late in the game. This required much time, several phone calls, and a family session online with the couple to clean up what I could have done in a few moments right after the test if I had simply done what I knew was right in the first place. That stated, it is not an issue I have let slide again. I learned my lesson. It is more stressful and time consuming to shirk addressing the issue head on, than it is to clean up the mess afterwards.
Case Study #4: Trey Umph
I have saved my favourite story for last. This is the story of an angry cantankerous man that we will call Trey. Prior to even meeting Trey his reputation proceeded him. In preparation for all of our PCSOT testing we contact the therapist and probation/parole officer to inquire as to issues that they would like highlighted in the exam and to request background information. Both his therapist and his probation officer warned me that he is argumentative and would likely nitpick everything I did, and they wished me good luck… that had never happened before or since. There was a note from John on the schedule that stated “make sure he pays in advance, if he doesn’t pay in advance do not proceed with the test.” Mr. Umph was in his mid-sixties and did not seem to be in good physical shape, as the half-flight of stairs to the office winded him considerably. He would not accept my handshake and asked me when was the last time I had washed my hands. He begrudgingly paid his bill prior to the exam, but in line with the predilection for OCD would not touch the pen I offered him in favor of his own pen. When he challenged the upfront payment expectation I told him it insures integrity of the process. He was not paying for the outcome of the exam but for the service. He responded that he would like to go into the polygraph business because he could just fail everyone that came in and make much more money. He ensured me that everyone should fail at least 2-3 times to maximize the best business model. Nevertheless, I hope you get the picture. Trey Umph was opinionated, strong willed, a bit conspiratorial, and geared up and ready for battle. As it turns out during the full disclosure Trey was convicted of sexually touching his eight year old daughter. There were two stories, the first was the incident that triggered the referral to the police, and the second was something his daughter disclosed when they interviewed her. The initial story was that while in a store, a citizen reported to the police that he was inappropriately touchy with his daughter. He said he frequently ‘balances’ himself by holding onto his daughters shoulder or putting his hand atop her head. When the police interviewed the little girl she said she could not remember anything odd about the grocery store visit. They asked if he had ever touched her inappropriately and she said that he had. One time they were in a truck that has a single bench seat and Trey had touched her bottom. Trey explained that he pulled her over to drive with the wheel as he worked the peddles (which was something they did from time to time) and that when he put his hand over to pull her close to the wheel his hand “slid into her shorts and I pulled her over to me touching her bare thigh.” Trey indicated that he remembered the incident she was referring to and had confirmed with the police that he in fact touched her skin to skin on the thigh in the vehicle a few weeks earlier when he pulled her close to him. He was arrested and charged but claimed he had never sexually touched his daughter. When I asked him why he did not fight the charges he said that his lawyer told him his daughter would have to be on the stand and testify and he feared it would be traumatic for her so he took the plea deal. Now he was under supervision and in therapy where everyone was pushing him to take accountability for sexually molesting his daughter; which he was denying ever happened. In this situation the instant offense was the target of interest. I set it up using a Single-Issue Utah Exam targeting if he had ever sexually touched the private parts of his daughter’s body. It seemed fairly straight forward. Going into the test I, like his therapist, peers in group, and probation officer, believed he was going to fail the exam. I was expectant that this could be a huge growing moment for him where he could be more accountable for his actions and finally take ownership of his sexually abusive behaviours towards his daughter. The test result was no significant response/ no deception indicated, Trey Umph passed the single-issue Utah exam stating he had never sexually touched his daughter. I will admit to being somewhat surprised. As I told him the results, tears flooded from this cantankerous old man. He wept saying, “no one believes me, “no one even ever gave me a chance.” He stood up, firmly shook my hand, and thanked me for not judging him. He even apologized for his earlier bravado. When someone is falsely accused of something, how can they ‘prove innocence?’ Often times there is no recourse. They tell their story and people will either believe them, or they will not. That day I learned that polygraph offers a unique sanctuary to the innocent that have nowhere to go for exoneration. Trey Umph could hold his head high and hang onto that moment, when his body spoke the truth. It may not change everyone’s mind, there are likely people that would question the results. But I don’t. I was there as this man melted in gratitude, because someone believed him for the first time. And I did not believe him because I wanted to, or because I was nice, or because I hoped it could be true. I believed him because that is the story that his body told. When polygraph works, it is beautiful. These are just a few of the many trying and beautiful experiences I have had over the last year as I have waded into the laudable profession of polygraph. After working for 18 years in group homes with troubled youth, I am thankful that this change in my career path continues to have the objective that I have always had as a therapist. I want to help people. I want to help society, and I want to get at the truth. Because in the end it is the truth that sets us free.
Good question, right? Do you believe in yourself, do you believe in your abilities as a confident, professional, polygraph examiner? Polygraph Instructor? Polygraph School Director? Whether you do or don’t, maybe now is a good time for what some might call a “self-assessment.” As a matter of fact, it’s always a good time to do this. A self-assessment is like an ongoing process that requires being connected to yourself, in fact let’s call it something like connected to your inner self, that little voice inside that my teacher, Sister Mary Sulpicia, used to tell me about all the time when I was in the 8th grade at St. Stanislaus grade school in Michigan City, Indiana. The problem these days however is that many of us appear to be to plugged into today’s devices to see what’s constantly happening in the world through Cellphones, Facebook, I-Phone, the Internet, or whatever, and caught up in only what’s happening in the world today, in what some might call “Trump surprises,” so that there not asconnected to themselves as they were, and experts will tell you that that is no way to help make good or better decisions.
Self-assessment means being your own counselor, developing your own views and cultivating the ability to look closely at where you are so you can think through problems. Here is some thoughts: Work on developing confidence. Developing confidence to take actions that will advance you in your business or your career as a proficient polygraph examiner, instructor or director. But that idea of building confidence is not as simple as it sounds. The most successful people are those who can manage the contradictions of life, individuals who are aware of boundaries, but not constrained by their limitations. Let’s face it, insecurity disables us from winning those things that some might call “Inner Demons”, and making something out of our lives. Arrogance or big time pride makes us come off as know-it-alls. I’m sure you’re probably thinking about the same individuals in our profession as I am, when I say that. That superiority personality actually erodes our level of influence, and after a while, people even stop listening to us, no matter how good this information may be. People just stop listening to us. I think confidence is like the balancing act between pride and uncertainty, and I would like to believe it’s always a work in progress situation. My thoughts today are to surround yourself with trusted friends, and especially individuals like those that I have always regarded as mentors, folks who will be honest with you about your performance and what areas need improvement. Listen to them, then listen to yourself.
Regarding my own experiences, there are many such individuals that I have had blessed contact with. Individuals who come quickly to mind would be: “Donald Krapohl”, (He’s the obvious first choice), “Ray Nelson,” (He’s another high on my list) and also these other great influential individuals such as: “Mark Handler, Barry Cushman, Chuck Slupski, Jamie McCloughan,” these are names that come quickly to my mind, “And oh, don’t let me forget the late Ron Decker.” Now this problem of simultaneously doubting or trusting yourself is the core principle of effective self-assessment. For example, many people find themselves repeatedly crashing into the same brick wall, never changing course. If I find myself blocked at every turn – whether it’s because of people I would have to answer to, or perhaps by some competitive circumstances or situations – I now try to remember to step back and regroup. And you know what, it works! When we experience failures, even multiple failures, our nature is to blame circumstances, other people, the shape of the universe or… (no, I’m not going to say anything political – even though tempted to do that). But we also have to step back and ask, “Could this be me?” I think this is where the ability to have an intellectual discussion with yourself comes in to play. This is where you can disengage and look at the situation with a longer view. I think this kind of perspective is critical to determining whether your actions are helping or hurting you, your professionalism, your occupation, your work product and perhaps even your belief in the standards and goals of the American Polygraph Association.
I know you have heard this from many sources in your life, that you can carefully plot your own success and evaluate your effectiveness as you go along, but at the end of the day, you know what? You still have to get out there and play in the traffic by yourself, along with everybody else out there. You are never going to be totally trained or prepared. Let me repeat that, “You are never going to be totally trained or prepared,” because things change all the time. New creations, new discoveries, new ideas, new inventions, and there is seldom any schedule of something like required classes to see what’s going to develop next week that you haven’t heard about yet. You have to meet people, develop relationships and swap best practices, and you can make this happen. This APA Journal is jam packed with important necessary information and experiences regarding our practices and profession. You have to meet people, develop relationships and guess what, “Swap best practices.” You have to make things happen. The 2017 American Polygraph Association Conference is where such opportunities occur. Trust your healthy self-confidence, it’s like having an inner gyroscope to keep you on the right course, and above all…You can do it.
Why are pre-employment polygraph tests successful?
As an employer, you have the right to ask your applicants to undergo various tests in order to determine if they really are the best person for the job. Even though a polygraph test is not very popular for most job vacancies, there are a few situations in which it is absolutely necessary if you want to make sure you have the most suitable person for the job.
When can you ask job applicants to take a polygraph test?
While these tests should only be reserved for when they are absolutely needed, if the job available in your company offers the future employee access to a large amount of money or weapons, this is definitely a situation in which a lie detector test is more than a fair request from your behalf. In these types of positions, the person in charge will have a lot of responsibility on their hands and you need to make sure that they do not have any problems to worry about.
What kind of information can I expect to find out during this test?
There are a few questions that are adapted depending on each type of job, but usually you will find out about this person’s work history, any illegal drug use problems, criminality problems and even indebtedness. In addition, you can check if they truly have the education they say they have or the work experience to handle the responsibilities requested by your job. With this information, any employer will be able to decide whether or not that is the person they have been looking for all this time.
Can I test people who already work at my company?
If you have any reason to suspect one of your employees of fraudulent activities, but you do not have a clear way of proving it, this could be the option you were looking for. By asking your employee to take a polygraph test you will obtain all the information you need to make a logical decision that will be fair for both sides.
Is it worth the investment?
A polygraph test can rise to certain costs, but when you are screening a person who might become a valuable employee for your company or even for the government, this investment is definitely worth it. With this being said, this does not mean that every manager looking to hire new staff should have them take a lie detector test. This is something that only those who are about to undertake high-risk positions should do or when you suspect that one of your employees might be guilty of a massive fraud and you want to be sure you have all the facts straight.
To conclude, pre-employment polygraph tests can certainly be a useful tool for those who are interested in hiring someone for a very important job. This is how employers can find out whether or not the candidates they are considering have any drug related history, criminal charges or any other problems that might be of concern when it comes to that particular job.Read More
When can you use polygraph testing at work?
Although lie detectors were initially used just by law enforcement agencies, in time they have made their way into mainstream culture and today almost everyone can contact an experienced examiner and get honest answers to their questions. Professional companies use state of the art polygraphs to ensure maximum accuracy and work only with accredited examiners, so at the end of the test you will find out who is lying and who is telling the truth. It is common to see spouses hire polygraph testers to test whether their partners have had an affair, but corporate clients can benefit from polygraphs as well. In fact, there are several situations when conducting a lie detector test can save you a lot of time, money and even your company’s reputation.
Test a candidate’s honesty
Asking a candidate to sit through a job interview while wired to a polygraph may sound a bit too thorough, but not if the vacant position involves handling money, guns or sensitive information. In several countries across the globe it is common for employers to request a lie detector test to check if candidates are trustworthy. If the nature of the job requires you to be very through and selective, you can consider the benefits of a lie detector test UK. During this test, you can find out if your candidate has been honest regarding their work history or if they have a clean background. Hiring someone with past addiction, gambling or criminal issues can pose great risks in some fields, so it’s better to be prepared and verify this in advance.
Solve bribery/theft issues
As unpleasant as they might be, theft and bribery allegations can always occur in a company and when that happens, you need to act quickly and efficiently. Holding an innocent person responsible is not only unfair, but also risky for your future operations, so, if you do not have enough evidence, you can always count on the reliability of a lie detector. The test does cost a few hundreds of pounds, but this is a small price to pay considering that a dishonest employer could cost you more. It is advisable to work with a company that offers a confidentiality agreement. This way, you get the guarantee that your issues remain secret unless you choose to disclose them yourself.
Check the credibility of your sources
Working in journalism involves a constant struggle for big stories. However, many journalists are so eager to reveal ground-breaking news that they forget to check their sources. Unfortunately, many people who reveal great secrets to journalists are making things up for the money and, unless you want to have your image associated with them, it’s better to be safe than sorry. Conducting a lie detector test will reveal whether or not your source is telling the truth and this way you will not risk having your reputation stained. The best polygraph tests have 98% accuracy and they are nearly impossible to trick, so you can rest assured that the result you get is the truth.Read More
Even though most people have heard about polygraph testing, most of them still do not know exactly how these tests work and how it is that they offer such reliable results. Since virtually anyone can take one these days , here are a few details that you should know about them:
How Do They Work?
They actually measure several indices such as pulse, blood pressure, skin conductivity and respiration that when analysed will indicate whether or not the person taking the test is lying. There have been many studies that show how people react when lying and there is clear evidence that they cannot hide their emotions, as much as they would like.
Are The Tests Reliable?
Yes, the tests are very reliable when they are conducted by professional examiners who have been properly trained and can identify the signals accurately. Most people are afraid that they will be too nervous and because of this they will fail the test, but they do not realise that the nervousness will certainly not influence the results because an experienced examiner will easily make the difference between a lie and a genuine nervous reaction.
Can IBeat the Test?
As much as some people might try to convince you of that, the fact that that an examiner will always be able to tell if you are trying to distort the readings. Obviously, most people who are guilty of something will try to beat the test, but a qualified examiner will not have any problems in interpreting the results accurately and offering the client a reliable result. In fact, studies have shown that examiners can be up to 98% accurate in most of their readings, so in case you are planning to beat the test you should probably refuse to take it altogether. At the same time, those who want to ask their spouse or a job candidate to take the lie detector test, can always expect to receive honest answers and find out the real truth about the facts they are interested in.
How Long Does a Test Take?
Usually, a the test takes about 3 hours, but that time can vary depending on the situation. If you are the one who has requested the test, you will be able to discuss with the examiner the questions you want to be asked or the information you might be interested in obtaining. If you are the one being tested, you should prepare yourself to spend this time taking the test.
These are the most important aspects that anyone should know about polygraph testing. Whether you are someone interested in taking the test or you want to ask someone to take the test in order to prove their honesty, with the help of a skilled examiner you can always count on receiving accurate results. So take your time and find the right person to test you and you will always be glad of choosing this option.Read More