A Prospective Study of the Impact of Polygraphy on High-Risk Behaviors in Adult Sex Offenders

Abstract

This study examined whether polygraph testing would result in sex offenders engaging in fewer high-risk behaviors. Fifty adult male sex offenders taking part in community treatment programs were allocated into 2 groups: "Polygraph Aware" subjects were told they would receive a polygraph examination in 3 months regarding their high-risk behaviors, while "Polygraph Unaware" subjects were told their behavior would be reviewed in 3 months. Relevant behaviors for each subject were established at baseline interviews, following which both groups were polygraphed at 3 months. All subjects were polygraphed again at 6 months. The hypothesis was that subjects in the "Polygraph Aware" group would have engaged in fewer high-risk behaviors, based on their self-report during the examination. Thirty-two subjects (64%) attended the first polygraph examination, with 31 (97%) disclosing an average of 2.45 high-risk behaviors each previously unknown to supervising probation officers. There was no significant difference between the two groups. Because of the high failure rate, all subjects were told to expect a second polygraph. Twenty-one subjects (42%) completed the second polygraph test, with 71% disclosing an average of 1.57 behaviors, a significant decrease compared with the first test. Disclosures to treatment providers and probation officers also increased. It was concluded that polygraph testing resulted in offenders engaging in less high-risk behavior, although the possibility that offenders fabricated reports of high-risk behaviours to satisfy examiners is also considered; similarly, offenders seemed to be more honest with their supervisors, but this only occurred after experience of the test itself. Feedback from offenders who completed the study, taken together with the high drop out rate, suggested that those motivated not to reoffend found polygraphy useful, while those less motivated sought to avoid it.

The Utility of Post-Conviction Polygraph Testing Among Sexual Offenders

“…In thirteen studies it was reported that some/all of the participants were also receiving (inpatient and outpatient) psychological therapy (O'Connell, 1997;Stovering, Nelson, & Hart., 2013;Heil, Ahlmeyer, & Simons, 2003;Van Arsdale et al, 2012;Cook et al, 2014;McGrath et al, 2007;English et al, 2003;English et al, 2000;Schenk et al, 2014;Kokish et al 2005;Grubin et al, 2004;Grubin & Madsen, 2006;Buschman et al, 2010). However, one study controlled for these treatment effects in the analysis by comparing a treatment only with a combined polygraph treatment group (McGrath et al, 2007).…”

“…Two studies explored selfreported accuracy and utility from a single intervention design (Kokish et al, 2005;Grubin & Madsen, 2006). Four studies followed a quasi-experimental design with a polygraph intervention and comparison group, (McGrath et al, 2007;Gannon et al, 2014;Cook et al, 2014;Schenk et al, 2014); others included a polygraph unaware group (Grubin et al, 2004), a between samples comparison, i.e. parolee vs. prisoner (Heil et al, 2000;Heil, Ahlmeyer, & Simons, 2003), or a within subjects comparison between multiple polygraphs (Ahlmeyer et al, 2000).…”

“…The maintenance polygraph test was used in three studies (McGrath et al, 2007;Gannon et al, 2014;Grubin et al, 2004) and the specific issue test in two of the included studies (Schenk et al, 2014;Bourke et al, 2014). Combinations of test types were used in four of the reviewed studies (Grubin, 2010;English et al, 2000;Stovering, Nelson, & Hart.…”

“…In addition, challenges to successful treatment programmes, such as a lack of honesty or a continuing influence of cognitive distortions can reduce the benefit of such interventions. The polygraph can help offenders overcome barriers to honesty, such as denial, feelings of guilt and shame by encouraging disclosure early on in the treatment process (Grubin et al, 2004).…”

“…All studies were carried out in the USA aside from five studies that were conducted in the United Kingdom (Grubin, 2010;Grubin & Madsen 2006;Grubin et al, 2004;Grubin et al, 2014;Gannon et al, 2014) and one conducted in the Netherlands (Buschman et al, 2009).…”