Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception.

Abstract

Effects of physical countermeasures on the accuracy of the control question test (CQT) were assessed in two laboratory mock-crime experiments. In Experiment 1,21 male and 27 female college students were divided into four groups, three of which enacted a mock crime. Two of these guilty groups were trained in the use of a countermeasure, either biting the tongue (pain countermeasure) or pressing the toes against the floor (muscle countermeasure) during the control question zones of the CQT. All countermeasure subjects were given extensive information about the nature of the CQT. No significant effects for countermeasures were found. Experiment 2 assessed the effects of additional training and the concurrent use of both countermeasures with 31 female and 26 male college students who were divided into three groups, two of which enacted a mock crime. Countermeasure subjects produced 47% false negatives as compared to 0% false negatives for Guilty Control subjects. False negative outcomes occurred when subjects were able to produce physiological responses that were larger to control questions than to relevant questions. These results should be qualified by the possibility that the countermeasure task would be considerably more difficult if the relevant questions dealt with a real crime in an actual investigation. Countermeasure detectors, counter-countermeasures, and the implications of these results for the probative value of the CQT are discussed.The use of physiological recordings to make inferences about the veracity of a person's statements is known as the physiological detection of deception (FDD;Podlesny & Raskin, 1977). FDD techniques have gained increasing acceptance in recent years as probative evidence in our courts of law (Raskin, 1982). Along with this forensic use, the use of FDD techniques for personnel screening,

Potential Jurors’ Perceptions of Polygraphs in Court

“…Of this larger sample, half of the group was designated to be innocent while the other was guilty (Honts et al, 2001). The findings on spontaneous countermeasure use were similar to the older study (Honts et al, 1987). Out of the 192 test subjects, 130 reported using some form of countermeasure in an attempt to obscure the results of the polygraph, a rate of 67.7% (Honts et al, 2001).…”

“…An advantage that this experiment had over the previous (Honts, Raskin, and Kircher, 1987) was that it also contained a control group of innocent individuals who did not commit the mock crime. Participants, similarly to the previous study, were administered a CQT pertaining to the crime, after which the examiner determined whether the individual had or had not been truthful.…”

“…The total sample size in this experiment was 65, which is still relatively small and is cause for concern in regard to validity. Of the 65 subjects, 39 self-reported utilizing spontaneous measures to beat or distort the exam, a rate of 60% (Honts, Raskin, Kircher, and Hodes, 1988). The polygraph evaluators who administered the exams had a rate of 80% correct identification, 3% incorrectly identified, and 17% inconclusive.…”

“…Previous research on this topic conducted by Honts, Raskin and Kircher (1987) analyzed the effectiveness of these spontaneous countermeasures. Guilty participants in these trials committed a mock crime and were administered a CQT about the mock crime.…”

Unobtrusive Deception Detection

“…Contact sensors are placed on the subjects during examinations. The resulting signals are then heuristically analyzed by experts (BenShakhar & Bar-Hillel, 1986;Elaad, 1998;Honts, Raskin, & Kircher, 1987;Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984;Saxe, Dougherty, & Cross, 1985;Stern, 2002;Yankee, 1965).…”