Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests.

Abstract

Effects of countermeasures on the control-question polygraph test were examined in an experiment with 120 Ss recruited from the general community. Ss were given polygraph tests by an examiner who used field techniques. Twenty Ss were innocent, and of the 100 guilty Ss, 80 were trained in the use of either a physical countermeasure (biting the tongue or pressing the toes to the floor) or a mental countermeasure (counting backward by 7) to be applied while control questions were being presented during their examinations. The mental and physical countermeasures were equally effective: Each enabled approximately 50% of the Ss to defeat the polygraph test. The strongest countermeasure effects were observed in the cardiovascular measures. Moreover, the countermeasures were difficult to detect either instrumentally or through observation.

A review of the polygraph: history, methodology and current status

“…This marked a focused effort to develop better research practices and methodologies (Kircher, Horowitz, & Raskin, 1988;Raskin, 1987), with increased attention to the issue of countermeasures (Honts & Kircher, 1994;Iacono, Cerri, Patrick, & Fleming, 1992), and a consistent increased interest in an alternative polygraph testing method grounded in Orienting Response Theory (Sokolov, 1963), the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), now commonly known as the CIT.…”

Using Analysis of Speech and Linguistics to Characterize Uncertainty in Radiology Reporting

“…These include the degree of inter-operator variability and subjectivity, ability for subjects to "game" the system, and lack of extensive baseline data relative to the subjects being evaluated. The "gaming" of the system has been well described by the use of physical (e.g., tongue biting) and mental (e.g., counting backwards) countermeasures subjects use when answering control questions in order to alter stress responses and confuse analysis of test questions [26]. The proposed technology would counter these limitations through the use of objective computerized analysis of voice characteristics and stress, along with the creation of an in-depth personalized voice profile based upon longitudinal data collection over extended use of speech recognition.…”

Non‐invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: Scientific challenges and ethical consequences

“…Moreover, subjects attempting to use countermeasures may successfully reduce the efficacy of TMS for deception detection. It has long been recognized that countermeasures against polygraphy are effective across multiple test conditions (Honts, Raskin, & Kircher, 1994). Similar measures could be used by subjects who were familiar with the test procedure for TMS-based deception detection; for example, if subjects knew that reaction time is an important outcome measure in these studies, they could intentionally ''jitter'' their responses to create statistical uncertainty and obscure difference between lie and truth responses.…”