AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 69
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 19, 2010
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: March 1, 1983
• Content Type: MISC

Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Contents
Survey of Members of the Society for Psychological
Research Concerning Their Opinion of Polygraph Test
Interpretation
The Gallup Organization
Statement of Norman Ansley, Chief, Polygraph Division,
Office of Security, National Security Agency Before
the Armed Services Committee, United States Senate,
March 7, 1984
Alcohol and the Psychophysiological Detection of
Deception
M.T. Bradley and D. Ainsworth
Analysis of Agreement in Polygraph Charts
Eugene Edel and Lane A. Moore, Jr.
The Penile Plethysmograph: A New Transducer Used for
Detection and Therapy With Sexual Deviation Cases
Stanley Abrams
Book Review: Passing the Pre-Employment Lie Detector Test
Vickie T. Murphy 202
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY
CAMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION, 1984
P.O. Box 74, Linthicum Heights, Maryland 21090
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Editor, APA Publications ........................... Norman Ansley
Severna Park, Maryland
Associate Editor .................................. Gordon H. Barland, Ph.D.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Associate Editor ................................... Thomas J. Beatty, J.D.
McNamara Lewis, Dodge & Houston
Associate Editor ................................... Frederick J. Frese III, Ph.D.
Western Reserve Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Center
Associate Editor ................................... Marcia Garwood, Ph.D.
Department of Defense
Associate Editor .................................. Heidi Herbold-Wooten, Dr.rer.nat
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Associate Editor ................................... Frank Horvath, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Associate Editor ................................... Murlene McKinnon, Ph.D.
Delta College, Michigan
Associate Editor ................................... Clarence H.A. Romig
University of Illinois
Associate Editor ................................... Althea M.I. Wagman, Ph.D.
University of Maryland
Medical School
Associate Editor ................................... William Yankee, Ph.D.
Matthews, North Carolina
Managing Editor .................................. Janet Kay Pumphrey
Anne Arundel Community College
President Director
Lynn P. Marcy Norman Ansley
Parklane Towers West, Ste. 1213 35 Cedar Road
Dearborn, Michigan 48126 Severna Park, Maryland 21146
Vice President - Government Director
Albert D. Snyder Frank A. Argenbright, Jr.
Route 1, Box 5 1325 Virginia Avenue
Plato, Missouri 65552 East Point, Georgia 30344
Vice President - Private Director
Charles L. Pedersen Shirley H. Sturm
2025 Canal Street, University of Houston-D.C.
Suite 130-A One Main Street, Room 1038-B
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Houston, Texas 77002
Vice President - Police Director
William J. Scheve, Jr. Frank Horvath
789 Fairfax Drive 1456 Mercer Street
Salinas, California 93901 Okemos, Michigan 48864
Secretary Chairman of the Board
William L. Bennett David Devine
Ste. 106 - Central Office Park Jack Eckerd Corporation
5805 Lee Highway P.O. Box 4689
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421 Clearwater, Florida 44518
Treasurer Executive Director
Alvin E. Clinchard Lynn P. Marcy
123 Bryan Street Parklane Towers West, Ste. 1213
Gretna, Nebraska 68028 Dearborn, Michigan 48126
Polygraph is published quarterly by the American Polygraph Association. Advertising and Editorial Address at P.O. Box 74,
Linthicum Heights, Maryland 21090.
Subscription Rates: One Year $32.00. Single Issue: $8.00. Change of Address: APA Publications, P.O. Box 1061, Severna Park,
Maryland 21146. Send your old as well as your new address. Publisher cannot be responsible for Issues not received because of
Improper mailing address information.
The mere publication of an article or advertisement in Polygraph does not constitute an official
endorsement by the American Polygraph Association.
Polygraph copyright: American Polygraph Association 1984
B.H.F. Printing Company
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE
By
Donald Krapohl
The following True/False quiz is designed to test your working know-
ledge of the American Polygraph Association Standards and Principles of
Practice. Though it is not expected that members will memorize these
guidelines, it is a condition of membership that we abide by them.
We all get a little rusty, so take a moment to try this test. The
answers will be provided at the end. You can also find the APA Standards
and Principles of Practice with the answers.
1. No polygraph examiner shall conduct any examination on a person with-
out first advising the subject of the rights of every American citizen
against self-incrimination and invasion of privacy.
2. Polygraph examiners shall not employ more than three measures of
physiological phenomenon.
3. Polygraph examiners have a primary responsibility to the person, com-
pany or agency that requested the examination.
4. No polygraph examiner shall render a conclusive verbal or written de-
cision or report based on chart analysis without having administered two
or more polygraph charts.
7E: -*Tre que`s ions, answers, de ini ions, meT odorog"y, and tec1 '-
iques presented in Polygraph Review are entirely those of the authors
and do not represented approval or endorsement by the American Polygraph
Association. Material published in the Review will include questions and
nswers on a variety of techniques, and variants of standard techniques.
In doing so, we recognize the possibility of different opinions, and rd-
ognize that other answers may be correct. This publication welcomes
ontributions to be submitted to the Editor, Polygraph Review, P.O. Box
14, Linthicum Hei hts, Maryland 21090.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
5. No polygraph examiner shall terminate a polygraph examination without
affording the subject a reasonable opportunity to explain and to eliminate
any reactions which are evident on the charts.
6. No polygraph examiner shall accept the explanation of the examinee for
a chart response without verification.
7. It shall be deemed highly unethical for any examiner to express ver-
bally or in writing a test conclusion which is based solely upon subjec-
tive opinion or personal assumption.
8. Under no circumstances shall a polygraph examiner describe verbally or
in writing the appearance or behavior of an examinee.
9. A member shall not offer testimony concerning the charts or conclu-
sions presented by another member unless he is thoroughly familiar with
the techniques and procedures used by the other member.
10. Calibration must be performed on the polygraph instrument every 30
days.
11. Any person who is arrested on a felony or crime involving moral turpi-
tude shall be ineligible for any class of membership in the APA.
12. A member shall abide by decisions and recommendations officially
adopted by the American Polygraph Association at any regularly scheduled
meeting.
13. According to the APA Standards and Principles of Practice, a person
authorized to receive test information could include other polygraph exam-
iners in private consultation.
14. A member shall not conduct an examination where he has reason to be-
lieve the examination is intended to interfere with_or to prevent the law-
ful organizational activities of a labor union.
15. No member shall record any physiological phenonmenon with an instru-
ment without the subject being aware that their physiological phenomenons
are being recorded.
1. True
2. False
3. False
4. True
5. True
6. True
7. True
8. False
9. True
10. False
11. False
12. True
13. True
14. True
15. True
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION
STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE
In order to achieve unity of purpose, to assure a clear concept of
obligations to each other and the profession and to provide for the conti-
nuing welfare and protection of the general public, all members of the
American Polygraph Association have agreed to abide by the following Stan-
dards and Principles of Practice:
1. A member shall recognize the fact that his primary responsibility must
be to the person who has volunteered for a polygraph examination, regard-
less of the circumstances which created the need for the examination.
2. (Amended 8/4/82). Recognizing that a polygraph examination cannot be
conducted on a person against his will, no member will attempt to conduct
an examination when he has reason to believe the examinee has been sub-
jected to coercion or duress.
3. (Amended 6/75-8/76). No member shall initiate an examination on any
person unless he uses an instrument which makes a permanent simultaneous
recording on a moving chart or at least three (3) physiological tracings,
the pneumograph, the cardiosphygmograph and the galvanic skin response.
This shall not preclude the recording of additional physiological phenome-
non on the same charts. No member shall conduct an examination on an in-
strument wherein the manufacturer has not supplied information for self-
calibration and sensitivity standards for that instrument. Every member
shall calibrate his instrument periodically and keep a record of the dates
of calibration. No member shall record any psychological or physiological
phenomenon with an instrument or any part of an instrument without the
subject being aware that their physiological or psychological phenomenons
are being recorded. The provisions of these paragraphs shall be subject
to such additional indices as may be required to comply with any State or
Federal licensing regulation.
4. No member shall conduct an examination on any person whom he believes
to be physically or psychologically unfit for testing. In case of doubt
as to the propriety of administering a test in any given situation, the
member shall seek expert guidance from a competent medical or psychologi-
cal authority prior to testing. '
5. (Amended 8/5/81). No member shall render a conclusive verbal or writ-
ten decision or report based on chart analysis without having collected at
least two charts in which each relevant question is asked on each chart.
6. No member shall terminate a polygraph examination without affording
the examinee a reasonable opportunity to explain and to eliminate any re-
actions which are evident on the charts. Further, no member shall accept
the explanation of the examinee for a chart response without verifica-
tion.
7. No member shall, unless professionally qualified to do so, include in
any written report any statement purporting to be a medical, legal or psy-
chiatric opinion of which would infringe upon areas under the cognizance
of professionals in those field. This shall not preclude the examiner
from describing the appearance or behavior of the examinee, if this is
pertinent to the examination, as long as the examiner refrains from offer-
ing any diagnosis which he is professionally unqualified to make.
8. A member shall not conduct an examination where he has reason to be-
lieve the examination is intended to circumvent or defy the law.
9. A member shall not conduct an examination where he has reason to be-
lieve the examination is intended to interfere with or to prevent the law-
ful organizational activities of a labor union.
10'. A member shall not solicit or accept irregular fees, gratuities, or
gifts which may be intended to influence his opinion or decision. Further,
no member shall set a fee for professional polygraph services contingent
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
upon the findings or results of such services; nor shall he increase any
initial fee as a direct result of his findings during any polygraph exami-
nation.
11. A member shall not knowingly issue or permit his employees to issue a
polygraph examination report which is misleading, biased or falsified in
any way. Each polygraph report shall be a factual, impartial and objec-
tive account of the pertinent information developed during the examination
and the examiner's professional conclusion, based on analysis of the poly-
graph charts.
12. A member shall be guilty of gross negligence if it be proven that he
did not, in fact, obtain data reported as factual in any polygraph report.
Further, it shall be deemed highly unethical for any examiner to express
verbally or in writing a test conclusion which is based solely upon sub-
jective opinion of personal assumption. This does not preclude a profes-
sional judgment based on analysis of the polygraph charts, in the absence
of substantive admissions by the examinee.
13. A member shall not publish nor cause to be published any false or
misleading advertisements relating to the polygraph profession.
14. A member shall not offer testimony concerning the charts or conclu-
sions presented by another member unless he is thoroughly familiar with
the techniques and procedures used by the other member. This paragraph
shall not prohibit a member from testifying concerning his independent ex-
amination of the same examinee.
15. Any person who is convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral
turpitude shall be ineligible for any class of membership in the American
Polygraph Association.
16. A member shall abide by decision and recommendations officially
adopted by the American Polygraph Association at any regularly scheduled
meeting.
17. (Adopted 8/10/78). To protect the privacy of each examinee, no mem-
ber shall release information obtained during a polygraph examination to
any unauthorized person. Authorized persons shall consist of the follow-
ing:
a. The examinee and persons specifically designed in writing by the
examinee.
b. The person, firm, corporation or governmental agency which re-
quested the examination.
c. The Membership and Grievance Committee of the American Polygraph
Association or other polygraph organizations.
d. Members of governmental bodies such as Federal, State, County or
Municipal agencies which license, supervise or control the activities of
polygraph examiners.
e. Other polygraph examiners in private consultation.
f. Others as may be required by due process of law.
18. (Adopted 8/13/80). A member shall not inquire into the sexual con-
duct or preferences of a person to whom a polygraph examination is being
proposed or administered unless pertinent to an alleged crime specifically
at issue in the examination, or where such inquiry is directly and demon-
strably related to job performance qualification. In such case excepted
herein, the areas of inquiry shall be specifically made known and agreed
to in advance by the examinee or prospective examinee.
A member shall not aid or abet a person in violation of this provision,
nor willfully become an accessory to such a violation before or after the
fact.
19. (Adopted 8/13/80). A member shall not include in any polygraph exam-
ination questions intended to inquire into or develop information on
activities, affiliations or beliefs on religion, politics or race; except
where there is specific relevancy to an investigation, or where terrorism
or subversion is involved.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
eid
olle~e
250 So. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1.100
Chicago, Illinois 60606
The Diagnostic Method of Conducting Polygraph Examinations
The Reid College is a six month internship program approved by the Superintendent of Public
Instruction of the State of Illinois as a private Post Graduate College authorized to grant masters
degree in the Science of Detection of Deception. The internship program is designed to train an indi-
vidual in a specialized scientific method of criminal investigation. Within the last twenty-five years the
science of Polygraph has attained a very high degree of scientific reliability and validity that can equal
or surpass many of the existing and recognized sciences.
The Reid College offers four classes per year (February, May, August, November) each lasting for
six months. During this six month period the student receives 882 hours of Instruction and Internship
training. The student course curriculum consists of training in such areas as:
FACT ANALYSIS
INTERVIEWING
BEHAVIOR SYMPTOM ANALYSIS
TEST CONDITIONING
QUESTION FORMULATION
REID CONTROL QUESTION TECHNIQUE
TEST SELECTION
CHART INTERPRETATION
NINE STEPS OF CRIMINAL INTERROGATION
PHYSIOLOGY
PSYCHOLOGY
LEGAL ASPECTS
POST-TEST INTERVIEWS
INSTRUMENTATION
ETHICS
COURTROOM TESTIMONY
ENROLLMENT PREREQUISITES:
1) The student must possess an academic degree, at least at the baccalaureate level and submit
transcripts of same.
2) The student must successfully pass a Polygraph examination to determine his/her honesty and
moral fitness to become a polygraph examiner.
3) The student must not have been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a
felony.
4) The student must be at least 21 years of age.
5) The student must possess an even personality that allows one not to overreact in a stressful
situation.
Approved and accredited by the American Polygraph Association, Illinois State Approving Agency for Veterans
Benefits, Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization and the Illinois Local Law Enforcement Officers
Training Board. For additional information contact, Daniel S. Malloy, Director of Reid College, [phone]
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Ultra Scribe II
Effortless Instrument Operation with
Computer Aided Pen Re-Centering
Simple in concept, yet sophisticated in design,
Stoelting's new CenTrac Recording Channels (Pat. Pend.)
eliminate manual pen re-centering.
All baseline information is preserved
along with the response
amplitude, character and
shape. There is no
alteration or distortion
of the subject's
true recording.
The resulting
chart is identical
to that produced
by an exceptionally
attentive, experienced
examiner using a conven-
tional polygraph. . .but
without the inconvenience of
manually re-centering the pens.
The micro-computing circuit
built into the CenTrac Recording
Channels of UltraScribe II re-
centers the pen under exactly the
same circumstances you would
as an attentive, experienced
examiner. It's a "smart" circuit
for smart examiners. . if you
wouldn't re-center, CenTrac
doesn't either.
However, if the subject's reaction
is such that failure to promptly
re-center would result in signifi-
cant flat topping or bottoming,
CenTrac unhesitatingly and pre-
cisely returns the pen.... in
about 3/10th of a second .... to
the baseline you originally
selected.
Available on All Channels
Cardio, Pneumo, CAM, GSR....
all can benefit from this remark-
able innovation. Since recording
pens never drag along the stops,
more information is available for
your evaluation. Respiration re-
cordings will not lose stair-step
responses or minute peak varia-
tions. Multiple peak GSR re-
sponses are always seen, as well
as any information in plunging
patterns. Cardio baseline
changes are always preserved
along with systolic and diastolic
peaks.
CenTrac is Easy to Use
Merely adjust the Sensitivity and
Centering as always. When the
pen is positioned on the desired
baseline, just flip the CenTrac
switch. Now you are free to con-
centrate on subject observation,
question timing and chart
marking.
CenTrac is Completely Linear
All subject reactions are re-
corded accurately and complete-
ly. Unlike the conventional GSR
"Auto" mode, CenTrac preserver
the fidelity of the subject's re-
sponse patterns and baseline
changes.
Conventional Push Button Re.
centering By simply pushing the
"RTN" pushbutton, the pen will
immediately return to the base-
line you originally selected. Push-
button re-centering provides you
with additional convenience and
absolute control at all times.
1350 S. Kostner Ave. ? Chicago, Illinois 60623 ? [phone]
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
"SURVEY OF MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
CONCERNING THEIR OPINION OF POLYGRAPH TEST INTERPRETATION."*
Conducted for: Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler
By
The Gallup Organization, Inc.
This volume presents the final report on a Survey of The Society of
Psychophysiological Research concerning Their Opinion of Polygraph Test
Interpretation. The Survey was conducted by the Gallup Organization, Inc.
on behalf of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler.
Objective
The goal of the study was to obtain objective measurement of current
scientific community opinion of the use of polygraph testing procedures to
interpret whether a subject is or is not telling the truth.
To obtain this measurement, questioning was directed to the following
subjects:
Have relevant scientists employed polygraph testing procedures them-
selves to test whether a subject is or is not telling the truth?
Have they been called upon to interpret the results of such tests ob-
tained by others?
What is their current predisposition towards the use of polygraph
test interpretations for determining whether a subject is or is not
telling the truth? Would they consider them to be sufficiently reli-
able to be the sole determinant, or to reject them as being of no
usefulness, or would they choose a median position that leans either
towards regarding the tests as a useful diagnostic when considered
with other available information, or of questionable use, entitled to
little weight against other available information.
Questioning was confined to opinions of the use of polygraph test in-
terpretation per se; no attempts was made to elicit opinion of the use of
polygraph interpre`tations in any specific applications such as jury
trials.
*Reprinted with permission of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, 30
Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112.
The Gallup Organization, Inc. is located at 53 Bank St., Princeton,
N.J. 08540. This survey was completed in December 1982.
For reprints of this article, write to the APA Managing Editor, P.O.
Box 1061, Severna Park, Maryland 21146. Enclose $2.00 for postage and
handling of each copy ordered.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologicts
Interviewing
All interviews were obtained through administration of a question-
naire by telephone by experienced telephone interviewers of The Gallup
Organization. The interviews were conducted from our central telephone
interviewing facilities in Princeton, New Jersey. Neither the interview-
ers nor the respondents were informed of the objectives or sponsorship of
the survey. All interviewing was conducted in the period of December
7-21, 1982.
Analysis and Report
The completed questionnaires were personally tabulated by the project
director, who also prepared this report. All activities relating to the
study were undertaken independently by The Gallup Organization. Represen-
tatives of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler approved the questionnaire and
were informed of the sampling frame selected for the study, but were in no
way consulted or participated in the survey process or the preparation of
this report.
The Sample
A sample of 155 members of the Society for Psychophysiological Re-
search was interviewed on the survey. This was drawn from the entire mem-
bership of the Society by a simple random selection procedure of every
"n-th" name. Members who are not U.S. residents were excluded from the
sample.
This Society was chosen as the sampling frame as it most closely
demonstrated the attributes of a scientific society that would most likely
be recognized by the overall scientific community as the relevant body of
scientific opinion regarding the subject of our inquiry. The organization
currently has a membership of about 900 persons who are academically or
professionally involved in the field of psychophysiology and related dis-
ciplines. Although most members are psychologists, the Society also draws
members from academic and applied fields of the Medical, Biological, and
Physical Sciences.
The Society was started about 30 years ago by a group of psycholo-
gists sponsoring a newsletter on polygraph research. This group founded
the Society, and the newsletter was replaced by a formal, refereed academ-
ic journal, Psychophysiology, which is now in its nineteenth year of pub-
lication. I Fe Soc e~y hoITs annual meetings at various locations around
the country.
In the following report of the study findings, our commentary is re-
stricted to the division of opinion among the 137 sample members who re-
ported to us that they have received a doctoral degree. In the tabula-
tions which accompany the test, the responses of 18 respondents who hold
only an undergraduate or master's degree are also reported in full detail.
A "total" column is presented in the tabulations for those readers who may
wish to review the distribution of opinion according to the total sample
of both doctoral and non-doctoral degree holders.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
Past Use of Polygraph Testing
About one in ten respondents (11%) claimed they have used polygraph
testing procedures to interpret whether a subject is or is not telling the
truth. An additional 19% volunteered that they had used such procedures,
but only in a classroom or experimental setting. About two in three (68%)
said they have not used the testing procedures for this purpose.
Here are the results and how the question was asked:
"In your professional or scientific practice, have you, yourself,
ever used a polygraph testing procedures to interpret whether a sub-
ject is or is not telling the truth?"
TABLE I: RESPONDENTS' USE OF POLYGRAPH TESTING PROCEDURES
Total
Doctoral
Degree _
Non-Doctoral
Degree _
No. %
No.
%
No. %
Have used to tell whether subject
is telling the truth
Yes
19
12
15
11
4
Only in research or
experiments
16
10
14
10
2
Only in classroom demon-
strations
10
6
7
5
3
Only for other purposes
4
3
4
3
-
Only as a subject, myself
1
1
1
1
-
No
105
68
96
70
9
155
100
137
100
18
Interpretation of Others' Measurements
Next, all respondents were asked:
"Have you ever been called upon to interpret whether a subject is or
is not telling the truth on the basis of polygraph measurements ob-
tained by others?"
Slightly less than one in ten (9%) reported they have been called
upon to interpret the results obtained by others. An additional six per-
cent drew distinctions that they had been called but had not served or had
been asked to serve only in a classroom or experimental setting. The
great majority (85) said "no" to the question.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 2: EXPERIENCE IN INTERPRETING POLYGRAPH MEASUREMENTS
Total
Doctoral
Degree
Non-Doctoral
Degree
No. %
No. %
No.
Have been called upon to inter-
pret measurements obtained by
others
Yes
13 8
13 9
Only for research or
demonstration
5 3
3 2
2
Not for legal tests
2 1
2 1
Called, but declined
1 1
1
Would not even if asked to
1 1
1
As a consultant
1 1
1
132 85
116 85
16
T55 T66 TT 1"66 TS
Opinion of polygraph testing
All respondents were then asked:
"Which one of these four statements best describes your own opinion
of polygraph test interpretation by those who have received systema-
tic training in the technique, when they are called upon to interpret
whether a subject is or is not telling the truth.
A. It is a sufficiently reliable method to be the sole determinant
B. It is a useful diagnostic tool when considered with other avail-
able information
C. It is of questionable usefulness, entitled to little weight
against other information
D. It is of no usefulness."
Only one percent each of the respondents chose the extreme position
that either it could be used as a sole determinant or that it is of no
usefulness. About six in ten (62%) stated it is a useful diagnostic tool
when considered with other available information, but 35% questioned the
usefulness of polygraph testing for interpreting whether a subject is or
is not telling the truth.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 3: OPINION OF POLYGRAPH TESTS FOR INTERPRETING WHETHER A SUBJECT
IS OR IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH
A. It is a sufficiently
reliable method to be the
sole determinant
B. It is a useful diagnos-
tic tool when considered
with other available infor-
mation
"Between 'B' and 'C'11
C. It is of questionable
usefulness, entitled to
little weight against
other available infor-
mation
D. It is of no useful-
ness
No opinion
Total
Doctoral
Degree
Non-Doctoral
Degree
No. %
No. %
No.
1
1
1 1
94
61
85 62
9
3
2
2 1
1
50
32
46 34
4
4
3
1 1
3
3
1
2 1
1
T55 To Tr TO T$
Self-rating on being informed
The greater majority of respondents rated themselves as being "very"
(33%) or "somewhat" (57%) informed about the state of the art in polygraph
testing and interpretation. Only about one in ten said they are "not
well" (9%) or "not at all" (1%) informed.
Here is how the question was worded and the results.
"How well informed do you feel you are about the state of the art in
polygraph testing and interpretation -- very informed, somewhat in-
formed, not well informed, or not at all informed?"
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 4: RESPONDENTS' SELF-RATING ON BEING INFORMED ABOUT POLYGRAPH
TESTING AND INTERPRETATION
Total
Doctoral
D
etc ree
Non-Doctoral
Degree
No. %
_
_
No. %
No.
Very informed
49 32
45 33
4
Somewhat informed
90 58
78 57
12
Not well informed
14 9
12 0
2
Not at all informed
2 1
2 1
-
755 1O 1"37' T 1 ff
Informed Opinion
When the responses of only those doctoral degree holders who would
say they are very or somewhat informed about polygraph testing and inter-
pretation are considered alone, little difference is found in the division
of opinion on the matter of using polygraph tests for interpreting whether
a subject is or is not telling the truth. The proportion who maintain it
is a useful diagnostic tool drops from 62% to 60%, and the proportion that
questions its usefulness rises from 35% to 39%.
Even on this basis, however, the majority opinion of those scientists
interviewed is that polygraph test interpretations by those who have re-
ceived systematic training in the technique, when they are called upon to
interpret whether a subject is or is not telling the truth is a useful
diagnostic tool when considered with other available information.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 5: OPINION OF POLYGRAPH INTERPRETATIONS BY THOSE WITH DOCTORAL
DEGREES AND POSITIVE SELF-RATING ON BEING INFORMED
A. It is a sufficiently reliable
method to be the sole deter-
minant
B. It is a useful diagnostic
tool when considered with
other available information
"Between 'B' and 'C"
C. It is of questionable use-
fulness, entitled to
little weight against
other available informa-
tion
D. It is of no usefulness
Total
Very or
Somewhat
Very
Somewhat
Informed
Informed
Informed
No. % No.
%
No.
%
1 1 1
2
-
0
74 60 27
60
47
61
2 1 1
2
1
1
45 37 15
34
30
38
1 1 1
2
-
0
,i 2'3 TtY 5 T 78 T( U
TABLE 6: HIGHEST ACADEMIC DEGREE RECEIVED BY RESPONDENTS
No.
%
Bachelor's degree
6
4
Master's degree
12
8
Ph.D.
123
79
M.D.
12
8
Both Ph.D. and M.D.
2
1
TS6 To
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 7: RESPONDENTS' CURRENT FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION
Doctoral Degree
Psychophysiology
31
Physiological psychology
3
Clinical psychophysiology
1
Developmental psychophysiology
1
Psychophysiological brain functions
1
Psychology
14
Clinical psychology
20
Experimental psychology
5
Medical psychology
3
Developmental psychology
2
Neurological psychology
2
Biopsychology
1
Educational psychology
1
Social psychology
1
Psychiatry
6
Clinical psychiatry
1
Psychiatric research
1
Neuroscience
4
Behavioral neuroscience
Neurophysiology
1
Neuropsychophysiology
1
Neurological evoked potential
1
Clinical neuroscience
Medicine
Behavioral medicine
3
Endrocrinology
Internal medicine
Medical research
1
Viadral medicine
1
Obstetrics & gynecology
Electrophysiology
3
Surface electrodes
1
Sleep psychophysiology
Sleep physiology
Sleep disorders
Anxiety
Autonomic physiology
Behavioral sciences
1
Biobehavioral sciences
Biofeedback
Cardiovascular physiology
1
Child development
1
Cortical and brain evoking potentials
1
Measurement and evaluation
1
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 7: RESPONDENTS' CURRENT FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION (cont.)
Doctoral Degree
Motivation 1
Nicotine addiction
Physics and electronics
Political behavioral research 1
Psychodrama 1
Psychophilosophy 1
Sociophysiology 1
Stress management
Event-related brain potential 1
T37
Non-Doctoral Degree
Psychophysiology
6
Clinical psychophysiology
1
Physiology
1
Electrophysiology
1
Psychology
1
Clinical psychology
3
Developmental psychology
1
Experimental psychology
1
Medical psychology
1
Biomedical engineering
1
Communications engineering
1
_'ff
TABLE 8: RESPONDENTS' PRIMARY AFFILIATION
Doctoral Degree
University
58
University medical school, center
34
Hospital, medical center
7
Veterans hospital
4
Psychiatric hospital
4
Neuropsychiatric hospital
1
Research institute
Health Research institute
Psychiatric Research institute
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 8: RESPONDENTS' PRIMARY AFFILIATION (cont.)
Doctoral Degree
No.
Pharmaceutical manufacturer
2
Aerospace manufacturer
1
Electronic manufacturer
1
Instrument manufacturer
1
Federal government
2
Federal government laboratory
1
Mental health clinic
2
Mental health institute
1
Private practice
6
Private group practice
2
Clinic
Foundation
1
77
Non-Doctoral Degree
University 12
University medical school, center 3
Research institute
Government research institute
Telecommunications firm
7ff
Doctoral Degree
Department Chairman 3
Professor 32
Associate professor 21
Assistant professor 15
Associate research professor 1
Instructor 1
Laboratory director 7
Center director 2
Clinic director 2
Research director 1
Associate research director
Division director 1
Department director 2
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 9: RESPONDENTS' TITLE (cont.)
Associate director
Assistant director
Doctoral Degree
Laboratory supervisor
Post-doctoral research fellow
Chief scientist
Research scientist
Associate research scientist
Research psychologist
Research physiologist
Research associate 3
Research assistant 1
Chief psychologist
Senior clinical psychologist
Clinical psychologist 8
Consulting psychologist
Staff psychologist 1
Psychologist 2
Engineering psychologist 1
Psychiatrist 1
Sociologist 1
Institute coordinator 1
Applications manager
Health administration officer
Management consultant 1
Management associate
Therapist
Intern
TAT
Non-Doctoral Degree
Doctoral candidate 8
Teaching assistant 1
Program manager 1
Research associate 1
Research assistant 1
Psychologist
Clinical psychologist
Clinical psychophysiologist 1
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
TABLE 9: RESPONDENTS' TITLE (cont.)
Non-Doctoral Degree
Biomedical engineer 1
Consultant 1
Administrative assistant 1
-17
TIME STARTED:
TIME ENDED:
LENGTH:
DECEMBER 1982
INTERVIEWER'S ID#:
THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
JOB # GO 82132-2
Hello, I'm calling from The Gallup Organization in Princeton,
New Jersey. We are a'king a brief survey on scientists' opinions on poly-
graph test interpretation.
1. In your professional or scientific practice, have you, yourself, ever
used polygraph testing procedures to interpret whether a subject is
or is not telling the truth?
1[ ] Yes
2[ ] No
3[ ] Other:
2. Have you ever been called upon to interpret whether a subject is or is
not telling the truth on the basis of polygraph measurements obtained
by others?
1[ ] Yes
2[ ] No
3] ] Other:
3. Which one of these four statements best describes your own opinion of
polygraph test interpretations by those who have received systematic
training in the technique, when they are called upon to interpret
whether a subject is or is not telling the truth. (READ LIST.)
1[ ] A. It is a sufficiently reliable method to be the sole determi-
nant
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Gallup Survey of Psychophysiologists
2[ ] B. It is a useful diagnostic tool when considered with other
available information
3[ ] C. It is of questionable usefulness, entitled to little weight
against other available information
4[ ] D. It is of no usefulness
4. How well informed do you feel you are about the state of the art of
polygraph testing and interpretation -- very informed, somewhat in-
formed, not well informed, or not at all informed?
1[ ] Very informed
2[ ] Somewhat informed
3[ ] Not well informed
4[ ] Not at all informed
The following questions are for background information.
5. What is the highest academic degree you have received?
1[ ] Bachelor's degree
2[ ] Master's degree
3[ ] Ph.D. (Doctoral degree)
4[ ] M.D.
5[ ] Other (specify):
6. What is your current field of specialization?
7. With what type of institution are you now affiliated? IF MORE THAN
ONE MENTIONED ASK: Which is your primary affiliation?
8. What is your title or occupational specialty?
I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND HONEST INTERVIEW.
n erviewer s'wi g` nature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that my office can check my work in this interview if it wants to, may
I have your name?
PRINT CLEARLY:
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
STATEMENT OF NORMAN ANSLEY, CHIEF, POLYGRAPH DIVISION,
OFFICE OF SECURITY, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY BEFORE
THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, U.S. SENATE, MARCH 7, 1984
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Com-
mittee today to explain the polygraph program at the National Security
Agency.
NSA, and its precedessor agency, has used the polygraph as a person-
nel security screening technique since 1951. Originally it was used as an
emergency measure to expedite the security processing of new employees who
were awaiting clearance. In 1953, the polygraph examination became a con-
dition of access for all civilian job applicants. Since the 1950s a poly-
graph examination has also been a requirement for contractor personnel
requiring sensitive compartmented information (SCI) access. We also poly-
graph other affiliates such as GSA custodial personnel, Federal Protective
Service Police and consultants. In late 1982 we initiated a program to
polygraph Military assignees once they are on-board at NSA. I will say
more about this later.
The function of the polygraph is threefold:
First, to assist in verifying the identity of an individual being
considered for access to SCI. Secondly, to assist in focusing upon suit-
ability and counterintelligence issues, though I must add that from my
point of view all our polygraph questions and programs are concerned with
counterintelligence. Third, to detect espionage, sabotage and terrorism
or the potential for same.
We have three basic polygraph programs at NSA which are integral to
our overall personnel security supervision program. This program includes
background and special investigation, professional security officers as-
signed to major agency organizations and an aggressive security awareness
program.
The first polygraph program is for initial access to sensitive infor-
mation. Here we conduct full screening polygraph examinations of appli-
cants for employment, contractor applicants for access, GSA personnel and
a few other categories of affiliates. The full screening polygraph exami-
nation consists of relevant life style and counterintelligence questions.
A second program is for single or special issues. Here we use the poly-
graph to help resolve issues bearing on the continued access of an affili-
ate - for example to resolve allegations of drug use or possible espionage
by an affiliate.
We have had these two programs for more than 30 years.
Our third program is the aperiodic and reinvestigation polygraph. In
August 1982 Deputy Secretary of Defense Carlucci, acting on recommendation
from the DoD Select Panal on Personnel Security, authorized polygraph
examinations of DoD affiliates who held sensitive compartmented informa-
tion access. The Director directed this program be implemented at NSA.
Since then we have been polygraphing on-board affiliates, persons having
access to sensitive NSA information: employees, contractor personnel, and
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
Military assignees. The program applies to everyone. It is mandatory.
The scope of this polygraph program is limited strictly to counterintelli-
gence questions: Espionage, sabotage, unauthorized disclosure of classi-
fied information, unauthorized contact with agents of foreign governments
and knowledge of others involved in the foregoing. For our purposes today
I will call this the aperiodic polygraph program though in fact we poly-
graph our affiliates under this program under several criteria:
. Randomly, aperiodically
. At the time of the five year reinvestigation
For especially sensitive projects
Some statistics on this newest NSA polygraph (and I must add here
that in years past we have had versions of this program but lacking the
mandatory feature) are quite interesting. During the last ten months of
1983 we polygraphed 1770 affiliates under the aperiodic program. Of these
1699 showed no specific reactions to the relevant polygraph questions. Of
the 71 who continued to show reactions, 67 were cleared up in a second
polygraph examination and the remaining four in a third examination.
Thus, of 1770 cases we have zero cases where we have unresolved issues
based on our analysis of the polygraph charts. Some 30 of these 1770
people did provide us relevant information requiring a more detailed
clearance evaluation. None of these 30 are spies. The information they
provided is quite miscellaneous - I will give you three examples.
An individual said that he kept a classified military manual in
his possession at his residence for several years. He originally took the
manual home to study for a test.. He returned the manual to us.
An individual knew of improper destruction of crypto keying mater-
ial. However, he was not personally involved.
Another individual described a suspicious approach by foreign per-
sonnel and had failed to report this incident previously. This informa-
tion is under investigation.
The aperiodic program has been well received by our affiliates. No
one has refused to take the polygraph examination. And, so important for
research and validity purposes, we have no cases in these 1770 where a
person is under a cloud because of polygraph chart analysis. All cases
have been resolved - no one stands accused.
Now I'll describe the overall scope and impact of our polygraph acti-
vities. In 1983 we conducted a total of 10,712 polygraph examinations in
all the programs I've described. During 1983 we completed the security
processing of 4531 applicants. We cancelled out 2563 or more than 50 per-
cent for a variety of reasons including the applicant declining to parti-
cipate in further applicant processing or declining a job offer. NSA's
applicant review panel composed of personnel, security and medical mana-
gers, looks at problem cases to decide if processing should proceed. The
problem may be medical, psychological, security, or employability. This
panel rejected 815 people for further processing (included in the 1563 I
mentioned above). I estimate that in 90 percent of the panel cases - or
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
733 of the 815 - information obtained during the polygraph interview was
relevant to the decision not to further process.
While the polygraph process is a significant collector of information
in our applicant processing it is no less a factor in the clearance pro-
cessing of contractor personnel. During 1983 we polygraphed 1946 contrac-
tor personnel. Two hundred and fifty-seven were denied access based on
information developed during the polygraph interview.
The NSA Personnel Security Program is established in Public Law
88-290 and we adhere to the standards set by the DCI for access to sensi-
tive information. Most disqualifying information disclosed during the
full screening polygraph examination concerns extensive drug use or unde-
tected crimes. While of course rare, we have had some extraordinary
admissions made by applicants during the polygraph interview - murder and
train wrecking for example. You will see examples of important informa-
tion developed during our polygraph examinations in two studies being put
before you - The DOD/NSA Study on The Accuracy and Utility of Polygraph
Testing* and the DCI Security CommffFee summary or major polygraphcases
Ti he intelligence community Polygraph Utility Study, February 1984.
Prior to Mr. Carlucci's August 1982 policy we did not routinely poly-
graph military assignees. This is on the verge of being fixed. Under the
new, proposed DoD polygraph program military personnel are to be poly-
graphed (CI questions only) by their parent service prior to assignment to
NSA. And, as I mentioned they are under the mandatory NSA aperiodic poly-
graph program. Since December 1982, 679 military personnel have been
polygraphed at NSA under this program.
These then, are the polygraph programs. They are only as effective
as the polygraph and those that use it can make it.
The current instruments used by federal agencies are the product of
85 years of development by scientists and practitioners. The physiologi-
cal channels which they record are the product of lengthy research. The
instruments, which are of scientific quality, record respiration, electro-
dermal responses, and cardiovascular responses. The physiological infor-
mation is recorded on a moving chart which has a speed of 2 1/2 milli-
meters per second (about six inches per minute). In each polygraph exami-
nation, there are at least two polygraph charts of several minutes each.
In more complex situations, there may be as many as six or seven charts.
The minimum time for an interview, including a polygraph examination is
about one hour, but it more often takes from one and one half to three
hours, and occasionally longer than that.
In the pretest interview, the subject of the examination reads a full
statement of his rights. In all cases that includes mention of the Fifth
Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, mention that the subject may
refuse to answer any questions, and that the subject may terminate the
interview at any time. In a criminal case the Miranda warning is in-
cluded, or Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When the
polygraph is used in determinations for clearance and access to classified
* Published in the March 1984 issue of Polygraph.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
information, we advise of the Privacy Act of 1974 which includes a dis-
cussion of the principal purposes for which the information will be used
and mentions that the disclosure of the information is voluntary, and the
information will be considered confidential. It warns the person that any
information provided relating to violation of criminal laws will be dis-
seminated to law enforcement agencies.
Following the explanation of the subject's rights, there is a review
of the subject's general health, and fitness to take a polygraph examina-
tion. After that the examiner reviews the issues that are to be resolved
during the polygraph examination which includes an opportunity for the
subject to explain in detail their view of the matter under consideration.
Working with the examiner, the subject and examiner arrive at mutually
acceptable questions to resolve the issues. When the technique involves
control questions, these questions are also reviewed in discussion with
the subject and must be agreeable to the subject. This is also true of
irrelevant questions and other questions that are part of the technique.
The testing technique is then explained in detail to the subject. The
attachments which are placed on the subject are also explained in detail.
The subject is asked to sit still, pay attention to the questions and ans-
wer with a definite "yes" or "no", as appropriate.
Basically, the polygraph examination is a method of questioning
whereby an individual is required to unequivocably respond with a yes or
no answer to direct questions which have been previously reviewed with and
the answers agreed upon by the subject of the examination. This question-
ing is done while the examinee is attached to a very sensitive instrument
which monitors the person's respiration, electrodermal response, and car-
diovascular activity to determine if there are any significant and consis-
tent changes in these areas in direct response to any of the questions.
The objective is to ascertain that there are no such reactions which would
indicate that at the time of the examination, the answers posed no pro-
blems nor stirred any anxiety. Should significant and consistent reac-
tions occur to any one or more of the questions, this would be a definite
indicator that the answer provided to the question as worded on the test
was not considered completely satisfactory by the examinee.
Reactions are significant changes from the baseline recording which
is established as the norm in each of the recorded areas at the beginning
of each polygram or chart. Depending on the individual examinee, these
changes may be as massive as a total cessation of breathing or a major in-
crease in blood pressure or as subtle as a change in the inhalation -
exhalation pattern of respiration or slight decrease in skin resistance.
the point is that the reactions will occur specifically at the problem
question and not randomly, they will be significant to the trained exami-
ner, and they will be consistently occurring at the problem question when-
ever it is asked.
Upon completion of the test series, the examiner makes an initial
evaluation of the charts. If the results indicate deception, the subject
is told that, and the specific questions are discussed. The subject is
given every opportunity to explain his specific reactions to these ques-
tions and to make any admission that he chooses. The information provided
will be the basis of additional or modified test questions in those areas
in an effort to resolve the issue.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
Just as there are several standardized intelligence tests and several
standardized aptitude tests, there are also a number of standardized poly-
graph test formats. Each of these has its own name and format. Within
the federal government, the commonly used techniques include Zone Compari-
son, Modified Reid Control Question Technique, Relevant-Irrelevant Techni-
que, and Peak of Tension Technique. There are also standard variations of
each of these. I am prepared to discuss these techniques in greater de-
tail if the Committee so desires. First, however, I would like to show
you a brief television tape of about three minutes that displays a portion
of a polygraph test.
At NSA, at the conclusion of the examination and interview, the in-
formation provided by the examinee is reviewed with him by the examiner to
ensure that it has been accurately noted by the examiner. When the exami-
ner begins to prepare his report of the examination, he will again analyze
the charts prior to making his final determination. The report of the
examination, including the polygraph charts, the examiner's original
notes, and the audio tape of the examination and review with the examinee,
is reviewed by a supervisor senior examiner. This individual will do a
separate analysis of the charts and then review the report with the tape
to ensire accuracy. Once satisfied in these areas, the report is for-
warded to our clearance division, a completely separate entity within the
Office of Security, where the information will be evaluated to determine
the individual's eligibility for access to sensitive compartmented infor-
mation in accordance with the standards established by Director of Central
Intelligence Directive 1/14 (DCID 1/14).
If the information provided is considered disqualifying and the in-
dividual is a military assignee, the sponsoring service is notified and
usually takes appropriate action to reassign the person to other duties.
If the information is not considered disqualifying but the assignee did
not pass the polygraph examination, another exam will be scheduled with
another examiner to attempt to resolve this matter.
This then, is the manner in which a "real world" polygraph examina-
tion is conducted and the quality control procedures work at NSA.
The validity of polygraph techniques has been the subject of research
over a period of more than 85 years involving scientists in over a dozen
nations. Lengthy research projects have been conducted in the United
States, Japan, Israel, Canada, and a number of other nations. All of them
arriving at rates of validity significantly above chance and high enough
to indicate the positive value of the technique. There are two kinds of
polygraph research. One involves the follow-up of real criminal cases in
which the polygraph results are compared with either the final outcome of
the case or an independent adjudication of the case file. More than 1900
criminal cases have been followed up in the United States, Israel, and
Canada and the average agreement is above 96 percent. More than a dozen
such projects have been conducted, with the largest being one by the Com-
monwealth of Virginia in which the validity of 959 cases was 98.3 percent.
The range of all these studies is 86.3 percent to 100 percent. These
statistical results, based on the follow-up of real cases, do not include
those examinations in which the results were reported as inconclusive. It
is the use of inconclusive range that gives the field examiner the oppor-
tunity to be fair and safe, and say, "I don't know."
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
Inspector Doran, of the FBI, has spoken of the importance of this in-
conclusive range. He said, The inconclusive range serves a purpose - it
is the safety zone and should be protected to avoid unnecessary errors.
No examiner should render a judgment if he/she is not completely comfort-
able with his/her findings."*
When research is conducted in a laboratory setting where truth and
deception is known (except to the examiner), the validity of polygraph
techniques average 93.6 percent, with a range of 69.0 percent to 100 per-
cent. Not all of the laboratory projects were conducted to determine
validity. Some were projects to evaluate variations in techniques, me-
thods of analysis, specific and often single physiological recordings, and
differences in subject populations. For example, the third study by Hec-
kel was of institutionalized delusional psychotics, which produced a low
validity, 69 percent; while the several studies of psychopaths have sur-
prised us, with an average detection rate in excess of 90 percent. One
observation about laboratory work is that when the experient is close to
field conditions, using trained examiners and good polygraph instruments,
the results are uniformly high. That polygraph techniques are cross-cul-
tural is evidence from the similarity of the results of studies made in
Israel, Iceland, Japan, Canada, India, and the United States.
Among the major techniques, there is little difference in their ac-
curacy. The laboratory validity of control question formats average 95.2
percent, relevant-irrelevant format average 96.8 percent, peak of tension
formats average 91.2 percent, and guilty-knowledge formats average 94.4
percent. Analysis of research projects on screening examinations produced
an average of 96.7 percent. Since field examiners often use combinations
of techniques, no average can discribe the accuracy of examinations for
individual cases. Moreover, these percentages are so close that the dif-
ferences are insignificant. It must be noted that screening is not a
specific format. There are several standard techniques which are used in
criminal investigations which are also used in government screeening. The
research shows that when these formats are used in screening examinations,
the errors are not evenly divided, but show a slight trend toward calling
deceptive persons truthful.
There are five scientific studies that are directly related to the
validity of screening (Barland, 1981; Blum and Osterloh, 1968; Correa and
Adams, 1977; MacNitt, 1942; Hemsley, Heselgrave and Furedy, 1979). There
are others which have a relationship to the issue of validity in personnel
security, but the reseach was not conducted for that purpose (Edel and
Jacoby, 1975; Lykken, 1960; Leiblich, Naftali, Shmueli and Kugelmas,
1974).
The first scientific study of the validity of screening was conducted
by Professor MacNitt of Wilmington College 1942. Working with the Colum-
bus Ohio Merchants Audit Bureau, they set up an experiment where he would
give polygraph screening tests to 59 employees of various stores. The
Audit Bureau picked some employees whose honesty and integrity were con-
sidered above reproach, some employees who had confessed to stealing
*"Inspector William Y. Doran Addresses Federal Examiners." Polygraph
10(2)(June 1981): 61-62. Inspector Doran was Deputy Assistant ire' ctor,
Laboratory Division, FBI.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
merchandise and money from their employers, and some employees who were
known to have stolen goods but had not been confronted. All denied steal-
ing during the tests. Using a relevant-irrelevant technique, MacNitt was
able to correctly identify the guilty and the innocent employees in every
case, for an accuracy of 100 percent. When he used supplemental searching
peak of tension tests, he failed in getting a few details correct, as to
the amount stolen, the year stealing started, and other specific details.
In 1968, Blum and Osterloh of Stanford University undertook a study
in which real police informants were tested by police examiners, with reg-
ular polygraph instruments, usirvq a relevant-irrelevant technique, as to
the truthfulness of the informant's reports. Working with their police
handlers, some informants gave completely true statements about what they
had observed or heard, statements which were supported by investigations.
Some informants gave partly true and partly false statements; and some
gave totally false statements that were credible and compatible with their
background. The informants were genuinely afraid to appear at police
headquarters and be tested because of the consequences if discovered by
their associates.
In screening these 20 informants, the examiners were able to identify
whose stories were totally true, those whose stories were totally false,
and those who told stories that were partly true and partly false. How-
ever, the examiners were not able in every case to correctly classify the
individual items that were true or false, told by those informants who
gave stories that were only partly true. Of seven subjects who told part-
ly true stories, the examiners erred four times on the specific details of
stories told by three of the informants. However, the examiners correctly
identified 102 of 106 specific details of stories, for an accuracy of 96
percent; and were 100 percent correct in separating the truthful and lying
informants.
In 1977 Correa and Adams, at the University of Georgia, simulated
polygraph screening with 40 subjects. The tests consisted of three series
of questions about information on a pre-employment data sheet. As in real
screening, subjects who reacted to relevant questions were asked about
these responses, and when appropriate, questions were rephrased and in-
cluded in the next chart series.
The screening tests successfully identified all those who were com-
pletely truthful and all of those who were untruthful to one or more of
the questions, for an accuracy of 100 percent. In regard to identifying
the specific questions that subjects lied to, the accuracy was less than
perfect. There were 180 specific lies told by the lying subjects with
respect to items on their pre-employment data sheets. In addition, there
were 60 control lies about a pre-employment interview, questions added as
checks since some participants might not fully cooperate in truthfully
answering questions on the pre-employment forms. One hundred and fifty
(83 percent) of these questions were correctly identified as deceptive,
and 30 (17 percent) were not. No truthful persons were called deceptive.
The research had a secondary purpose, to decide if there was a difference
in detectability of those with high motivation, a cash incentive, and
those with low motivation. There was no difference in total detection of
truthful and lying subjects, as that was 100 percent. There was a dif-
ference, in that the detection rate for specific lies was higher for
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
motivated subjects, but the difference was not statistically significant.
The technique was relevant-irrelevant, a technique which uses control
questions.*
One of the theoretical questions raised about screening, and other
applications of polygraph technique, is whether detection is above chance
when the subject is not emotionally involved. Some laboratory evidence
suggests that if the subject doesn't care, the detection rate might be
reduced. Another question is whether they will be detected at all.
Hemsly, Heslegrave and Furedy at the University of Toronto in 1979 tested
two groups of ten each, in which one group gave misinformation on parts of
their biographical forms but no particular issue was raised about this.
The other group was entirely truthful in filling out forms, and in both
groups the stimulus intensity was minimal. The question was whether the
autonomic nervous system, as measured by skin conductance, would show
greater activity for those who were untruthful than those who were truth-
ful. The results showed the skin resistance responses were significantly
greater for deceptive responses than truthful responses.** The authors
concluded that skin conductance could, in the laboratory, detect pure,
unemotional deception.
An Army Intelligence Study, subsequently analyzed by Dr. Barland,
considered three difference ways to read screening charts. The screening
of 40 subjects employed a control question technique.*** Three methods
were used to evaluate the charts: A Zone Method, a Greatest Control
Method, and a Relevant-Irrelevant Method. The first two used a numerical
system comparing relevant and control question responses. The latter con-
sidered the size and consistency of responses to relevant questions with-
out direct comparison with control question reactions. Omitting inconclu-
sive results, the Zone Method identified 81 percent of the deceptive per-
sons and 75 percent of the truthful. The Greatest Control Method identi-
fied 68 percent of the deceptive and 83 percent of the truthful. The
Relevant-Irrelevant Method identified 86 percent of the deceptive persons
and 76 percent of the truthful.
When responses were analyzed for individual questions (250 truthful,
80 deceptive), only the Relevant-Irrelevant Method identified deceptive
responses at greater than chance, the range being 54 to 69 percent. All
of the methods were better than chance at identifying truthful questions,
the range being 91 to 97 percent. The value of this research was in the
variations resulting from difference analytic approaches.
* All current relevant-irrelevant techniques use control questions,
but are not classed as control question techniques because of a fundamen-
tal difference in evaluating the charts.
** S + 2.28 Umhos for deceptive, x + 1.40 Umhos for truthful. There
was no habituation effect, nor was there a sex difference.
*** Although the polygraph technique used for this research is not
widely used for screening, the comparison of analytic techniques would not
have been possible without it.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
Another issue is to what extent can people be detected when they lie
about personal details of their life, details they do not want to be de-
tected. Is the act of deception of sufficient magnitude to be detected,
as compared to the act of deception in denying a serious crime? In this
experiment, there was an added complication, as the subjects were trained
to confuse the examiner by producing false reactions. Dr. David Lykken of
the University of Minnesota devised this experiment in 1960, in which 20
subjects were given practice in producing false electrodermal responses,
with biofeedback reinforcement. Subsequently they were given a multiple
choice-type test* in which correct biographical information was listed
among five similar items of incorrect information. Only electrodermal re-
cordings were made. The issue was whether the correct items could be
detected from the incorrect items when the subject was actively trying to
prevent that detection. There was a financial reward of ten dollars if
they could defeat the test.
The personal information belonging to each subject was correctly
identified by scoring the amplitude of electrodermal response in each of
the 20 cases. The detection was 100 percent, despite the countermea-
sures.
Edel and Jacoby studied the consistency with which ten experienced
polygraph examiners read charts from screening examinations conducted at a
federal agency. The examiners were required to determine whether there
was or was not a significant physiological reaction in each of the three
physiological channels, respiration, electrodermal and cardiovascular,
following each question. They looked at all the charts in 40 cases.
Those charts involved 2530 questions. Thus the examiners, reading the
charts blind, made 7590 decisions. The original examiners for each of the
40 cases were also asked to score their charts blind (and long after they
were conducted). The agreement between the original examiners and other
examiners was 96 percent. The average agreement between the blind raters
was 94 percent.
Lieblich and other at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem explored the
effect of repeated presentations to subjects, and the ability to detect
the subject's first name from among five. There were 58 subjects. The
series of five names were repeated ten times, altering the sequence each
time. There was a ten second interval between presentation of names, and
only an electrodermal recording was made. The experiment was complicated
by having high and low motivation groups and a subgroup among the high
motivation group that attempted countermeasures. Chance was 20 percent.
Cumulative scoring (common to most polygraph formats) increased the
detection rates for the 28 in the low motivation group from 60 percent on
the first series to 90 percent. The high motivation group detection rate
improved from 55 percent to 93 percent. The high motivation group that
attempted countermeasures improved from 60 percent to 100 percent. The
overall average improvement of detection was from 57 percent on the first
series to 94 percent with cumulative scoring.
I have described these research projects in some detail to discredit
the notion that there has been no research to validiate the use of
* Called a Guilty-Knowledge Test.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
polygraph techniques applied to personnel screening.
In regard to countermeasures, a well trained examiner will detect all
of those common methods talked about on the street and published in popu-
lar books. Detecting and defeating countermeasures is part of our train-
ing in basic and advanced courses. Most of those so-called countermea-
sures do not even prevent the examiner from getting readable charts.
Among the few that do, the subject's attempts are readily apparent.
Now it is obvious that truthful people do not engage in countermea-
sures where the test results are important to them. They want the exami-
ner to succeed. The use and detection of those countermeasures which may
prevent the examiner from getting charts that he can read is a sufficient
basis for interrogation or further investigation. The practical conse-
quences of detected countermeasures are the same as those test results
indicating deception.
There is concern in the government about highly sophisticated coun-
termeasures which may involve lengthy training of selected persons. DoD
and other agencies are now involved in planning long term research pro-
jects in those areas.
In addition to the research described in the DoD Reprt, you should
know that we have in DoD a number of research projects underway. There is
a long term project, in its second year, developing a much improved in-
strument, including computer analysis of the physiological recordings.
There are other projects looking at biofeedback as a means of enhancing
polygraph techniques, and studies of countermeasures. There are several
other research projects that will be sent out for bids soon. In addition,
the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are
establishing a specially equipped joint research laboratory, staffed with
psychophysiologists who are polygraph examiners. In addition to the two
Ph.D. examiners, there will be a laboratory assistant, staff examiners and
clerical support. They will conduct research on new equipment, the de-
velopment of improved techniques for specific issue and screening applica-
tions, and other technique matters of mutual interest.
The utility of the polygraph was addressed earlier in my testimony
and also will be evident from the 50 polygraph cases described in the re-
port prepared by the DCI Security Committee.
In addition, the DoD Report on The Accuracy and Utility of PPooljgraph
Testing gives more examples of the uti ity polygrapphtesting. It des-
cribes cases where only the polygraph test gave us a lead into espionage
cases; and it describes cases where innocent persons have been saved from
trial, conviction, and even from jail because of polygraph tests. It des-
cribes how polygraph results compare with the results of background inves-
tigations, and the unique contributions made by both, plus the need for
both methods, rather than one or the other. The report also compares the
results obtained with interviewing without the polygraph, with the results
obtained by interviewing supported by the polygraph. Last, the report
describes all the major research conducted on polygraph validity, with a
thorough analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and significance of that
research.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Senate Testimony
Let me conclude on the most important point. We in the security and
CI business must evaluate any program, including the polygraph, on the
basis of its effectiveness in detecting or deflecting espionage. We at
NSA have been saved from major problems by this invaluable tool. Both the
DOD/NSA Report and the Security Committee Report contain summaries of such
cases. Some are not without ambiguity and I don't propose to recount all
these cases here. Let me summarize just two cases from recent years:
. A military person about to retire from active duty where he had
access to sensitive compartmented information applied for a job with NSA.
He had a clean record. He reacted to polygraph questions about espionage.
He was confronted with these reactions. He said that only days before he
had visited the Soviet Embassy in Washington to make arrangements to de-
fect. However, the Soviets suggested he complete his processing for sen-
sitive employment.
. An applicant for employment at NSA reacted to espionage questions.
He then admitted knowing and working with a foreign intelligence officer.
He declined to give us details and he continued to react to the relevant
counterintelligence questions.
This information could have been gained no other way - only our
skilled polygraph examiners saved us from potential disaster.
I have every confidence in the polygraph as a valid technique and
every confidence in the skill and integrity of my polygraph examiners.
If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer at this time.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
ALCOHOL AND THE PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION*
By
M.T. Bradley and D. Ainsworth
Psychophysiological detection of deception examinations were
conducted on 40 subjects. Of these, 32 were "guilty" of a
mock crime and 8 were innocent. Sixteen guilty subjects com-
mitted the crime while intoxicated and the remaining 16 com-
mitted the crime sober. These two groups of guilty subjects
were subdivided such that half of each group was examined with
the polygraph while intoxicated and the other half was ex-
amined while sober. Two questioning techniques were used in
the examination, a Control Question and the Guilty Knowledge
Test. Measures of skin resistance, heart rate and respiration
were recorded. The principal findings were that alcohol in-
toxication during the crime reduced detectability with detec-
tion scores derived from the measurement of skin resistance
responses on the Control Question Test and on the Guilty Know-
ledge Test. The analyses of guilt/innocent classifications,
based on the detection scores, showed these classifications to
be affected by alcohol intoxication.
Successful psychophysiological detection of deception in a criminal
interrogation depends upon the occurrence of larger physiological res-
ponses to crime-relevant questions than to control questions. This rela-
tionship may be affected by a wide variety of factors such as memory
(Waid, Orne, & Orne, 1981), the perceived effectiveness of the detection
apparatus (Bradley & Janisse, 1981a), individual differences (Bradley &
Janisse, 1981b; Waid & Orne, 1980; Waid & Orne, 1981), and drugs (Waid,
Orne, Cook, & Orne, 1981). The present experiment was designed to study
the effects of the drug alcohol on detection. If alcohol affects detec-
tion, it is not only of theoretical significance but it is of practical
importance since intoxication during a crime is common (Glaser, 1978) and
alcohol ingestion prior to an interrogation has been considered as a coun-
termeasure (Reid & Inbau, 1977).
The only published detection of deception experiment which examined
The authors wish to thank K. Klohn, M. Markides, A. McHugh, and
especially J. Warfield for their assistance in conducting this experiment.
Portions of this study were supported by Grant A 7866 from the National
Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
* 01984, The Society for Psychophysiology Research. Reprinted with
the permission of the publisher from Psychophysiology 1984 21(1): 63-71.
Address requests for reprints of the Psychophysiology printing to
M.T. Bradley, Division of Social Science, P.O. Box 5050, University of New
Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 4L5, Canada.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
drug effects involved the tranquilizer meprobamate (Waid et al, 1981).
"Guilty" subjects, attempting to conceal information, given meprobamate
before an examination were more difficult to detect than those given eith-
er a placebo or nothing. That is, skin resistance responses in a Guilty
Knowledge Test examination were reduced to critical questions but not to
control questions. The authors speculated, in accordance with the purpose
of transquilizers, that this result was due to anxiety reduction. Al-
though such results seem straightforward, a recent as yet unpublished at-
tempt at replication and extension failed to find drug induced differences
in detectability (Boisvenue, 1982). "Guilty" subjects, attempting to con-
ceal information about a mock crime they imagined (with the aid of a film)
that they participated in, were detectable at high rates whether they re-
ceived the tranquilizer diazapam, the stimulant methylphenidate, or a
placebo. The contradictory findings from the two experiments suggest that
more investigation is needed to understand drug effects.
Whereas the above mentioned studies focused on drug effects during
the polygraph examination, the present study extended the investigation to
alcohol intoxication during both the crime and the interrogation. Since
alcohol affects emotion (McGonnell & Beach, 1968) and memory (Storm &
Caird, 1967) and these processes may be operative during a crime, poly-
graph examination, or both, it was predicted that examinations could be
affected whether the suspect was intoxicated during the crime, examina-
tion, or both.
Two polygraph examination techniques, the Control Question Test
(Backster, 1969) and the Guilty Knowledge Test (Lykken, 1959), were se-
lected because they might be differentially sensitive to particular dis-
ruptions from intoxication. That is, the Guilty Knowledge Test could be
affected to the degree that intoxication disrupted recognition memory,
whereas the Control Question Test could be affected to the degree that
intoxication reduced emotional responsivity. Memory effects were expected
with the Guilty Knowledge Test because of the necessary condition of the
test that subjects recognize (remember) crime-relevant details. Since
alcohol depresses memory (Julien, 1978), it was predicted that the Guilty
Knowledge Test would be less efficacious whether alcohol was ingested be-
fore the crime (encoding the relevant details) or before the interrogation
(recognition memory). Emotional effects were expected to play only a
secondary role in the Guilty Knowledge Test since, if a crime-relevant
detail were remembered, it would evoke an orienting response relatively
larger than the responses to the appropriate control questions over a wide
range of emotionality.
The predictions regarding intoxication, emotionality, and the Control
Question Test were slightly more complex because the effects could depend
upon when subjects were intoxicated. To understand this, it is necessary
to point out, as Raskin (1979) suggested, that questions on the Control
Question Test should evoke higher levels of emotional responsivity than
questions on the Guilty Knowledge Test. This is because both control and
crime-relevant questions on the Control Question Test are accusatory,
threatening, and personal. In addition, for guilty subjects, the crime-
relevant questions should result in greater responsivity because those
questions require a direct denial of activities that subjects carried out.
If the emotional impact of commiting a crime were reduced by alcohol in-
toxication during the crime, it was predicted that responsivity to crime-
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Bradley & Ainsworth
relevant questions on the Control Question Test would be reduced relative
to control questions. Thus, guilty suspects would tend to appear inno-
cent. Following the speculations of Barland and Raskin (1973), it was
suggested that intoxication during the polygraph examination would have no
effect on Control Question Test accuracy. Even though Barland and Raskin
(1973) believed intoxication during the test would reduce arousal, they
noted that it would reduce arousal for both crime-releant and control
questions such that the relative relationship between the two types of
questions would remain the same. Thus, intoxication during the crime was
expected to reduce responsivity specifically on crime-relevant qeustions,
whereas intoxication during the examination would affect both types of
questions.
Memory effects were not expected to be an important factor with the
Control Question Test. The Control Question Test does not concentrate on
details of the crime but concentrates rather on the simple issue of wheth-
er subjects committed certain actions or not. Pilot work in our labora-
tory had shown, at the levels of intoxication intended for this experi-
ment, that subjects do not forget committing the crime although they may
forget some of the details used on the Guilty Knowledge Test.
To simulate field conditions (Podlesny & Raskin, 1977) the present
study used a mock crime paradigm involving a murder and the theft of money
and information. All subjects were examined by a Control Question Test
(Backster, 1969) and the Guilty Knowledge Test (Lykken, 1974).
Physiological measures of skin resistance, heart rate, and respira-
tion were used for the polygraph examination. Of these measures skin re-
sistance responses have been consistently effective in virtually every re-
ported laboratory study of deception (Barland & Raskin, 1973). Heart rate
measures have not been so effective but have yielded detection rates bet-
ter than chance (Orne, Thackray, & Paskewitz, 1972). Laboratory results
with respiration have indicated that it is only marginally successful
(Podlesny & Raskin, 1977).
Subjects
Subjects were 40 Caucasian male university students between the ages
of 19, the legal drinking age, and 25 who volunteered after reading a con-
sent form. The consent form told subjects that they would be interrogated
for a mock crime which they may have committed or may be innocent of de-
pending upon the condition to which they were assigned. The crime, the
interrogation, or both, depending upon the assigned condition, could be
carried out while they were under the influence of alcohol. Because any
subject might receive alcohol, all had to be prepared to spend 5 super-
vised hours in the psychology lounge area following each phase of the
experiment to allow blood alcohol levels to be reduced. It was required
that subjects have previous drinking experience, and if they were aware of
any medical problems that could possibly be complicated by alcohol, they
were to obtain a doctor's written certification before participation could
be considered.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
Apparatus
A Grass polygraph was employed to measure heart rate, respiration and
skin resistance response (SRR). Heart rate was detected from the little
finger by a Grass photoelectric transducer embedded in an elasticized foam
finger attachment. The pulse wave was recorded on one channel and pulse
rate, in bpm, was recorded from a Grass cardiotachograph on a second chan-
nel. Respiration was measured by chest bellows positioned in the thoracic
area immediately above the diaphragm. The bellows were attached to a
Grass volumetric pressure transducer. Skin resistance was measured using
Grass cup-shaped silver-silver chloride electrodes that were 1 cm in dia-
meter. These were attached to the medial phalanges of the first and
second fingers. The cups were filled with a 0.05 molar NaCl Unibase elec-
trode paste. The signal was recorded with a Grass Low-level DC Preampli-
fier 7P1 with a sensitivity set according to each subject's response char-
acteristics.
Interrogation questions were presented on a Sony portable tape re-
corded and the onset of each question was marked on the polygraph chart by
pressing a connected hand button.
A medical demonstration mannequin drressed as a man in a trenchcoat
and hat was used as the murder victim. The murder weapon was a metal
model of a revolver.
Alcohol Dosage
Subjects in the intoxication conditions received a l.Oml/kg of body
weight dose of alcohol by drinking three glasses of 80 proof vodka (which
is equivalent to 40% alcohol) mixed with orange juice. The drinks were
given at 20-min intervals such that at the end of one hour as their blood
alcohol approached the .12 level, the subjects were ready for the required
tasks (Ray, 1978). Subjects in the sober conditions received an equiva-
lent amount of pure orange juice in the same time intervals. No subjets
were told which drink they had received in an attempt to keep them blind
to the drug condition.
Design
The design involved 40 subjects, 32 who were guilty of a mock crime
and 8 who were innocent. The 32 guilty subjects were subdivided such that
16 were intoxicated with alcohol and 16 were
sober
while committing the
mock crime. At the time of the polygraph
test,
held approximately
24
hours later, 8 of each of the intoxicated and
sober
crime groups were
in-
toxicated for the polygraph test while the remaining 8 from each group
were sober. Half of the members of each group received one polygraph test
first and the other second. Thus the design for guilty subjects included
2 levels of intoxication (sober or intoxicated) during the crime and poly-
graph test and 2 orders of test presentation. None of the innocent sub-
jects received alcohol on their first day in the experiment. Four of them
received alcohol prior to the polygraph examination while 4 remained
sober. Groups of innocent subjects differed only on whether they were
sober or intoxicated during the test and the order in which they received
their polygraph tests.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Bradley & Ainsworth
Procedure
Each subject served in the experiment over two consecutive days. On
the first day, after arrival at the laboratory, subjects were asked their
weight. If they were in an alcohol condition, the laboratory assistant
referred to an alcohol-weight chart, derived from Ray (1978), and then
served them three measured glasses of vodka and orange juice at 20-min.
intervals. Those in no-alcohol conditions were served orange juice in the
same time periods. Following this, each of the 32 subjects in guilt con-
ditions was taken individually to the door of a small office where after
entry each found instructions on the desk. The 8 subjects in the innocent
condition remained under the supervision of a laboratory assistant.
The guilt instructions portrayed a situation for subjects to read
over and then act out. The underlined items in the following outline were
used as critical items for the Guilty Knowledge Test. Each read that the
room was in the back of a tavern and that the mannequin sitting in the
chair across the room was a man with a safe combination (30-25-15) and a
one dollar bill. The subject procured the items from a blue envelope in
Tie man'se t-`coat pocket after shooting him three times w`iEh -a g'un. The
gun was ie o drawer of the desk. After memor zing the comTination
written on the enve ope flap and placing the money in his right front
pant's pocket, the subject hid the gun in a wastepaper basket and then
left the office to spend the remainder of the ad y under` he supervision of
a laboratory assistant.
On the second day, when subjects returned to the laboratory area,
they were served juice or the juice alcohol mixture, depending on the con-
dition. After consuming the appropriate amount of beverage, they were
accused of the crime, led to the polygraph room, and prepared for the
polygraph examination.
Just prior to meeting the examiner, all subjects were reminded that
though they were to cooperate in the interrogation they were to deny any
involvement in or knowledge of the crime in an attempt to appear innocent.
Also, guilty subjects were told that any money stolen in the crime could
be kept if they were found innocent. As a final caution, subjects were
informed that the examiner was blind not only to their guilt or innocence
but also as to whether they had received alcohol at any time during the
experiment. Therefore, they were not to reveal this information.
Subjects were seated by the polygraph after being introduced to the
examiner. There, in a short pre-test interview (5-10 min), it was ex-
plained that the examination included two tests, the Control Question Test
and the Guilty Knowledge Test. The major purposes of the interview was,
however, to review questions on the Control Question Test. The crucial
part of this test contained crime-relevant questions paired with control
questions. Prior to the review, subjects were reminded that they must, on
the one hand, answer "NO" to all crime-relevant questions because the in-
nocent were truely innocent while the guilty were attempting to conceal
their guilt. On the other hand, all subjects were to feel that they could
discuss questions about their past life so that ambiguities could be clar-
ified, making it possible to answer these questions with a "NO." This was
done to make the verbal responding comparable between each of the crime-
relevant and control question pairs. Subjects who did clarify ambiguities
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
on control questions were told to consider those tape-recorded questions
as being prefaced by "Except for what you have told me..." The examiner
has employed this technique in several studies with the Control Question
Test and found it effective (e.g., Bradley & Janisse, 1981a, 1981b).
The questions and sequence were as follows:
1. Is your name
2. Regarding the money, do you intent to answer all questions about
it truthfully?
3. Are you convinced that I will only ask questions on this test
that you have already okayed?
4. Before the age of 18 did you ever steal any money?
5. Did you shoot the man and steal the money and information?
6. While you were in school did you ever take anything of value?
7. Did you steal the money and information from the man?
8. Before the age of 18 did you ever physically harm anyone in any
way?
9. Did you shoot the man?
Questions on the Guilty Knowledge Test were not reviewed and subjects
were informed only that they would be asked a series of questions about
items containing certain information only the guilty knew. All subjects
were instructed to answer "NO" to every question. The critical details,
the nine items underlined in the description of the instructions, were
each embedded in sets of similar items to create the test. Two examples,
one involving the one dollar stolen and the other the wastepaper basket
where the gun was hidden, are presented below:
Regarding the money taken:
Was it two dollars?
Was it five dollars?
Was it one dollar?
Was it fifteen dollars?
Was it twenty dollars?
Regarding the gun, did you hide it:
behind the bookcase?
under the desk?
in the wastepaper basket?
under the chair?
in the filing cabinet?
The position of the key item in each set was randomly determined over
the last four positions in the set. The first item served as a buffer
item for the orienting response and that response was not included in the
scoring of the test.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Bradley & Ainsworth
At the end of the polygraph test, after being told that the results
would be available at a later date, subjects were sent to the supervised
area to report to the laboratory assistant. The assistant administered a
memory test for the crime-related items, under the strict assurance that
none of the information would be available to the interrogator before he
made his judgment. Following that, subjects were asked if they received
alcohol and responded on a six-point scale (1 = not at all ... 6 = ex-
tremely) as to how intoxicated they were. They were briefed, reminded of
their promise not to reveal critical information, and were released if
they had in fact received no alcohol.
Instead of scoring polygraph records immediately after the subjects
left, they were given to a laboratory assistant who numbered them accord-
ing to a code known only to him. At the end of the experiment the records
were returned to the examiner who then scored them. In this way no record
could be associated with any particular subject.
The questions in both techniques had been prerecorded for presenta-
tion so that the examiner's vocal inflections would not vary across sub-
jects. The recorded questions were spaced at 20-s intervals and it took
15 min to deliver the 45 questions on the Guilty Knowledge Test. The 9
questions on the Control Question Test were also recorded at 20-s inter-
vals and each of the 3 presentations took 3 min to present. Depending on
predetermined counterbalancing, subjects received either the three presen-
tations of the Control Question Test or the one presentation of the Guilty
Knowledge Test first.
Data Analysis
Three dependent measures were derived for analysis: heart rate decel-
eration, respiration cycle time, and SRR. Heart rate deceleration was ob-
tained from the cardiotachograph output by subtracting the lowest rate in
the 15 s following a question from the average of 3 s of baseline prior to
the question. The amount of time to complete the first two cycles of
breathing following the onset of a question was measured in mm for the
respiration score. The SRR was measured as the maximum decrease in resis-
tance in mm which occurred within 10 s following the beginning of the
question. The expectations were that the greatest decreases in heart
rate, longest respiration cycle times, and largest SRR amplitudes would be
associated with deception. Detection scores were derived by a modifica-
tion of procedures described by Barland and Raskin (1975) for the Control
Question Test and by Lykken (1959) for the Guilty Knowledge Test. With
the Control Question Test, for each physiological measure, every control
and relevant question pair was assigned a score of +1, 0 or -1, depending
on whether the measured response to the control question was larger than,
the same as, or smaller than the response to the crime-relevant question.
The test had 3 such question pairs and was repeated 3 times. Summing
these scores yielded values which could range between +9 and -9. Subjects
with scores in the positive direction would be responding more to control
questions than to crime-relevant questions and thus would more likely be
classed as innocent. The converse would hold for those judged as guilty.
With the Guilty Knowledge Test, each of the 9 question sequences received
a score of 2, 1 or 0 depending on the relative magnitude of the response
to the critical item. If response to the critical item was largest, it
received a score of 2, if second largest 1, and finally 0 for any other
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
response magnitude. In this test with nine, 4-item sequences plus a buf-
fer item per sequence, the scoring ranged from 0 to 18. The higher the
scores the more likely a subject was to be considered guilty. For each
test a composite detection score was created by adding the three physio-
logical measures together. For the Control Question Test composite,
scores ranged from -27 to +27. For the Guilty Knowledge Test composite,
the range was from 0 to 54.
The numerical data derived through these procedures, that is based on
the sum of +1 to -1 pair rankings for the Control Question Tests and the
sum of the response ratings for the Guilty Knoweldge Test, were subjected
to multivariate and uni vari ate analyses of variance to test the major hy-
potheses. The analysis, outlined in the design section, for guilty sub-
jects was a 2 x 2 x 2, with two levels of intoxication (sober or intoxi-
cated) during the crime and polygraph test and the two orders of test pre-
sentation. Innocent subjects, because they had received alcohol only
prior to the polygraph examination but not prior to the crime, were not
included in that analysis. To determine whether innocent subjects dif-
fered from guilty subjects and if intoxicated innocent subjects differed
from sober innocent subjects, t-tests were used.
To determine how subjects might be judged in regard to the categori-
cal classifications of "guilt" or "innocence," cutoff scores were deter-
miuned for the two polygraph examination tests. A post facto method out-
lined by Raskin and Hare (1978) was used for the Control Question Test.
Through graphing the detection scores, cutoff points were set which
yielded the maximum number of accurate decisions while keeping the number
of inconclusive judgments low. For the Guilty Knowledge Test, cutoff
points were assigned to the lowest values that avoided classifying any
innocent subject as guilty.
Chi square tests were used to ascertain not only whether subjects
could be correctly classified by the various tests and measures but also
whether the different experimental conditions altered detection rules.
Statistical significance for all tests in this study was accepted at the
.05 level of probability.
Detection Scores
Guilty Subjects: Control Question Test. A multivariate analysis of
variance performe on fie` detec ion scores found that subjects who com-
mitted the crime while sober were more detectable than those who committed
the crime while intoxicated (F3/22) = 3.70). No other main effects or
interactions were significant. Examination of the univariate test for
each measure revealed that the SRR scores in the sober crime condition (X
= -3.25) were lower than in the intoxicated crime condition (X = -0.63),
F(1.24) = 8.12. The detection scores for respiration and heart rate de-
celeration did not differ significantly between those who committed the
crime while sober and those who committed the crime while intoxicated. No
other main effects or interactions were significant with the individual
response measures.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Bradley & Ainsworth
Guilty Subjects: Guilty Knowledge Test. No main effects or interac-
tionsrwere significant en tTe mufiivariate analysis. The univariate ana-
lysis with the SRR measure revealed that subjects who committed the crime
sober had higher guilt scores (X = 11.07) than subjects who committed the
crime intoxicated (X - 9.25), F(1/24) = 5.45. The analysis using heart
rate resulted in a crime state by test state interaction, F(1/24) = 7.25.
Simple main effects analysis showed no differences between examination
states among subjects who committed the crime while sober. There was a
difference between examination states among subjects who committed the
crime while intoxicated (F(1/24) = 6.45) such that those examined while
sober were more detectable (R' = 9.5) than those examined while intoxicated
(X = 6.7). Testing across crime states while holding examination states
constant showed no difference among subjects examined while intoxicated
(F(1/24) = 4.50) such that those who committed the crime while sober were
more detectable (X = 10.0) than those who committed the crime while intox-
icated (X = 6.7).
Guilt and Innocence Mean Differences. Analyses using t-tests were
conduce o compare the eefeclion scores of guilty and innocent subjects.
On the Control Question Test, innocent and guilty subjects differed on the
composite scores, t(38) = 3.53 (X, =5.0, X.= -3.5); SRR, t(38) = 3.82 (X,=
2.5, XG = -1.9); and heart rate deceleration, t(38) = 2.48 (X, = 2.1, Xc,_
-1.1), but not on respiration. The results with the Guilty Knowledge Test
showed that innocent and guilty suspects differed on the composite score,
t(38) = 8.47 (X,= 11.0, XG= 26.1); SRR L t(38) = 6.74 (X,= 4.2, X(,= 10.3);
heart rate deceleration, t(38) = 4.4 (X, = 4.1, XG = 8.5); and respiration,
t(38) = 4.0 (X.= 2.8, % = 7.3).
ACCURACY OF CLASSIFICATION
Guilty and Innocent Subjects. The accuracy of classifying subjects
into categories o eceptive and nondeceptive, with the additional cate-
gory of inconclusive for the Control Question Test, is displayed in Table
1 for each of the interrogation tests and dependent measures. The post
hoc classification cutoff points were +/- 2, for all Control Question Test
Scores including the composite, 8 for each of the individual Guilty Know-
ledge Test scores, and 18 for the composite (the sum of the measures).
Before chi square analyses were conducted, the accuracy data were col-
lapsed across the experimental conditions. This was done to avoid small
expected cell frequencies and yielded, for example, with the composite
scores on the Control Question Test, 28 correct, 7 incorrect and 5 incon-
clusive judgments. Significantly better than chance classification was
obtained with the composite score (x''(2) = 24.35), SRR(x'(2) = 16.6), and
heart rate deceleration (x2(2) = 10.5), but not with respiration.
Collapsing the accuracy data across cells with the Guilty Knowledge
Test before the chi square test showed, with the composite measure for ex-
ample, that 38 subjects were correctly classified while 2 were incorrectly
classified. Significantly better than chance classification occurred with
the composite score (x2(1) = 30.6), SRR(x2(l) = 21.0), and heart rate de-
celeration (x2(1) = 7.2), but not with respiration.
Hypotheses Tests on Classification Data: Guilty Subjects. Chi square
tests were conducted on the classifications of guilty subjects by the Con-
trol Question Test. These scores are displayed in Table 1. The tests
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
Crime
Conditions
Guilty
Innocent
Guilty
Innocent
Guilty
Innocent
Table I
Accuracy of classifications with the Control Question Test and Guilty Knowledge Test
Alcohol Conditions
Control Question Test
Guilty Knowledge Test
Sober
Sober
7
1
0
8
Intox
7
1
0
8
Intox
Sober
3
2
3
8
Intox
5
2
1
6
2
Sober
Sober
4
0
0
4
0
Intox
2
I
I
4
0
Sober
Sober
6
0
2
8
Intox
6
0
2
7
Intox
Sober
4
1
3
7
Intox
3
1
4
5
1
Sober
Sober
3
1
0
4
0
Intox
2
0
2
4
0
Sober
Sober
4
I
3
5
3
Intox
6
1
I
7
I
Intox
Sober
4
3
I
6
2
Intox
5
2
I
3
5
Sober
Sober
3
0
I
4
Intox
I
2
I
4
0
Sober
Sober
2
0
6
2
6
Intox
3
0
5
2
6
Intox
Sober
2
3
3
7
I
Intox
4
4
0
3
5
Sober
Sober
I
0
3
4
11
Intox
I
2
1
4
0
were done to determine whether alcohol effects on detection scores were
evidence on the distribution of classifications. To avoid expected cell
frequencies smaller than that necessary for a meaningful interpretation of
chi square, various cells were collapsed together. For example, with the
Control Question Test composite, to test if the distributions of subjects
among classifications differed between those who committed the crime while
sober and those who committed the crime while intoxicated, the classifica-
tions of alcohol conditions during the polygraph examination test were
added together. This resulted in 14, 2, and 0 sober mock crime subjects,
and 8, 4, and 4 intoxicated mock crime subjects in the categories of cor-
rect, incorrect, and inconclusive respectively. The distribution of clas-
sifications of sober and intoxicated crime subjects were different (x (2)
= 6.3) with the composite measure. Such differences were not found after
following the same procedure for the SRR scores and heart rate decelera-
tion scores. Respiration classifcations differed (xz(2) = 11.69). No
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Bradley & Ainsworth
differences on any measure were found when crime states were collapsed and
tested between sober and intoxicated interrogation states. It was not
possible to do hypotheses testing with classifications based on composite
or SRR scores with the Guilty Knowledge Test because of low expected cell
frequencies. Chi squares were done with heart rate deceleration and res-
piration but the results were not significant.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
Guilty Subjects: Memory Test. A 2 x 2 analysis, crime state x test
state, o e num er ofi cr me items remembered revealed no differences
among the groups. Nineteen of the 32 guilty subjects correctly recognized
all 9 items, 8 recognized 8 items, while 5 subjects recognized only 7
items. No differences were found on any of the physiological measures or
composites when detection scores were compared between the 19 subjects who
remembered all items and the 13 who forgot one or more items.
Innocent Subjects. To discover if sober and intoxicated innocent
subjects reacte i erently to questions on the detection examinations,
several t-tests were conducted. No significant differences were found
with either of the two detection tests or any of the three physiological
measures. Because there were only 8 innocent subjects (4 sober, 4 intoxi-
cated), it should be pointed out that the power of these analyses was
low.
Alcohol Awareness. For experimental design considerations, an at-
tempt TO een maWe+to keep both the interrogator and the subjects blind
as to whether they received alcohol or not. The interrogator was able,
even though uninformed as to subjects' alcohol conditions, to judge accur-
ately the alcohol state of 17 of 20 intoxicated subjects and 18 of 20
sober subjects. This judgment was made after attaching the measurement
devices but before beginning the physiological recording.
Subjects, though uninformed, were generally accurate in their assess-
ment of their alcohol state. The 20 subjects who received alcohol prior
to the interrogation responded that they believed they had been given al-
cohol. On average they rated their degree of intoxication as 3.7 on a
scale where 3 was designated as "mildly intoxicated" and 4 as "moderately
intoxicated". Of the 20 sober subjects, 17 indicated that they received
no alcohol before the interrogation. All of the 3 who said they had re-
ceived alcohol rated their intoxication level as 2, "slightly intoxicated"
the lowest intoxication level available on the scale.
Those who ingested alcohol prior to the mock crime scored as less
guilty on the Control Question Test than those who committed the mock
crime while sober. This result occurred with the multivariate composite
of scores and the SRR scores. The findings replicate results found by the
present authors in a pilot study using essentially the same design but
with no innocent subjects. Analyses of the post hoc classifications of
guilt, innocence and inconclusive based on detection scores revealed dif-
ferences due to alcohol intoxication. Those ingesting alcohol prior to
the crime were more likely, when classified on the composite scores, to be
classified incorrectly as innocent or inconclusive than those who were
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
sober during the crime. A similar trend appeared with SRR classifications
but it was not significant. A Control Question Test classification dif-
ference was found with respiration. The difference was a result of a
large number of subjects who committed the crime sober being classed as
inconclusive. In general, alcohol intoxication during a mock crime can
affect detection scores and not surprisingly the effects may significantly
alter classifications based on these detection scores.
It is worth noting that the classifications in this study were deter-
mined on a post hoc basis and thus are not strictly comparable to studies
classifying on a a_ priori basis. That is the classification results could
differ if done on an a -priori basis. The essential findings with detec-
tion scores, however, remain unaltered by the method of setting classifi-
cation cutoff points. From this perspective the present authors attribute
little interpretive importance to the respiration classification results
since the underlying detection scores between the sober and intoxicated
crime groups did not differ. Respiration generally has not been effective
in detection studies (e.g., Podlesny & Raskin, 1978) with only Timm (1982)
reporting high levels ofdetection scores.
It is not clear why intoxication would influence detectability on the
Control Question Test. If, however, this type of test depends upon the
emotional arousal of guilty subjects to crime-relevant questions, then
these results indicate that the questions were less arousing if the crime
had been committed under the influence of alcohol. Thus, it is possible
that alcohol substantially reduced the emotional impact of committing the
crime.
Another source or potential source of emotional arousal affecting
reactivity is incentives contingent upon detection. In field situations
the consequences of detection are severe. As such any reduction in react-
ivity to crime-relevant questions from alcohol intoxication during the
crime could possibly be more than compensated for by the severity of the
consequences contingent upon being judged as guilty in the interrogation.
If that is a factor, then the generalizability of the present results to
field situations may be limited especially since the incentive to avoid
detection was only one dollar in this study. Raskin (1979) has emphasized
the role of strong incentives even in laboratory studies and perhaps fur-
ther studies on alcohol intoxication and the detection of deception should
use stronger incentives.
In conformity with speculations by Barland and Raskin (1973), alcohol
intoxication during the polygraph test did not affect the results. They
had suggested that emotional responses to both control and crime relevant
questions would be reduced somewhat equally. Thus, although responses
would be small, the crime-relevant response would still be relatively lar-
ger.
On the Guilty Knowledge Test, alcohol effects were found with the SRR
and heart rate deceleration. The SRR results showed that those who com-
mitted the crime sober had detection scores more in the guilty range than
those who committed the crime while intoxicated, regardless of the test
state. Test state interacted with crime state on the heart rate measure
such that, only subjects who were intoxicated during both the crime and
the polygraph test had low detection scores.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Bradley & Ainsworth
Since alcohol can affect learning and memory (Julien, 1978), and the
Guilty Knowledge Test depends upon accurate memory (Waid, Orne, Cook &
Orne, 1978), the most attractive explanation of the SRR results would be
that, the learning of crime-related material while intoxicated was im-
paired. This explanation is difficult to support however, because the
recognition memory test given at the end of the experiment showed high
rates of recall that were equivalent across all groups. On the other
hand, the final memory test could have been insensitive to disruptions in
memory during the polygraph test for two reasons. The presentation of the
Guilty Knowledge Test was serial and auditory such that, if the critical
item in a set of similar items had not been given, subjects could be con-
fused or uncertain about which is the correct item until they have actual-
ly heard it. In the final typewritten memory test all items were simul-
taneously present and subjects had only to recognize the correct item from
among the incorrect items. Thus they did not have to make a decision
about each item in isolation. The other problem was that the final memory
test was the second testing so that subjects had the benefit of a prior
experience with the exact questions asked. Because of these considera-
tions, alcohol effects on memory for details cannot be discounted and
could possibly emerge with a nonprompted recall test given after a greater
delay following the interrogation.
As a countermeasure alcohol was not effective with the SRR and only
effective with heart rate deceleration if the crime had been committed
while intoxicated. It is interesting to note that the examiner, blind to
the alcohol conditions, accurately judged the alcohol state of most of the
intoxicated and sober subjects. Thus, unlike the results with a tranquil-
izer (Waid et al., 1981a), the probability is high that an examiner would
be able to 3etect the presence of alcohol intoxication.
The results are potentially of great practical importance for field
interrogations since suspects who committed a crime while intoxicated
would have a better chance of appearing innocent than those who committed
the crime sober. It would be revealing and possibly easy to find out, on
a routine basis, whether or not suspects were sober or intoxicated at the
time of a crime. Since many crimes are committed under the influence of
alcohol (Glaser, 1978), an adequate quantity of data should be available.
A noteworthy feature of this study is the shift in focus away from
drug effects during the interrogation. In the present study the effects
of drugs from both the crime and polygraph examination are assessed. This
strategy, besides reflecting field situations, allows the investigation of
drug effects during the crime situation on memory and emotions and, al-
though not found in this study, could reveal state dependent effects both
for learning and emotion.
Because the present experiment included both a Control Question Test
and the Guilty Knowledge Test, it is tempting to compare the relative ef-
fectiveness of the two tests. One should be cautioned against this temp-
tation. The aim of the present study was to understand the differences
between alcohol conditions on each test. There was no systematic plan to
create equally favorable conditions for the tests. To attempt such a com-
parison would be difficult because of many factors involved. These in-
clude the wording of questions, the magnitude of incentives, the pre-test
interrogation procedures, and the number and salience of critical items.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
Factors such as the scoring technique may create differences. For exam-
ple, Podlesny and Raskin (1978) report high detection rates with the Con-
trol Question Test using a seven-point judgment scale for each control and
crime-relevant question pair. Yet another consideration may involve the
wide variety of measures studied by such researchers as Dawson (1980) and
Raskin and Hare (1978). Whether some of these measures would be more ef-
fective with one type of polygraph examination test than another remains
an open question. Unless a series of experiments is designed for compari-
son purposes the temptation to interpret small differences between tests
should be resisted.
In summary, alcohol intoxication during enactment of a mock crime
affects detection rates on both Control Question and Guilty Knowledge
Tests. Because these effects were the result of intoxication during the
crime, it was speculated that emotional and memory processes were involved
at this point. Alcohol intoxication during the polygraph test does not
significantly affect the test results, which argues against its use as an
effective countermeasure. Although these results are of interest to field
detection, the limitations of the study must be kept in mind. For exam-
ple, we do not know if the results would generalize to real crime situa-
tions. In addition, only two levels of intoxication, no or moderate in-
toxication, were compared. Perhaps different results, especially during
the test, would occur at higher levels of intoxication. Alcohol effects
on learning and memory are complex and include state dependent learning
effects. A parametric study would be necessary to obtain a fuller under-
standing of its relationship to the detection of deception.
References
Backster, C. (1969). TECHNIQUE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE TRI-ZONE POLYGRAPH
TEST. New York: Backster Research Foundation, Inc.
Barland, G.H. & Raskin, D.C. (1973). Detection of deception. In W.F.
Prokasy & D.C. Raskin (Eds.) ELECTRODERMAL ACTIVITY IN PSYCHOLOGICAL
RESEARCH (pp. 417-477). New York: Academic Press.
Barland, G.H. & Raskin, D.C. (1975). An evaluation of field techniques in
detection of deception. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY 12, 321-330.
Boisvenu, G.A. (1982, September) THE EFFECTS OF DIAZEPAM AND METHYLPHENI-
DATE ON THE ELECTRODERMAL DETECTION OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE. Unpublished
masters thesis, University of British Columbia, Psychology Depart-
ment.
Bradley, M.T. & Janisse, M.P. (1981a) Accuracy demonstrations, threat, and
the detection of deception: Cardiovascular, electrodermal and pupil-
lary measures. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY 18, 307-315.
Bradley, M.T. & Janisse, M.P. (1981b) Extraversion and the detection of
deception. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE 2, 99-103.
Dawson, M.E. (1980). Physiological detection of deception: Measurement of
responses to questions and answers during countermeasure maneuvers.
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY 17, 8-17.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Bradley & Ainsworth
Glaser, D. (1978). CRIME IN OUR CHANGING SOCIETY. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston.
Julien, R.M. (1978). A PRIMER OF DRUG ACTION. San Francisco: Freeman &
Co.
Lykken, D.T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. JOURNAL OF
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 43, 385-388.
Lykken, D.T. (1974). The GSR in the detection of guilt. JOURNAL OF
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 29, 724-739.
McGonnell, P.C. & Beach, H.D. (1968). The effects of ethanol on the ac-
quisition of a conditioned GSR. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON
ALCOHOL 29, 845-855.
Orne, M.T., Thackray, R.I. & Paskewitz, D.A. (1972) On the detection of
deception: A model for the study of the physiological effects of psy-
chological stimuli. In N.S. Greenfield & R.A. Sternbach (Eds.) HAND-
BOOK OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY (pp. 743-785). New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Podlesny, J.A. & Raskin, D.C. (1977). Physiological measures and the de-
tection of deception. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN 84, 782-799.
Raskin, D.C. (1979). Orienting and defensive reflexes in the detection of
deception. In H.D. Kimmell, E.H. Van 01st & J.F. Orlebeke (Eds.) THE
ORIENTING REFLEX IN HUMANS (pp. 587-605). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Raskin, D.C. & Hare, R.D. (1978). Psychopathy and detection of deception
in a prison population. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY 15, 126-136.
Ray, 0. (1978). DRUGS, SOCIETY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby
Reid, J. & Inbau, F.E. (1977). TRUTH AND DECEPTION: THE POLYGRAPH ("LIE
DETECTOR") TECHNIQUE. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Storm, T. & Caird, W.K. (1967). The effects of alcohol on serial learning
in chronic alcoholics. PSYCHONOMIC SCIENCE 9, 43-44.
Timm, H.W. (1982). Effect of altered outcome expectancies stemming from
placebo and feedback treatments on the validity of the Guilty Know-
ledge technique. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 67, 391-400.
Waid, W.M. & Orne, M.T. (1980). Individual differences on electrodermal
lability and the detection of information and deception. JOURNAL OF
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 65, 1-8.
Waid, W.M. & Orne, M.T. (1981). Cognitive, social, and personality pro-
cesses in the physiological detection of deception. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (Volume 14, pp.
61-106). New York: Academic Press.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Alcohol and Detection of Deception
Waid, W.M., Orne, E.C., Cook, M.R. & Orne, M.T. (1978). Effects of at-
tention, as indexed by subsequent memory, on electrodermal detection
of information. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 63, 728-733.
Waid, W.M., Orne, E.C., Cook, M.R. & Orne, M.T. (1981a). Meprobate re-
duces accuracy of physiological detection of deception. SCIENCE 212,
71-73.
Waid, W.M., Orne, E.C., Cook, M.R. & Orne, M.T. (1981b). Selective
memory for social information, alertness, and physiological arousal
in the detection of deception. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 66,
224-232.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
ANALYSIS OF AGREEMENT IN POLYGRAPH CHARTS*
By
Eugene Edel and Lane A. Moore, Jr.
A study was made of the reliability of judgements
of polygraph examiners in analyzing polygraph charts.
Forty representative polygraph interviews were utilized
as case material. Polygraph examiners judged the signi-
ficance or nonsignificance of physiological responses to
2530 individual questions. Percent-agreement scores
were tabulated for examiners and for the three physiolo-
gical measures.
The results indicate that there is a high degree of
reliability even among polygraph examiners who were not
present during the interview. Substantial consistency
was found in determining the significant responses for
all three physiological response measures.
Background
Orlansky (1962) has outlined one of the basic and most realistic
methods for determining the reliablity of polygraph results as follows:
"Comparing the results achieved by two or more polygraph examiners
working independently on the same case material."
Kubis (1962, 1965) has reported on the reliability of polygraph re-
sults utilizing this technique and has reported a wide range of agreement
scores for various studies. However, this research was based upon a
"simulated theft situation" corresponding to the use of the polygraph in
criminal investigations. Also, the raters utilized in the Kubis studies
were relatively inexperienced in polygraph evaluation. These facts cast
some doubt as to the generalization of these results from the laboratory
to the "real life" polygraph screening interview as it applies to NSA.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of judgements
among experienced polygraph examiners in independently judging the signi-
ficance, or lack of significance, of physiological responses recorded on
polygraph charts during applicant screening interviews. All case
*Declassified and released for publication by the National Security
Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, in March 1984. Originally prepared in
July 1965 as Personnel Research Report 65-5, by the Psychology Research
Division, Office of Personnel Management Policy, National Security
Agency.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Analysis of Agreement in Polygraph Charts
material utilized in this study was obtained during actual job applicant
screening interviews conducted at the National Security Agency.
Specifically, the objectives of the study were to determine the mag-
nitude of agreement between polygraph examiners in assessing the presence
or absence of significant physiological responses to questions asked dur-
ing the polygraph screening interview. The study also examined and com-
pared the percent of agreement between examiners on each of the three
physiological response measures, i.e., cardiovascular response (C), gal-
vanic skin response (GSR), and respiratory response (R).
Procedure
A total of 40 polygraph cases, randomly selected were utilized as the
case material for this study. Each case contained two or three polygraph
charts and from 80 to 120 questions. In all 40 cases, responses to 2530
questions were recorded. All polygraph interviews were conducted under
similar conditions using a patterned interview.
Ten polygraph examiners were utilized in the study. The examiners
ranged in experience from several months to over ten years of actual poly-
graph interview experience. Each examiner acted as the examiner (E) on
four cases, i.e., actually conducted the polygraph interview with the job
applicant on -a-face-to-face basis. In addition, each examiner acted as a
rater (R) on eight different cases, i.e., independently reviewed and
judged the significance of responses on Thee polygraph charts without face-
to-face contact with the job applicant or any knowledge of the information
derived from the interview.
Method: Each polygraph examiner reviewed the polygraph charts and
judged-t. e-physiological responses to each interview question on each of
the three physiological response measures. The polygraph examiner re-
viewed the polygraph charts and categoried each response to each question
as being: no specific reaction (NSR), or as a specific physiological
reaction (SPR). If a physiological response was adjudicated as SPR, the
examiner indicated in which of the three physiological response measures
it occurred or in what combination of measures it occurred.
Responses were identified as follows:
NSR No Specific Response
SPR Specific physiological reaction
Those responses identified as SPR
were then categoried as follows:
SPR in C
SPR in GSR
SPR in P
SPR in C and GSR
SPR in C and P
SPR in GSR and P
SPR in C, GSR, and P
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
For the analysis of the data, an agreement was defined as identical
coding of physiological responses, i.e., as being NSR, or if SPR, in which
of the physiological response measures or combination of measures, the
response occurred. For example, if both judges agreed a response occurred
in the C tracing, but no response in the P or GSR, the total number of
agreements was 3. If both agreed there was a C response, but one also
reported a response in the GSR, and neither reported one in the P, then
the total number of agreements was 2. Agreements were tabulated between
pairs of examiners and a percent-agreement score was computed.
A further analysis of these data examined the degree of agreement
with respect to the three physiological response measures. For this
phase of the study, agreements and disagreements were defined as stated
above.
For both analyses, the total proportion of agreements (p) was com-
puted by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of
agreements plus disagreements.
The proportion of agreements was computed for the ten polygraph ex-
aminers across the 40 cases to obtain a percent agreement score for all
judges. In addition, the proportion of agreements was computed across the
ten polygraph examiners to obtain percent-agreement scores for the three
physiological measures. Finally, the percent-agreement scores for cases
where an examiner acted as E was compared with those obtained when acting
as R, to determine if face-to-face contact with the examinee improved the
consistency of response judgements.
Results
The percent-agreement scores between E and R and R and R, are pre-
sented in Table I.
TABLE I
Percent-Agreement Scores of Examiners and Raters
Total judgements
Cardio
Percent-
Agreement
GSR
Percent-
Agreement
Respiratory
Percent
Agreement
E vs R
5,060
96
95
96
R vs R
2,530
96
91
96
Total:
7,590
96
93
96
As the table illustrates, the percent-agreement between E and R was
96 percent for C, 95 percent for GSR, and 96 percent for P. The percent-
agreement for R vs R was 96 percent for C, 91 percent for GSR, and 96 per-
cent for P. The overall mean percent-agreement score for E vs R was 96
percent and for R vs R, the percent-agreement score overall was 94 per-
cent. Using Guetzkow's test for the reliability of categorizations
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Analysis of Agreement in Polygraph Charts
(Guetzkow, 1950), the probability of obtaining percent-agreement scores of
this magnitude purely by chance is less than one in 10,000.
The percent of agreement between polygraph examiners was also corn-
puted for identification of responses according to the physiological res-
ponse measure. Table II shows the percent-agreement scores for the three
physiological response measures.
Percent-Agrement Scores for the Three Physiological
Measures (all responses)
Total Judgements
Number of
Agreements
Percent of
Agreements
C
7,590
7,264
96
GSR
7,590
7,098
93
P
7,590
7,264
96
Total:
22,770
21,626
95
The preceding analyses were concerned with all agreements and dis-
agreements between the polygraph examiners, including both those responses
judged as NSR and SPR. An additional analysis was also made to compare
the productivity of the three physiological measures in terms of responses
judged as significant. Figure I illustrates the fact that the GSR was the
most productive measure yielded slightly more than twice as many SPR
evaluations than did the P measure.
P xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 193
6T20 T66 '0'?4'7$-32'6 36'6_ S6'- 6
Number of Significant Judgements
Figure I
[Number of Responses to 2,530 Questions Judged as Significant
for the Three Physiological Measures]
Discussion
The overall percent-agreement scores obtained suggest substantial
reliability of polygraph chart analysis both in terms of between examiner
agreement in determining the significance or nonsignificance of physiolog-
ical responses and also in terms of the reliability of the three
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Edel and Moore
physiological responses measures (C, GSR, and P).
These data indicated that polygraph examiners can consistently judge
the significance of physiological responses. It would appear, that of the
three physiological measures utilized, the GSR was the most sensitive and
produced a larger number of responses judged as significant by polygraph
examiners. However, the consistency with which significance is found in
the three physiological measures was equally high. Finally, these data
indicated that polygraph examiners who judge the significance of physio-
logical responses using the polygraph charts alone, achieved the same high
degree of consistency as the examiners who actually conducted the poly-
graph interviews on a face-to-face basis with the job applicant.
Summary and Recommendations
A study of the degree of agreement of experienced polygraph exami-
ners, working independently on actual case material, indicated that there
was a high degree of consistency in their judgment of physiological res-
ponses. Responses to 2,530 questions from forty polygraph interview cases
were reviewed. Percent-agreement scores between examiners ranged from 91
to 96 percent, and between physiological measures from 93 to 96 percent,
when all possible judgements (NSR and SPR) were included.
It is recommended that additional studies be conducted to further
investigate the reliability of polygraph procedures. Of particular in-
terest would be a study designed to assess the reliability of examiner
conclusions based upon responses measured on the polygraph chart.
References
Downie, N.M. & Heath, R.W. Basic Statistical Methods, 2d ed. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1965.
Guetzkow, H. "Unitizing and Categorizing Problems in Coding Qualitative
Data," J. Clin. Psychol. 45 (1950): 682-690.
Heyn, R.W. and Zander, A. "Observation of Group Behavior." Reported in
Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, Festinger, L. & Katz, D.
(eds.) New York: Dryden Tress, 195
Kubis, J.F. Studies in Lie Detection: Computer Feasibility Considerations.
RADC-TR =765,Sure 1962.
Orlansky, J. An Assessment of Lie Detection Capability. IDA-TR-62-16,
July 196?.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com-
pany, 196.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
THE PENILE PLETHYSMOGRAPH:
A NEW TRANSDUCER USED FOR DETECTION
AND THERAPY WITH SEXUAL DEVIATION CASES
By
Stanley Abrams, Ph.D.*
The penile plethysmograph, which measures blood flow in the
penis, is being employed to determine if suspects in child
molesting cases had propensities in this direction. Since
these findings may be used in conjunction with polygraph
findings the writer has briefly reported on the various uses
of this technique and its strengths and weaknesses.
A number of attempts have been made to study different aspects of
physiologic functioning other than those already used in the field of
polygraphy. Recently, a new technique has been developed which, while not
an instrument to differentiate truthfulness from deception, serves a
similar function.
The penile plethysmograph measures changes in blood flow in the penis
that are associated with sexual arousal. While it has been employed prin-
cipally for the diagnosis and treatment of those individuals with sexual
deviations, it is not being utilized as an investigative aid as well.
Typically, it is used in child molesting cases to determine if the suspect
has propensities in this direction. A transducer loop similar to the
device employed in polygraphy to measure blood flow in the fingers is
wrapped about the penis. With the assistance of the subject, sexual
arousal is brought about until a full erection is obtained. After relaxa-
tion, the subject is then shown sexually stimulating pictures of both nude
women and nude children and with sexual arousal, an increased flow of
blood to the penis results causing varying degrees of erection. A compar-
ison of the individuals response can be made with his full tumescent state
previously obtained.
Diagnosis
If the subject demonstrates eighty percent of his total erective
capability in response to the stimuli of the nude women as compared to
twenty percent in reaction to the child, this could be viewed as a strong
argument for his innocence of any involvement in the child molesting. On
the other hand, if opposite results are obtained, it is likely that the
suspect has propensities toward being a pedophile. As will be discussed
later, however, this approach is far from infallible.
The evaluation of the measurement of sexual arousal is accomplished
through the comparison of the amplitude obtained for each stimulus or the
total response to each stimulus. In the case of the latter it is a
*The author is a member of the American Polygraph Association.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Stanley Abrams
measure of the total area under the response curve. It would be compar-
able to measuring only the height of the GSR reaction, or to measure the
entire rise and length of the response between questions. No advantage
has been found for one technique over the other.(Abel, 1981a) The changes
in penile circumference are compared to the percentage of the individual's
full erection. The stimuli employed to cause sexual arousal may be visual
or auditory and will vary in content depending upon the purpose of the
examination. In contrast to the pedophile the suspected rapist would be
shown stimuli depicting sex between consenting adults, a rape scene, and
pictures showing a non-sexual assault upon a woman. Rapists in comparison
to normals generally respond with sexual arousal to not only the rape
scenes but to the stimuli showing non-sexual physical violence to women as
well. In the case of homosexual rape, suspects would be compared in their
response to heterosexual and homosexual activities. The logic of this
approach can be easily comprehended by the lay population so it is under-
standable how this approach could have an impact on a jury.
For diagnostic purposes, this technique has been successful in dif-
ferentiating among various kinds of sexual disorders. A rapist, there-
fore, will not necessarily respond to stimuli associated with sexual acti-
vity with children or homosexual activities.(Abel, 1981b) Moreover, large
differences have been shown in the direction of no arousal at all to nor-
mal heterosexual activity in contrast to large responsiveness to some
deviant behavior.
Therapy
From a therapeutic standpoint, these techniques are effective in
charting the progress of a patient in treatment. A successful course of
therapy would be demonstrated by increased responsivity to normal sexual
objects and a reduction in sexual arousal to deviant stimuli. Through
these findings, the therapist can determine if treatment should be inten-
sified, altered, or terminated. Research findings have varied on the pre-
cise impact of the treatment. Some studies have reported that as decondi-
tioning of the deviant sexual orientation occurs there is an almost auto-
matic increase in sexual stimulation to normal sexual objects. Thus the
penile transducer demonstrates with treatment that a pedophile who origi-
nally showed large arousal patterns in response to children and a low
reaction in response to women will reverse this if the deviant behavior is
corrected. In contrast to this, other studies have shown that treating
the deviation alone is not sufficient.(Van Deventer, 1978) Instead, aver-
sive conditioning such as having the patient inhale some unpleasant smell-
ing substance like rotting umbilical cords while viewing stimuli associa-
ted with his particular sexual abberation only reduces his sexual disorder
but does not enhance his reaction to women. In order to increase the
patient's response to the opposite sex adult, the individual is instructed
to masturbate at first in response to fantasies associated with his de-
viant behavior but to shift his fantasy to a normal heterosexual interac-
tion immediately before ejaculation. (Brownel1, 1977) Repeated trials of
this procedure with the patient gradually starting the heterosexual fan-
tasy closer to the initiation of the masturbation has been found to cause
greater responsiveness to normal sexual objects.
Diagnosticians and therapists who have demonstrated some success in
treating these patients have now expanded their role to evaluating
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
The Penile Plethysmograph
suspects in child molesting cases. Polygraphists inevitably will interact
with these professionals who will be testing the same subject but from a
different vantage point. They are not utilizing their instrumentation as
a lie detector but only determining if the suspect has propensities in the
particular area under study. Because they are not determining truth or
deception this writer does not feel that they fall under the purvue of any
of the polygraph licensing laws.
Since there will be times when differences of opinion occur between
polygraph findings and the results of the penile transducer, it is most
important to be aware of the weaknesses of the latter technique.
Differs from Polygraph
The theoretical foundation of polygraphy is based on the concept that
the fear of detection, generalized excitement, and/or emotional conflict
cause sympathetic nervous system arousal.(Abrams, 1977) Some of the phy-
siologic changes that occur are associated with changes in the cardiovas-
cular system. The blood vessels in the digestive and genital areas con-
strict thereby reducing the blood in these regions. It is obvious that
the body has little need for either genital or digestive activity when the
organism is threatened. In contrast to this, dilation of the blood ves-
sels occurs in the heart and skeletal muscles because one makes greater
use of these areas during threat and the increased blood flow provides
more nourishment and necessary hormones to these parts of the body allow-
ing the individual to fight or run more effectively.
False Postives from the Penile Transducer
In the case of the subject being evaluated with the penile plethysmo-
graph, while the sexually stimulating material might cause an increased
blood flow to the penis, his awareness of the test as a threat would re-
sult in the opposite reaction. The fear of the consequences of his sexual
aberration being discovered would cause sympathetic arousal and- in turn a
loss of blood flow to the genitals. It would seem likely that this could
counteract the impact of the deviant sexual stimuli resulting in a false
positive response, that is diagnosing a guilty person as innocent.
This thinking is corroborated by the impact that fear has upon sexual
arousal in the functionally impotent. The male, fearful of being unable
to respond sexually assures this very response by his fear. As soon as he
becomes afraid of not being capable of either getting or maintaining an
erection, the fear causes sympathetic dominance thereby reducing the blood
flow to the penis resulting in the loss of his erection. He now is better
able to fight or run but he will be unable to perform sexually or show
tumescence on the penile plethysmograph.
Some research findings have demonstrated that individuals with var-
ious sexual disorders are well able to blunt their responses on the penile
transducer when shown deviant sexual stimuli by fantasizing of non-stimu-
lating objects. Moreover, they have been able to falsify sexual responses
to normal sexual stimulation to which they would not ordinarily respond.
In addition to this, they have successfully caused inaccurate finding
through masturbatory activities or actually physically manipulating the
sensor by inserting something between the penis and the transducer loop.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Stanley Abrams
The false pattern of response obtained through these dissimulations is be-
lieved to be undetectable by even a sophisticated examiner.
In consideration of these findings, one must be most cautious in in-
terpreting penile plethysmograph responses since "it is entirely possible
to produce phony increases in sexual response in the presence of non-pre-
ferred stimuli and it is entirely possible to suppress the erection res-
ponse in the presence of a preferred stimulus."(Laws, 1978) Freund(1963)
showed that homosexuals were able to falsify a response to heterosexual
stimuli through cognitive manipulation; and Henson and Rubin(1971) re-
ported that normal subjects could quite easily suppress sexual responses
in the presence of stimuli known to be effective in causing arousal reac-
tions. In essence they were able to produce a perfectly believable set of
tracings that no one could detect as a faked record.
References
Abel, G.G., Becker, J.V., Murphy, W.D., and Flanagan, B. Identifying Dan-
gerous Child Molesters. In: Violent Behavior: Social Learning Approaches
to Prediction. Management a nd-T-reatment.`jed) Stuart, aR., 117-137.
T 8T-
Abel, GG., Blanchard, E.B., Murphy, W.D., Becker, J.V., & Djenderendjian,
A. Two Methods of Measuring Penile Response. Behavior Therapy: 2 (1981)
320-328.
Abrams, S. A Polygraph Handbook for Attorneys. Lexington, Mass: D.C.
Heath & Co . ,197T.`~"`
Brownell, K.D., Hayes, S.C., and Barlow, D.H. Patterns of Appropriate and
Deviant Sexual Arousal: The Behavioral Treatment of Multiple Sexual Devia-
tions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45(1977) 1144-1155.
Freund, K. A Laboratory Method of Diagnosing Predominance of Homo or
Heteroerotic Interest in the Male. Behavioral Research and Therapy 1
(1963) 85-93.
Hensen, D.E. & Rubin, H.B. Voluntary Control of Eroticism. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis 4(1971) 37-44.
Laws, D.R. & Holmen, M.L. Sexual Response Faking By Pedophiles. Criminal
Justice and Behavior 5 (1978): 343-356.
Van Deventer, A.D., and Laws, D.R. Orgasmic Reconditioning to Redirect
Sexual Arousal in Pedophiles. Behavior Therapy 6 (1978): 746-765.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
PASSING THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT LIE DETECTOR TEST
Command u ations, T4, '38p`p.
A Book Review
By
Vickie T. Murphy
This book takes an applicant on a step-by-step detailed version of a
typical pre-employment polygraph interview with simple explanations of
each phase, questions, theory, chart interpretation and employer use of
admissions in obtaining job suitability. In addition, the author coaches
the applicant on how to take a polygraph test without making any type of
admissions, as well as pointing out typical examples of physical methods
which may be self-induced by the applicant in an attempt to distort phy-
siological responses.
The major theme of the publication is two-fold:
1. Stressing how important it is for the applicant not to make any
type of admissions of wrongdoings, minor or small, and
2. How to use physical methods of self-stimulation to make responses
stronger to the truthful areas of a subject's background as well
as irrelevant areas.
The author points out that instead of trying to change or minimize
responses when the applicant wants to lie, "an easier and more reliable
way to conceal something is to make your response stronger to the truthful
questions that do not threaten you... If your response to a truthful
question is just about as strong or is stronger to a lie question, the
examiner cannot determine which is which ... because the examiner compares
one response with another in order to diagnose a lie response."
The author provides a list of methods for muscular activity and
things to cause pain to use as a form of self-stimulation which includes:
drawing or contracting the toes inside of shoes
contracting or flexing calf muscles
straining or contracting thigh muscles
grasping arm chair (with free hand) to the point of straining
tensing or flexing biceps (on free arm)
contracting or tightening sphincter & buttock muscles
tensing jaw muscles & biting teeth
biting the tongue
digging thumbnail under the nail of another finger
biting the lip sharply
In addition, the author stresses:
"If an applicant offers an admission of wrongdoing or confessed a
damaging fact at any point during the test, the test for him is con-
cluded ... if you confess or make an incriminating admission, you
won't get the job."
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
"you want to exert this self-stimulation without the knowledge of the
examiner and without calling his attention... since much of the exami-
ner's time is taken up with questions, markings and the fact that
they may be seated with their back to the examiner."
"...timing of your self -stimulation.. start... about the moment of your
answer and let up about 5 or 6 seconds..."
"it is in the applicant's favor if he approaches...in a cooperative
manner with an attitude of straightforwardness and sincerity... good
composure and dress.. .and don't project a sarcastic or skeptical at-
titude."
"let the examiner do the talking, and you just react pleasantly
giving out as little information as possible."
"success depends on duplicating your strong(self-stimulated) res-
ponses by the first chart...if you follow the same stimulation plan
it will support the trend of the first chart..."
and finally, how the applicant can maintain control in the post-test
phase, continuing not to make any fatal admissions and provides the
applicant with examples of how to answer when the examiner points out
significant responses.
The author has laid out in detail for the applicant, lists of sample
questions and formats, commonly used irrelevants, methods for distortions,
and a sample self-programmed exercise using a possible chart for practice
with explanations and reminders of the do's and don'ts.
The format is extremely informative of all aspects of the examination
for any applicant, and is a must for examiners to be aware of counter-
measures.
Finally, as I have referred throughout this review with "the author,"
it should be noted that at no point in the text, is the author's name even
listed in his own text.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
C E N T R A L I N T E L L I G E N C E A G E N C Y
The CIA's Office of Security has immediate openings for qualified,
highly motivated polygraph examiners looking for a unique and challenging
career.
QUALIFICATIONS
Four-year accredited college degree
(overall GPA of 2.75 or better)
Graduate of APA accredited polygraph school
Minimum two years' experience as an examiner
Flexibility and mobility required for domestic
and overseas assignments
In addition to personal interviews, successful candidates must meet
high Agency standards as measured by a rigorous background investigation,
a polygraph examination and aptitude testing. To apply, send your resume
to:
Personnel Representative
Dept. S, Rm. 4N20
P.O. Box 1925
Washington, D.C. 20013
The CIA is an equal opportunity employer.
U.S. citizenship is required.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
POLYGRAPH
CHART
PAPER
AN EXCEPTIONAL VALUE
We stock Paper for
STOELTING and LAFAYETTE
Instruments
Custom Papers Available
We will be happy to quote volume discount prices
PRICE ? QUALITY ? DELIVERY
call now for quotation
outside California [phone] Toll Free
inside California [phone]
Charts. Inc
1921 E. Carnegie Avenue/ Unit 3 E Santa Ana, California 92705
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Southern School of Polygraph
Homer C. Tank, Director
Providing training in all currently recognized testing techniques us-
ed in the Polygraph profession
The faculty are all former instructors of the U S Army Polygraph
School.
MARYLAND INSTITUTE
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
517 Benfield Road, Suite 303
Severna Park, MD. 21146
[phone]
The Southern School of Polygraph is accredited by the Georgia
Board of Polygraph Examiners, The American Polygraph Associa
lion, and certified by the VA for GI Benefits
Director
Southern School of Polygraph
Suite 101, Executive Park
Augusta, Georgia 30907
POLYGRAPH SCHOOL
GORMAC POLYGRAPH SCHOOL announces with pride its new,
expanded, and upgraded polygraph course which is seven and
one-half (71/2) weeks and 300 hours in length.
GORMAC POLYGRAPH SCHOOL is approved by the AMERICAN
POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION (A.P.A.) and THE AMERICAN ASSOCI-
ATION OF POLICE POLYGRAPHISTS (A.A.P.P.) and THE CALI-
FORNIA ASSOCIATION OF POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS (C.A.P.E.).
GORMAC POLYGRAPH SCHOOL is also approved by the Office
of Private Post-Secondary Education, California State Department
of Education. G. I. Benefits are available.
GORMAC POLYGRAPH SCHOOL has been a leader in training
polygraph examiners for public and private law enforcement,
corrections, security, and personnel fields since 1959.
GORMAC, INC.
BOX 840, ARCADIA, CA 91006
Phone: [phone]
Professional 8 week, 320 hour program
providing intensive training for police,
investigative and private agencies. Fully
accreditated and approved for VA
benefits.
Director:
Billy H. Thompson, BA, MEd, CAS
Admission Officer:
Vickie Thompson Murphy.
TILE BACKSTEK SCHOOL
OF LIE DETECTION
POLYGRAPH
EXAMINER
COURSE
rhl Sixth \~c. Suite 219 ? San Diczo. (A 92101
lel. (714) ?3i
Robert E. Henson, Administrator
The Backster School of Lie Detection is the leader in
establishing polygraph educational standards. It is the
leading school teaching techniques for obtaining poly-
graph examination determinations exclusively through
chart results.
References attesting to the high standards of the
Backster School of Lie Detection can be received from
leading law enforcement agencies actively utilizing the
polygraph. It is their consensus that the Backster School
of Lie Detection presents the most advar ced polygraph
examiner course, as it provides maximum technique em-
phasis and concentrates on law enforcement appli ration
of the polygraph and preparation for court testifying.
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
0AY OF '0
A
?nded \y
Downtown College
UNIVERSITY of HOUSTON
POLYGRAPH PROGRAM
ONE MAIN STREET, ROOM 1038b HOUSTON,TK 77002
713/749-2070
713/749-1952
SHIRLEY H. STURM, DIRECTOR
The UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON DOWNTOWN COLLEGE
POLYGRAPH PROGRAM (formerly Southwest School
of Polygraph) offers a comprehensive eight
week Basic Polygraph Examiner Training Course
for both the law enforcement and private
The UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON DOWNTOWN COLLEGE
POLYGRAPH PROGRAM is accredited by the American
Polygraph Association, approved by the State
of Texas Board of Polygraph Examiners, and
approved by the Texas Education Agency for
Veterans Training.
CALL OR WRITE FOR COURSE INFORMATION
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
Accredited by the American Polygraph Association and the
Pennsylvania Polygraph Examiners Association
tActtbemg for $rienfifir
J n sfittiie Trttinirr1g
Multiple Technique Approach to Lie Detection
Professional Polygraph Training
Excellent Faculty
All Major Techniques
Limited Class Size
Numerical Analysis
Hands-On Experience
Suite 305
1518 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19102
Call Collect: [phone]
NATIONAL
POLYGRAPH
INSTITUTE
Subsidiary of Graymark
Security Group, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL
POLYGRAPH
TRAINING
M 0 V I N G ???
Let us know!
APA Members: Contact the three addresses
listed below:
The National Polygraph Institute provides a
curriculum encompassing the full spectrum of poly-
graph techniques and methodology.
The faculty has the experience and the expertise
to present all instructional materials in a thorough
and professional manner.
The facilities are spacious and comfortable
employing state of the art audio/video equipment to
enhance our student's learning experience.
Write or call today for our catalog.
Director: Michael F. Gillette, B.A., M.B.A.
8515 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33138
[phone]
Accredited by the American Polygraph Association, Florida Polygraph Associ-
ation and the American Association of Police Polygraphists. Approved for
Veteran's Benefits.
APA Publications
P.O. Box 1061
Severna Park, MD 21146
Mr. Al E. Clinchard, Treasurer
123 Bryan
Gretna, Nebraska 68028
Mr. Bill Bennett, Secretar~r
Ste. 106
5805 Lee Highway
Chattanooga, Tennessee 3714.21
APA Publications
P.O. Box 1061
Severna Park, MD 21146
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87S00869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Thompson Polygraph Agency
Professional Polygraph Service
BOX 458, 124 ROUTE THREE CENTER
MILLERSVILLE, MD 21108
When you need professional polygraph service
in the Nation's Capital areas of Washington, D. C.,
Baltimore or Northern Virginia.
All types of examinations conducted by qualified
professionals in the field.
Billy H. Thompson
[phone]
University Microfilms
International
300 North Zeeb Road
Dept. PR.
Ann Arbor, Mi. 48106
U.S.A.
30-32 Mortimer Street
Dept. P.R.
London WIN 7RA
England
TRAINING COURSE
ic;. 'Ka % n Director.
YCRK
stitute of
82 Beau 5th corny and
, t>r a le? "'oi ra
y
New York, N.Y. 10005
lenCes
S
[phone]
John J. Rugerald, Registrar
Course Approved by American Polygraph
Association
Approved by New York State
Education Department
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
oil I
in 1K
Now
Academy Formerly Polygraph
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Frank Argenbright, Jr. - President David Devine - Director
The Professional Polygraph
Examiner Training Course
? APA Accredited
? Military-Inspired Training
Program
? Unexcelled Facility
? Excellent Facilities
? Authorized Lafayette Dealer
The Professional Polygraph Examiner Training
Course is seven weeks in length, during which
320 hours of classroom instruction are pre-
sented.
During these seven weeks the student is pro-
vided all the information he needs to be an
effective polygraph examiner and to pass writ-
ten state examinations. More importantly, the
Faculty ? Michael H. Capps, Q.S.
? Steven Anschel, PhD
? Sara Benzel, PhD
? Ronald Decker
? Donald DesRoches, J.D.
? Fred C. Link, M.S.
student receives extensive opportunity for
actual "hands on" practice with the polygraph
instrument, in polygraphic interviewing, and in
practice polygraph examinations of all types.
Our emphasis is on the fundamental skillswhich
will be applicable in any setting and which will
satisfy the regulatory authorities of any state.
1984 Schedule - Atlanta
11 June - 27 July 1984
10 September - 26 October 1984
7 January - 23 February, 1985
For A Course Bulletin Coll or Write the Registrar at
ARGENBRIGHT INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF POLYGRAPH
1735 VIRGINIA AVE. 0 ATLANTA, GA. 30337 0 404/761-6209
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
LAFAYETTE
POLYGRAPHS
The Most Important Detail
IS QUALITY!
? Quick connecting /disconnecting
hose attachments
? Standard GSR Curv-Six (6"of excursion)
? Lexon Paper Guide Strip (Available at no chargel
Call us TOLL FREE for details
[phone]
? Lafayette Instrument Company
P.O. Box 5729 Lafayette, IN 47903 [phone] Telex 276154 UCLAF
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
 Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5
Approved For Release 2010/08/19: CIA-RDP87SO0869R000600080017-5