Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation November 1983 NTIS order #PB84-181411 Recommended Citation: Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation—A Techni- cal Memorandum (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-H-15, November 1983). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 83-600618 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Foreword This technical memorandum presents the results of the Office of Technology Assess- ment’s (OTA) review and assessment of the scientific evidence on the validity of polygraph testing. Conducted at the request of Rep. Jack Brooks, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, and Rep. Frank Horton, the Ranking Minority Member, the OTA memorandum is intended to assist the committee in its deliberations on pro- posed changes in polygraph use by the Federal Government. As requested, OTA has limited this technical memorandum to issues directly related to the scientific validity of the polygraph. OTA did not consider utility, privacy, con- stitutional, and ethical issues, among others that have been raised in the debate over polygraph testing. We first discuss the various types of polygraph testing procedures and ways in which the polygraph is used, and then summarize the judicial, legislative, and scientific con- troversy over polygraph testing validity. Next, we review and evaluate both prior reviews of the scientific research on polygraph validity and the individual research studies. Finally, we discuss the range of factors that may affect polygraph validity and the possibilities for future research, and present OTA’S conclusions about the scientific evidence for cur- rent and proposed Federal Government polygraph use. In preparing this memorandum, OTA has drawn on research information available from a wide variety of sources, including the major Federal Government polygraph users, the American Polygraph Association, various private polygraph practitioners, and polygraph researchers both in the United States, and abroad. In addition to the members of the project advisory panel, this memorandum benefited from the consultation and review of a large number of persons in the Federal Govern- ment, universities, and the polygraph community. It is, however, solely the respon- sibility of OTA, not those who advised and assisted us in its preparation. ///. Polygraph Validity Advisory Panel Edward S. Katkin, Chairman Professor of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo Joseph P, Buckley Steve Pruitt President Director of Congressional Affairs John E. Reid & Associates Public Employees Department, AFL-CIO Robert Edelberg Christopher H. Pyle Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology Associate Professor of Politics UMDNJ-Rutgers Medical School Mt. Holyoke College David C. Raskin Frank Horvath Professor of Psychology Associate Professor University of Utah School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Harold Sigall Professor of Psychology David T. Lykken University of Maryland Profesor of Psychiatry and Psychology George B. Trubow University of Minnesota Medical School Professor of Information Law and Policy The John Marshall Law School Gail J. Povar Assistant Professor of Medicine and Althea M. I. Wagman Health Care Sciences Research Associate of Psychiatry The George Washington University Medical Maryland Psychiatric Research Center Center University of Maryland School of Medicine OTA Polygraph Validity Project Staff John H. Gibbons, Acting Assistant Director, OTA Health and Life Sciences Division * Clyde Behney, Health Program Manager Fred B. Wood, Project Director (Communication and Information Technologies Program (CIT)) Leonard Saxe, Principal Investigator and Author (Boston University)** Denise Dougherty, Co-author and Analyst (Health)~ Theodore Cross, Co-author (Boston University)tt Jack Langenbrunner, Analyst (Health) Katherine Locke, Research Assistant (Health) Administrative Support Ginny Cwalina, Administrative Assistant (Health) Elizabeth Emanuel, Administrative Assistant (CIT) Jennifer Nelson, Secretary (Health) Shirley Gayheart, Secretary (CIT) Other Contributors MichaeI Saks, Boston College Daniel Ozer, Boston University Yoram Bar-Tal, Boston University Mary Beasley, Boston University Marie Calabrese, Boston University Molly Zane, Boston University OTA Publishing Staff John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer John Bergling Kathie S, Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson Glenda Lawing Linda A. Leahy Cheryl J. Manning “Since September 1983; H David Banta served as Assistant Director until .4ugust 1983. * ● Assistant Professor of Psychology, Boston University, tOTA Analyst since September 1983; Boston Umversity Graduate Research Assistant until August 1983 ttGraduate Research Assistant, Boston University v . Acknowledgments OTA acknowledges the contribution of the following agencies and individuals that provided information, advice, and/or substantive reviews of draft materials: Federal Government Agencies Fitz Godwin, Army Lewis R. Goldberg, University of Oregon Department of Defense (Office of Deputy Under Gisli Gudjonson, London Institute of Psychiatry Secretary of Defense for Policy, Army, Air Force, David L. Hammond, Psychologist Navy, Marines, National Security Agency) James E. Hardy, Air Force Office of Special Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Investigations Drug Enforcement Administration) Fred Hegge, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Department of State Eric J. Holden, Baker, Holden & Associates Department of the Treasury (Secret Service, Bureau Charles Robert Honts, University of Utah of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) William G. Iacono, University of British Columbia Postal Service Michel Pierre Janisse, University of Manitoba Office of Personnel Management Richard C. Johnson, Polygraph, Inc. Central Intelligence Agency Scott Kingsley, National Security Agency Director of Central Intelligence (Security Committee) Benjamin Kleinmuntz, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle Individuals Brian E. Lynch, Canadian Police College Lynn P. Marcy, American Polygraph Association Maynard Anderson, Department of Defense Paul K. Minor, Federal Bureau of Investigation Norman Ansley, National Security Agency L. D. Noland, Army Intelligence and Security Gordon H. Barland, Barland & Associates Command Antonio S. Barrio, Central Texas College System Jesse Orlansky, Institute for Defense Analysis Louise Becker, Congressional Research Service John A. Podlesny, Federal Bureau of Investigation William H. Bell, Department of Defense Roland Radloff, National Science Foundation B. F. Bloomingburg, Naval Investigative Service Richard K. Riegelman, George Washington University Irv Boker, General Accounting Office Medical Center Robert A. Brisentine, Army Criminal Investigation John Roberts, Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts Command Robert Rosenthal, Harvard University Henry L. Canty, Consultant Akihiro Suzuki, Japanese Institute of Police Science Richard P. Clayberg, SRI International Julian J. Szucko, University of Illinois at Chicago Eileen Correa, Veterans Administration Medical Circle Center William A. Thomas, American Bar Foundation Ron Decker, Army Military Policy School Howard W. Timm, Southern Illinois University of Jack Donnelly, Department of Defense Carbondale William R. Fedor, Department of Defense H. Herbold Wooten, Institute of Applied Polygraph Michelle Fine, University of Pennsylvania Science Robert J. Gatchel, University of Texas at Dallas Lawrence S. Wrightsman, University of Kansas vi Contents Chapter Page 1. SUMMARY Introduction . 3 4. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF POLYGRAPH Federal Polygraph Use . 3 FIELD STUDIES . .47 Federal Polygraph Policy Changes . 3 Introduction . 47 Polygraph Validity. 4 Study Selection . 47 Findings . 4 Studies Excluded . .48 Personnel Security Screening . 4 Studies Included . 49 Criminal Investigations . 5 Coding . 51 False Negatives/Countermeasures . 5 Findings and Discussion . 51 False Positives . 5 Variation Among Studies. 52 Voluntary v. Involuntary. 6 Studies Using Panel Criterion Polygraph Theory . 6 and Examiners’ Decisions . 52 Further Research . 6 Studies Using Confession as a Criterion Chapter-by-Chapter Overview. 6 and Blind Evaluations . 54 Conclusions ..., . 7 Studies Using Judicial Outcomes and Original Examiners’ Results . 56 2. VARIETIES OF POLYGRAPH TESTING Other Considerations.. 56 AND USES . 11 Conclusions . 58 Introduction. 11 Polygraph Instrument . 11 5. REVIEWANDANALYSIS OF POLYGRAPH Types of Testing Procedures . 12 ANALOG STUDIES . 61 The Pretest Interview . 12 Introduction . 61 Types of Questions . 14 Characteristics of Analog Studies . 61 Polygraph Question Techniques . 17 Study Selection . 62 Post-Test Interview . 23 Description of Studies.. 65 Uses of Polygraph Testing . 23 Control Question Technique . 65 Current Use . 23 University of Utah Studies. 65 Conclusions . 25 Other Studies . 68 Concealed Information Tests . 72 3. CONTROVERSY OVER POLYGRAPH Lykken . 72 TESTING VALIDITY . 29 Davidson . 73 Introduction. 29 Podlesny and Raskin. 73 Judicial Reviews . 29 Giesenand Rollison. 73 Polygraph Findings as Evidence . 30 Balloun and Holmes . 74 Laws Regulating Polygraphs in Bradley and Janisse . 75 Employment Settings . 31 Time . 75 Federal Debate Over Polygraph Validity . 32 Preemployment Screening . 75 The 1960’s . 32 Correa and Adams . 75 The 1970’s . 34 Barland . 76 The1980’s . 35 Findings . 78 Draft Revisionsto DOD 521O.48 . 36 NSDD-84 . 36 6, FACTORS