Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice VOLUME 46 2017 NUMBER 1 Contents A Not so Bogus Pipeline: A Study of the Bogus Pipeline Effect and Its 1 Implications for Polygraph Testing Elizabeth Elliott, Vincent Egan and Don Grubin The Effect of Questions on Suspects’ Perception of Evidence in Investigative 10 Interviews: What Can We Infer from the Basic Literature? Laure Brimbal, Maria Hartwig, and Angela M. Crossman Assessing Polygraph Accuracy; The Importance of Choosing an Evaluation 40 Technique Which Is Compatible with the Way the Examinations Were Conducted Avital Ginton The Use of Polygraph Testing for Theft Investigation in Private Sector 44 Institutions Laura Pérez-Campos Mayoral, Eduardo Pérez-Campos Mayoral Gabriel Mayoral Andrade, Carlos Perezcampos Mayoral, Rocío Martínez Helmes, Eduardo Pérez-Campos Bayesian Probabilities of Deception and Truth-telling for Single and Repeated 53 Polygraph Examinations Raymond Nelson and Finley Turner Published Semi-annually © American Polygraph Association, 2017 P.O. Box 8037, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37414-0037 Polygraph Editor-in-Chief: Mark Handler E-mail: [email protected] Managing Editor: Nayeli Hernandez E-mail: [email protected] ****** Associate Editors: Réjean Belley, Ben Blalock, Tyler Blondi, John Galianos, Don Grubin, Maria Hartwig, Charles Honts, Matt Hicks, Scott Hoffman, Don Krapohl, Thomas Kuczek, Mike Lynch, Ray Nelson, Adam Park, David Raskin, and Stuart Senter. APA Officers for 2016 – 2017 President – J. Patrick O'Burke Director 6 – Darryl Starks E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] President Elect – Jamie McCloughan Director 7 – Gary F. Davis E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Chairman – Walt Goodson Director 8 – Dan Violette E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Director 1 – Barry Cushman Treasurer – Chad Russell 109 Middle Street E-mail: [email protected] Portland, ME 04101 E-mail: [email protected] General Counsel – Gordon L. Vaughan E-mail: [email protected] Director 2 – Raymond Nelson E-mail: [email protected] Seminar Chair – Michael Gougler E-mail: [email protected] Director 3 – George Baranowski 1912 E US Hwy 20, Suite 202 National Officer Manager – Lisa Jacocks Michigan City, IN 46340 Phone: 800-APA-8037; (423)892-3992 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Director 4 – Sabino Martinez Assistant Office Manager – Stephanie Prairie E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Director 5 – Steve Duncan E-mail: [email protected] Subscription information: Polygraph is published semi-annually by the American Polygraph Association. Editorial Address is [email protected]. Subscription rates for 2017: One year $150.00 (Domestic), $180.00 (Foreign). Change of address: APA National Office, P.O. Box 8037 Chattanooga, TN 37414-0037. THE PUBLICATION OF AN ARTICLE IN POLYGRAPH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT BY THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. ©American Polygraph Association, 2017 Instructions to Authors Scope exercise some freedom of style, but they will be held to a standard of clarity, The journal Polygraph publishes organization, and accuracy. Authors are articles about the psychophysiological responsible for assuring their work includes detection of deception, and related areas. correct citations. Consistent with the Authors are invited to submit manuscripts ethical standards of the discipline, the of original research, literature reviews, legal American Polygraph Association considers briefs, theoretical papers, instructional quotation of another’s work without proper pieces, case histories, book reviews, short citation a grievous offense. The standard for reports, and similar works. Special topics nomenclature shall be the Terminology will be considered on an individual basis. A Reference for the Science of Psycho- minimum standard for acceptance is that physiological Detection of Deception (2012) the paper be of general interest to which is available from the national office of practitioners, instructors and researchers of the American Polygraph Association. Legal polygraphy. From time to time there will be case citations should follow the West a call for papers on specific topics. system. Manuscript Submission Manuscript Review Manuscripts must be in English, and An Associate Editor will handle may be submitted, along with a cover letter, papers, and the author may, at the on electronic media (MS Word). The cover discretion of the Associate Editor, letter should include a telephone number, communicate directly with him or her. For and e-mail address. All manuscripts will be all submissions, every effort will be made to subject to a formal peer-review. Authors provide the author a review within 4 weeks may submit their manuscripts as an e-mail of receipt of manuscript. Articles submitted attachment with the cover letter included in for publication are evaluated according to the body of the e-mail to: several criteria including significance of the contribution to the polygraph field, clarity, [email protected] accuracy, and consistency. As a condition of publication, Copyright authors agree that all text, figures, or other content in the submitted manuscript is Authors submitting a paper to the correctly cited, and that the work, all or in American Polygraph Association (APA) do so part, is not under consideration for with the understanding that the copyright publication elsewhere. Authors also agree to for the paper will be assigned to the give reasonable access to their data to APA American Polygraph Association if the paper members upon written request. is accepted for publication. The APA, however, will not put any limitation on the Manuscript Organization and Style personal freedom of the author(s) to use material contained in the paper in other All manuscripts must be complete, works, and request for republication will be balanced, and accurate. Authors should granted if the senior author approves. follow guidelines in the Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association. The manual can be found in most public and university libraries, or it can be ordered from: American Psychological Association Publications, 1200 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, USA. Writers may Greetings from the Editor’s Desk As you probably noticed, the name of the APA peer-reviewed journal has been changed to Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice. The board unanimously voted this change to reflect the increased scope of the journal. Our goal is to seek credibility assessment contributions beyond those related solely to polygraph. As credibility assessment professionals, our goal should be to assist end-users and consumers of polygraph in their decision-making processes. To that end, our board felt we should expand the journal content, and I heartily agree. We hope you find the expanded scope useful and educational. As always we are humbled by the trust placed in us. Sincerely, Mark Handler Editor and Nayeli Hernandez Managing Editor. A Study of the Bogus Pipeline Effect and Its Implications for Polygraph Testing A Not So Bogus Pipeline: A Study of the Bogus Pipeline Effect And Its Implications for Polygraph Testing Elizabeth Elliott, Vincent Egan and Don Grubin The University of Nottingham School of Medicine Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology Nottingham, United Kingdom Abstract Purpose The Bogus Pipeline effect refers to a procedure in which individuals are made to believe that their responses to questions will be independently verified by an infallible lie detector, resulting in an associated reduction in socially desirable responses. Polygraph testing is known to elicit increased disclosure by examinees, which some critics claim is an example of this effect. We explored whether a bogus lie detector said to have just 75% accuracy (a level below that of polygraph testing) would be as effective in eliciting disclosures as a 100% accurate lie detector when participants were questioned about cheating in a competition. Method Participants took part in tasks as part of a group, with the winning group receiving £500 to donate to a charity. Each group contained a confederate who cheated on one of the tasks. Partic- ipant later returned for a debrief, during which they were asked about cheating within the group. Each was randomized to one of three conditions: one in which they were questioned with the aid of an apparatus they were told was a nearly 100% accurate lie detector, one with a 75% accurate ‘lie detector’ was used, and a control condition. Results A significantly larger proportion of participants in both bogus lie detector conditions than in the control condition disclosed cheating by a group member, but there was no significant difference between the two bogus pipeline groups. Conclusion The bogus pipeline effect may not be bogus after all. Keywords: Bogus pipeline; disclosure; lie detection Introduction In some settings such as pre-employment screening and sex offender management, this Proponents of polygraph testing often ‘utility’ aspect of the procedure is sometimes maintain that one of its most beneficial as- said to be as important as its accuracy. Crit- pects of the paradigm is the way in which it ics, however, argue that the effect may simply facilitates the disclosure of large amounts of reflect