The awkward truth about lie detectors
2012 08 02

By Tom Chivers | Telegraph.co.uk




Why are police forces trialling polygraph machines when many experts argue that they simply don’t work?


Polygraphs, the lie detector machines beloved of Fifties comic books and Jeremy Kyle shows, have a chequered history. American law‑enforcement agencies continue to use them, despite what critics claim is a lack of evidence that they actually work. Now our Government has announced plans to use them to help determine whether or not paedophiles and rapists should go back to jail.

The Ministry of Justice will allow probation officers to send paroled sex offenders back to prison if a polygraph finds they have been lying. This follows a pilot study by the University of Kent which found that offenders were twice as likely to offer “clinically significant disclosures” – such as an admission of entering an exclusion zone around a school – if they were subjected to polygraph tests.



This is the latest example of British law-enforcers adopting technologies and methods that many deride as flawed at best, pseudo-science at worst. Graphology (the study of handwriting to reveal personality), voice-stress analysis, even “mind-reading” magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines: all have been posited as methods for sorting the honest from the deceitful. And it is not just the police who have been seduced by these devices; the Department for Work and Pensions has used voice analysis in an attempt to detect benefits cheats.

Opponents of such technologies insist that the scientific evidence for their reliability is decidedly patchy. The MoJ programme has been criticised by Dr Sile Lane of the charity Sense About Science, who points to serious methodological flaws.

“The researchers downplay the bias of the observer, which surely should be a large concern since the research depended on offender managers deciding what was or wasn’t a clinically significant disclosure,” she says. The charity has published a paper, Sense About Lie Detectors, on the evidence and lack thereof for the techniques.

So how exactly is a lie detector supposed to work? And why are so many senior policemen and politicians apparently convinced of its effectiveness?

Polygraphs do not detect lies, but physiological proxies such as perspiration and heart rate. The technology relies on something called the Control Question Technique (CQT). The interrogator asks questions, some of which concern the incident under investigation, but also “control” questions which may, for example, be about other crimes, which the subject had nothing to do with, or more general stress-inducing questions like: “Have you ever lied to get out of trouble?”

The assumption is that guilty people will be more stressed when talking about real crimes than when answering the controls, and that innocent people will be equally stressed for both. Elevated responses that can be measured by a machine – such as faster heartbeat or increased perspiration (which increases electrical conductivity of the skin) – are taken as indicators of deception.

However, it’s difficult to be sure that these physiological changes are not indicators of stress that has no roots in guilt: understandably, someone being accused of lying to their probation officer can find themselves getting stressed very rapidly.

Dr Jamie Horder of King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry says that studying the effectiveness of polygraph technology is very difficult. “There have been studies in which you instruct some volunteers to try to conceal something, and you pay them if they are successful. But the problem is that the stakes are so small. You get maybe £20 or £50 if you beat [the machine], but in real life the stakes are much higher. And because the whole thing is based on emotion and stress, that’s really important.”

In fact it is possible to test the efficacy of polygraphs, but the trouble is such experiments are rare – at least according to Richard Wiseman, professor of the public understanding of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire. Because you can’t simply ask a criminal whether he was lying or not, the only method would be to use polygraphs in cases where the true answer had already been established using other evidence. Then it would be possible to check the polygraph’s responses against reality in a high-stakes situation. “If the examiner was unaware of the true answers, then that would be a proper double-blind scientific study. But there have been very few trials like that,” says Prof Wiseman.

From what evidence there is, he adds that “the polygraph seems to be very good at catching liars. But it seems very likely to give false positives as well, to ’catch’ people who are telling the truth”.

Horder agrees, pointing to research which found that polygraphs were “70-97 per cent accurate for people who turned out to be guilty, but between 12-94 per cent accurate for people who turned out to be innocent.”

Clearly, reliance on lie detectors makes it more probable that the innocent will be wrongly convicted. Furthermore, criminals can beat the test. “If you make yourself stressed for the control questions, then your stress on the investigative questions may not show up,” says Horder. “Methods include causing physical pain, say biting your tongue, or simply thinking about something stressful.”

Despite the apparent ease with which it can be subverted, use of the polygraph is becoming routinely accepted in Britain. Since 2002, police forces in Surrey, Northumberland, the East and West Midlands, Sussex, Devon, Lancashire, London and Hertfordshire have run trials of polygraph tests on sex offenders. “It’s remarkable how it’s kept cropping up,” says Horder. “It seems that once a year or so some service would trial it, then nothing much would happen, then a year later it would be trialled somewhere else.”

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) confirmed that polygraph tests may be considered for use by police, saying that they could become “another tool” for the management of sex offenders, and their introduction will be discussed at a conference in September.

Why does this apparently flawed technology refuse to die? Partly it’s our fascination with gadgets: “We use technology for so much nowadays that it would make sense to apply it to lying. And it would be great if it worked. But it would have been great in the Fifties, too; it didn’t work then, and it doesn’t work now,” says Prof Wiseman. And yet enthusiasts and pressure groups keep pushing it?

“The uncharitable explanation would be that they kept trying until they convinced someone,” says Dr Horder. However, a more reasonable explanation is that even if it can’t detect lies, some believe that the polygraph may encourage honesty. In social psychology, it’s called a “bogus pipeline to the truth”.

“The pilot study found that the lie detector tests led to offenders being more honest with their offender managers,” a Ministry of Justice spokesman told The Daily Telegraph. Fans of The Wire will be familiar with this principle: detectives on the show trick a suspect into confessing by pretending a photocopier is a polygraph.

Regardless of whether or not this is the case, is this an acceptable way for the legal system to act? “You’re trying to detect deception by using deception,” says Horder. “Ethically, opinions will differ, but it’s murky with regard to legal principles like entrapment. And why stop at a lie detector? Why not a magic wand?”

[...]

Read the full article at: telegraph.co.uk





Also tune into Red Ice Radio:

Bruce Lipton - The Biology of Belief

Lynne McTaggart - The Intention Experiment

Paul Levy - George W Bush & our Collective Psychosis

Sonia Barrett - Destiny, Time, Space, Belief & Transcending the Levels of Programming





Related Articles
Covering-Up Government Lies (What Else?)
"Believing Is Seeing": Truth, lies and photographs
10 Psychological States You’ve Never Heard Of… and When You Experienced Them
Do Me A Favor So You’ll Like Me: The Reverse Psychology of Likeability
School cafeterias to try psychology in lunch line
The Psychology of Conspiracy Denial
Psychological warfare campaign rages under the radar
Why Psychologists Are Infinitely More Dangerous Than Conspiracy Theorists
Terrorist "pre-crime" detector field tested in United States
UK government promoted useless ’bomb detectors’
Brain scans being misused as lie detectors, experts say


Latest News from our Front Page

Detekt: A New Malware Detection Tool That Can Expose Illegitimate State Surveillance
2014 11 21
Recent years have seen a boom in the adoption of surveillance technology by governments around the world, including spyware that provides its purchasers the unchecked ability to target remote Internet users’ computers, to read their personal emails, listen in on private audio calls, record keystrokes and passwords, and remotely activate their computer’s camera or microphone. EFF, together with Amnesty International, ...
New UK spy chief says tech giants aid terrorism, privacy not ‘absolute right’
2014 11 21
Robert Hannigan, the new head of GCHQ The new head of Britain’s GCHQ, the UK equivalent of the NSA in the U.S., said he believes privacy is not an absolute right and that tech giants must open themselves up to intelligence agencies. “GCHQ is happy to be part of a mature debate on privacy in the digital age,” Hannigan said. “But privacy ...
LOL: Atheist Feminist Pornographer Used as Moral Authority in T-shirt Row
2014 11 21
Dr. Matt Taylor was thrust into the headlines this last week, largely for his lead role in successfully landing a spacecraft on a comet 300 million miles from earth that travels at a speed of 85,000 mph. In short, Taylor and his colleagues pulled off one of the most amazing achievements in contemporary science and space exploration, and in a ...
Forty Years that Unmade France
2014 11 21
Eric Zemmour is a well-known French author and television personality. Of Algerian-Jewish origin, he may seem an unlikely spokesman for French tradition, but he has emerged in recent years as a prominent scourge of ideological orthodoxy. He is unquestionably the most prominent mainstream French commentator who speaks candidly about race. Eric Zemmour This role comes with a price. In 2011 he was ...
Richard Spencer Under Fire
2014 11 21
The Flathead Beacon has a story on the mobbing of Richard Spencer consequent to the publicity over the Budapest conference. The city council is being asked to “an ordinance barring hate-group activities in the community.” As several of the comments note, the First Amendment seems to be of no concern to these activists. The article is interesting ...
More News »