along a heavily traveled road. The suspect was placed in a jeep and attached to a battery-
operated polygraph instrument. The examiner monitored the psychophysiological reactions
of the suspected terrorist as the jeep slowly was driven down the road. Only the suspect
knew where he had planted the bomb, and as the jeep moved closer to that location, the
suspect’s psychophysiological reactions gave the examiner the answer to the approximate
location of the deadly device. This type of format has been used successfully to identify
locations, accomplices, number of crimes, and so on. Because the examiner is not absolutely
sure he has the correct item in the questions asked, the examination usually ends with an
all-inclusive question – for example, “Do you know if that body is in a location I have
not mentioned?”
The other major group of polygraph techniques in use today are categorized as “lie
tests.” This group of tests falls into two categories: noncomparison question techniques
and comparison question techniques. In the first category we have the irrelevant-relevant
technique and the relevant-relevant technique. In the comparison question technique, there
are two major groups, which have developed from the works of John E. Reid and Cleve
Backster.
The irrelevant-relevant technique is credited to the work of Keeler and Larson. This for-
mat consists of a mixture of “irrelevant” and “relevant” questions. Basically, the irrelevant
questions were used to establish a person’s normal or tonic level. If the reactions to the rel-
evant questions did not deviate from this tonic level, the suspect was determined to be
truthful. If the reactions to the relevant questions were significantly greater than those to
the irrelevant questions, the suspect was determined to be deceptive.
This technique lacked questions to determine whether the suspect was capable of physi-
ological reaction, and therefore sometimes gave false negative results: deceptive suspects
were incorrectly determined to be truthful. On the other hand, when suspects failed the test,
302
21. THE INSTRUMENTAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION: POLYGRAPH
it was hard to explain why this would be surprising, because even innocent suspects would
perceive the relevant questions in the examination to be more threatening than irrelevant
questions. For example, why wouldn’t a suspect in a crime react more strongly to “Did
you shoot that man?” than to “Is today Monday?” even if he was innocent? This
technique is rarely used in criminal testing today; however, variations of it are still used
for screening tests.
The relevant-relevant technique is mainly for screening type examinations. A screening
examination is classified as a “multi-issue” examination. In these examinations the relevant
questions deal with a variety of issues. For example: As an adult, have you committed a
serious undetected crime? As an adult, have you had any involvement with illegal drugs?
As an adult, have you been fired from a job? As an adult, in any one day, have you stolen
more than $50 from a place of employment? Because failing any of these questions could
result in the applicant’s disqualification, they all have the same emotional weight. There-
fore, there would be no reason why one or more of these questions would result in consis-
tently stronger physiological reactions than others, unless the examinee was withholding
information concerning this area of inquiry.
John Reid was initially trained by Leonarde Keeler in the relevant-irrelevant technique.
Around 1947, he published research on a new type of question he added to the technique he
was taught, which he called the “comparative response question.” Reid described this question
as a question broad in scope, similar but less severe than the matter under investigation. Its
frame of reference dealt with something everyone has probably done in their lifetime; how-
ever, because of the current situation and the examiner’s method of introducing the question,
most examinees would deny they had ever done this act. In doing so, they probably lied or
were unsure of the veracity of their answer. Thus, for the innocent suspect this question posed
greater concern and resulted in greater physiological reactions than did the relevant question.
The comparative response question solved both problems inherent in the relevant-
irrelevant technique: it placed a question in the format that showed the examinee had the
capability to physiologically react, even if he showed no reactions to the relevant questions.
It also introduced a question of greater salience or threat to draw the focus from the rele-
vant test questions for the innocent examinee.
Reid’s technique is referred to as the Reid General Question technique. Today it is a four
relevant question format, with two comparison questions:
1. Irrelevant
Is your first name William?
2. Irrelevant
Is today Monday?
3. Relevant
Did you remove that missing deposit from that safe?
4. Irrelevant
Were you born in August?
5. Relevant
Did you take that missing deposit?
6. Comparison
In your entire life, did you ever steal anything?
7. Irrelevant
Were you born in Philadelphia?
8. Relevant
Were those your fingerprints on that safe?
9. Relevant
Do you know for sure who took that missing deposit?
10. Comparison
In your entire life did you ever do anything at a job you could be fired for?
Other techniques that stemmed from Reid’s were the Arther Known Lie Test, the Mod-
ified or Military General Question Technique (MGQT), and the Marcy Technique.
21. THE INSTRUMENTAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION: POLYGRAPH
303
In the 1960s, Cleve Backster introduced the Tri-Zone Comparison Technique. This had
some major differences from existing techniques. Backster’s “Tri-Zone” referred to three
zones he established within his test. Backster color coded these zones: relevant questions
were coded red, comparison questions were coded green, and a new type of question,
which he identified as a “symptomatic question,” was color coded black. A polygraph
examination according to Backster was a test that monitored the examinee’s flow of psycho-
logical set. The “red zone” was there to draw the focus of the guilty examinee. The “green
zone” was there to draw the focus of the innocent examinee. The “black zone” was there to
show that the examinee trusted the examiner and was not worried about surprise ques-
tions. It showed that the examinee was capable of focusing on those questions in the test
that held the greatest threat or salience.
Backster also recognized that it would be beneficial in reducing false positives (inno-
cent examinees incorrectly diagnosed as deceptive) for the comparison questions to be
asked before the relevant questions. He also introduced the concept of “spot analysis.”
It was his belief that comparison questions and relevant questions should be next to
each other in the format, in the same time period of the test, to ensure that the examinee’s
ability to physiologically react to questions was not affected by habit
uation or any
waning effects on physiology as the test went on. Based on Backster’s theories and
formatting ideas, research has shown that the zone techniques are the most accurate of
the “lie tests.”
Irrelevant
13. Is your first name Nathan?
Symptomatic
25. Do you believe me when I promise not to ask a question in this test
I have not gone over word for word?
Sacrifice Relevant
39. Regarding whether you took that missing deposit, do you intend to
answer each question truthfully about that?
Comparison
46. Between the ages of 25 and 32, did you ever steal anything?
Relevant
33. Did you take that missing deposit?
Comparison
47. During the first 25 years of your life, did you ever steal anything?
Relevant
35. Regarding that missing deposit, did you take it?
Comparison
48. During the first 32 years of your life, did you ever steal anything?
Optional Relevant
37. Were you the person that took that missing deposit?
Symptomatic
26. Even though I promised I would not, are you afraid I will
ask you a question in this test I have not gone over word for
word?
Backster innovated three variations of his zone technique. The foregoing example is the
Backster “You Phase,” which is a “single-issue” format – “Did you do it?” The “Backster
S-K-Y” asks the questions: “Do you suspect anyone in particular of taking that missing
deposit?” with “Do you know for sure who took that missing deposit?” with “Did you take
that missing deposit?” This was primarily used when there were multiple suspects who
knew each other, and allowed a question for innocent suspects to vent their suspicions,
rather than react to relevant questions about knowledge. “Backster’s Exploratory” is a
multiple-issue technique that utilizes three relevant questions about different issues and
is primarily used in pre-employment screening.
304
21. THE INSTRUMENTAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION: POLYGRAPH
Several techniques were developed from Backster’s zone: the Military Zone Comparison
Technique (MZCT), Utah Zone Comparison Technique, Matte Quadra-Trak, Air Force
General Question Technique (AFMGQT), and Integrated Zone Comparison Technique
(IZCT).
The Matte Quadra-Trak introduced a new concept: the inside issue. Matte (Figure 21.3)
believed a primary reason for false positives was the innocent examinee’s fear of error.
He replaced the last comparison-relevant set of questions in the Backster format (C48 and
R37) with his inside issue questions. Comparison 48 became Comparison 23: “Are you
afraid I will make an error in this test concerning whether you took that missing deposit?”
Relevant question 37 became Relevant question 24: “Are you hoping I will make an error
in this test concerning whether you took that missing deposit?” Matte theorized that every
truthful suspect would focus on C23, because of their fear of error, and every deceptive
suspect would react to R24, because they were hoping for an error. One advantage of this
question set is that both the comparison and relevant questions contained the same words
about the crime. In tests where relevant questions have very sensitive wording or deal with
very emotional issues, this may be very important in minimizing false positives. In a case
where a father is accused of having his 5-year-old daughter perform oral sex on him, you
can imagine the emotionality involved in even an innocent examinee having to answer
the question, “Did you stick your penis in your daughter’s mouth?” In Matte’s test C23
would be, “Are you afraid I will make an error in this test concerning whether or not
you stuck your penis in your daughter’s mouth?” R24 would be, “Are you hoping I will
make an error in this test concerning whether or not you stuck your penis in your daugh-
ter’s mouth?” As you can see, the sensitive wording is now in both the Comparison and
Relevant questions, and any reactions due solely to the wording of the question should
be negated.
FIGURE 21.3 James Allan Matte.
21. THE INSTRUMENTAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION: POLYGRAPH
305
In the AFMQT, they have taken the four relevant questions from the Reid GQT and the
military’s MGQT and placed them into a better format: a zone. They eliminated the two symp-
tomatic questions from Backster’s zone to make room for a fourth “Comparison-Relevant”
set.
Irrelevant
1. Is your first name Nathan?
Sacrifice
2. Regarding whether you took that missing deposit, do you intend to
Relevant
answer each question truthfully about that?
Comparison
3. During the first 25 years of your life, did you ever steal anything?
Relevant
4. Did you remove that deposit from that safe?
Comparison
5. In high school, did you ever cheat?
Relevant
6. Yesterday, did you take that missing deposit?
Comparison
7. Prior to 2006, did you ever steal from someone who trusted you?
Relevant
8. Were those your fingerprints on that safe?
Comparison
9. Prior to 2006, did you ever do anything you could be fired for?
Relevant
10. Do you know for sure who took that missing deposit?
The “Integrated Zone Comparison Technique” was developed at the Academy for Scien-
tific Investigative Training in the 1980s. It was designed to give examiners the flexibility of
doing a single-issue, multifaceted, or multi-issue test, while using the same question format.
A single-issue examination is where all relevant questions deal with exactly the same
issue: “Did you shoot John?” “Regarding John, did you shoot him?” “Last night, were
you the person who shot John?” A multifaceted test is where all of the relevant questions
deal with the same crime, but with different aspects of it: “Did you conspire with anyone
to shoot John?” “Did you shoot John?” “Were you present when John was shot?” A
multi-issue test is where all of the relevant questions have no connection to each other:
“As an adult, have you had any involvement with illegal drugs?” “As an adult, have you
committed a serious undetected crime?” “As an adult, have you been fired from a job?”
Some changes were made in the Integrated Zone from the Backster Zone:
• One easily introduced symptomatic question: “Do you understand I will only ask the
questions I reviewed?” The authors found the traditional wording of the symptomatic
question too cumbersome. The authors also found that the introduction of two symptomatic
questions sometimes actually created an outside issue for the examinee.
• A sacrifice relevant question that allows the examinee to self-direct to the zone,
comparison or relevant, which holds the greatest threat: “Do you intend to deliberately
lie to any test question?” The authors believe Backster was right when he theorized that
formats that are comparison-relevant reduced the false positives that occurred when
the format was relevant-comparison. The art of polygraph
is getting truthful people to
pass the test. Allowing the innocent person to hear his threat first actually reduces their
ability to react to the relevant question that follows. By asking the sacrifice relevant
question (“Regarding whether you took that missing deposit, do you intend to answer
each question truthfully?”) the authors believe you are actually running the chart as a
relevant-comparison sequence in the mind and subsequent physiological responses of
the examinee. True, the question is not used for determining truth or deception,
however, whatever reactions it causes effect the examinee’s ability to react to the next
306
21. THE INSTRUMENTAL DETECTION OF DECEPTION: POLYGRAPH
question in the sequence, which is a comparison question. Also, the traditional sacrifice
relevant question focuses the examinee only on the relevant questions. In the IZCT the
sacrifice relevant question (“Do you intend to lie to any test question?”) allows the
examinee to self-direct to the questions in the test that cause the greatest concerns.
When used in the front of the test it is always followed by an irrelevant question, to
reestablish normal physiology before the comparison and relevant questions are asked.
• Extra irrelevant questions are built in to be used to reestablish a norm, or check for
countermeasures.
• A countermeasure question: “Did you deliberately do anything to try and beat this test?”
This question was used to bring the examinee out of the test and to prevent physiological
relief from occurring to the last relevant question. Although not used in the assessment of
data to determine truth or deception, it became an important question for the examiner to
support the belief that the examinee was attempting to deliberately distort the data.
The IZCT also differs in its actual application. First the examinee is informed of his rights
and the voluntariness of the examination. A consent form is then signed. The examiner then
asks background questions to find commonality with the examinee and gain rapport. Ques-
tions are then asked to ensure that the examinee is mentally and physically capable of
undergoing the procedure. The examinee is then interviewed utilizing the FAINT form,
pre-employment screening booklet, and so on.
At the completion of the interview, the examinee is asked how he prepared for the exam-
Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Page 45