l“: I'VE-Yum" '1‘ “I l “I ‘nl ‘I ,— " $-qu unruy- ,. AND PERSONNEL SCREENING ------ . Thesis 1% 1119 Degree 01 M S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Charles D Gooch 1-964 ‘ ' AN INQDIH! INTO THE USE OF THE POLIGEAPH IN APPLICANT EVALUATION AND PERSONNEL SCREENING / By ‘r;' L Charles D} Goooh AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS' sabmitted to the College of Social Science Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement. for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 196a APPROVED: O ‘(ChafimanI (gemberj (Member) ABSTRACT AN INQUIRY INTO THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH IN APPLICANT EVALUATION AND PERSONNEL SCREENING By Charles D. Gooch The purpose of this thesis is to inquire into the use of the polygraph to determine whether or not it is a worth- while aid to the administrator in applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screening. To obtain results with the desired objedtivity, the questionnaire technique was utilized as the principal means of collecting data. The information collected was composed of comments from management, labor, and independent commercial polygraph consulting firms. Com— ments were solicited from organizations that opposed as well as favored the use of the polygraph as a screening device. Since the thesis is oriented toward police Operations, a system adaptable to a police organization is proposed. The proposed system takes into account manpower, facilities and equipment, and itemizes costs. The material contains a sam- ple of questioning procedures to be followed by an examiner. Some administrators who responded to the questionnaire, and who utilized the polygraph as an aid in their screening program, felt that the instrument was a very definite asset. Charles D. Gooch There were others, however, who violently objected to its use based upon equally strong convictions. Administrators who neither endorsed nor Opposed its use were in the major- ity. Apparently, they were content with the screening system that now exists within their respective organizations and have given little, or no serious consideration, to utilizing the polygraph. I It is concluded that, when preperly employed, the polygraph is a valuable aid to the administrator in applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screening. In addition, I, the evidence-indicates it can be used as an aid in solving conflicts that may arise between the employee and the organization. The study discloses a need for polygraph examiners to take action to increase the professional standards of their services. Higher standards for qualification, combined with regulations to govern the conduct of an examiner and author~ ity for their enforcement, are necessary to enable the vocation to achieve its maximum potential. AN INQUIRY INTO THE USE OF THE POLMGRAPH IN APPLICANT EVALUATION AND PERSONNEL SCREENING \ By I r" I" 0 Charles Djibooch A THESIS Submitted to the College of Social Science Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 196“ ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer is indebted to Chief Warrant Officer Robert L. Berry, United States Army, for his assistance in compiling the numerous reference materials. His per- sonal library of correspondence, periodicals, and text;‘ books made the task of research much easier. His assistance toward development of the completed work greatly enhanced\ its contents. A proposed system for law enforcement agencies would not have been possible without his expert guidance. His many years of eXperience as a polygraph examiner and as a teacher of the instrument qualified him as a worthy con- sultant. Sincere appreciation is expressed to Mr. John Vander- ford, educational consultant at the United States Army Military Police School. ”His keen interest and desire to assist made the task of submitting a mechanically accept- able thesis much easier. Lasting gratitude is due to Staff Sergeant Clarence E. Long and his staff at the reproductions facility at the Military Police School for layout of the figures and print- ing extra cOpies of the thesis. I Sincere thanks are extended to Professor Frank D. Day and the other members of my thesis committee for encouraging iii me to go ahead with my research and for the many constructive comments made during the preparation of the thesis. Lastly, my deepest appreciation is expressed to my wife Mary and son Doug for their steadfast patience during my many days and nights of research and writing. Their reassuring encouragement and spirited cooperation contri- buted greatly to the completion of this work. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER . PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Problem . . . .’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . 2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 4 Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . 5 Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis . 6 Definition of Terms Used . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 History of Lie Detection . . . . . . . . . 11 History of Screening . . . . . . . . . . . 15 II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN POLKGRAPH OPERATION . . . 18 Examiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Polygraph Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Required Conditions and Surroundings . . . . . 22 III. LIE DETECTION SYSTEMS THAT ARE GENERALLY EMPLOYED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOB SCREENING PURPOSES AND COSTS INVOLVED . . . . . . . . . 31 Systems Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Costs Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3“ cmmm Iv. RESULTS OBTAINED RI USERS OF THE POLIGRAPH IN APPLICANT EVALUATION AND PERSONNEL SCREENING Police and Security Organizations Commercial Organizations V. OPPOSITION . . . . . . . . Labor Unions . . . . . . . Law Enforcement and Security Other Opposition . . . . .* VI. A PROPOSED SYSTEM FOR USE IN A AGENCY . . . . . . . . . The Overall System . . . . The Polygraphic Evaluation ' Background Area COvered Preliminary Preparations Pretest Interview . . . Testing Phase . . . . . Post-Test Interview . . Report . . . . . . . . Cost . . . . . . . . . . VII. .SUHMARI AND CONCLUSIONS . a BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. Test Questions Covering Critical Areas . . PAGE 36 36 #7 5h 5h 56 w 59 63 64 66 66 6? 67 69 7O 7O 71 73 85 camm APPENDIX 3. vi PACE Specific Test Questions Covering the Twenty Critical Areas . . . . . . . . . 88 Police Agencies and Departments to Which Questionnaires Were Sent . . . . 109 State Police Agencies.Replying to Questionnaire That Do Not UEe the Polygraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Municipal Police Departments Replying to Questionnaire That Do Not Use the Polygraph . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 117 Questionnaire Sent to Consultant Firms . 123./ Questionnaire Sent to Police Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Associated Research (Keeler) "Positive Pattern” Polygraph, Model 6303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2. Associated Research (Keeler) Transistorized Portable Polygraph, Model 651? . ... . . . . . . 27 3. Stoelting Transistor "Interrograph," Model 22530 . 28 4. Stoelting "Deceptograph," Model 22500 . . . . . . . 29 5. Polygraph Examination Room with Observation 'Room Recommended by the United States Army Military Police School . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One can hardly read the newspaper, listen to a radio broadcast, or view a television program today without being exposed to an account of a subject's having "flunked" or "passed" a polygraph or lie-detector examination. Policemen, employees of commercial firms, athletic coaches, athletes, and representatives from other walks of life are frequently named for having taken or requested permission to take a polygraph examination to establish their freedom from guilt or involvement in sOme "scandal" or "fix." Despite widespread use of the polygraph, mystery has created in the minds of some people complete hostility to its use. Others think Of it as the absolute answer in detecting innocence or guilt. NO known intensive efforts have been made to clarify for the administrators of commer— cial firms as well as those in the police field the capa— bilities and limitations of the polygraph instrument or the qualifications and capabilities of a competent examiner-— the real lie detector. I. THE PROBLEM Statement 9: the Problem. The polygraph has been used for at least thirty years by commercial firms and police organizations in their applicant evaluation and personnel screening programs. Outstanding results have been reported extolling its merits. Yet despite the success achieved by police administrators in applicant evaluation and the com- mercial firms in both applicant evaluation and periodic per- sonnel screening, the polygraph has not been asgenerally accepted as one might think after reading literature pFEIEIHg its merits. Questions logically arise as to whether or not the polygraph really has merit when used as an aid in the screening program. Is the instrument, as well as the techniques, advanced enough to be considered as a useful tool in the management program in light of current profes- sional standards necessary for public acceptance? If the answer is yes, then the task of the administrator in his applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screening pro- gram should become less difficult and concurrently produce results contributing toward a more efficient organization. Purpose. It was the purpose of this study (1) to determine the extent of use of the polygraph for applicant evaluation and personnel screening in commercial firms and police departments with emphasis on the latter; (2) to explore the polygraph systems utilized by police departments and com- mercial firms; (3)»to compare and evaluate these systems; (h) and to provide the police administrator primarily with a polygraph system that could be utilized in initiating a polygraph screening program. §ggp_. The scope of this study encompasses only the non-technical aspects of the polygraph instrument. Its application as an aid in applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screening, not its mechanical functioning, is the principal tOpic of discussion. A brief history of the polygraph is considered neces- sary to acquaint the reader with its development. Only those .persons considered to be the most instrumental in its development are included. I To achieve a sought-after degree of objectivity, the arguments offered by the Opposition to the use Of the poly- graph for applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screen- ing must be heard. It is emphasized that every effort was made to present the arguments offered by those who Opposed its use for screening purposes. However, a deliberate effort was made to avoid personal comment on the arguments advanced by both the prOponents and Opponents regarding the legal implications of its use. The intent of the study was to inquire into its use and not somuch into its legality. The questioning techniques that are used in polygraph examinations are perhaps the most misunderstood of any other aspects of its use. Therefore, a sample listing of questions is considered necessary to acquaint the reader with those that could be asked an applicant. As the title of the thesis implies, a survey into the use of the polygraph for screening purposes is necessary to determine whether or not the system is being accepted and utilized. Because of the hesitancy of consultant firms to identify by name the customers who employ their services, few specifiic commercial organizations are listed by name. Impgrtange Q: the Study. It is reasonable to assume that much of the controversy that exists over the use of the polygraph for screening purposes has come about because of the conflicting arguments that have appeared in all forms of news media. These conflicting arguments have-placed the administrator in'a position of not so much deciding whether or not the use of the polygraph for screening purposes will assist his own program but whether or not the polygraph has any merit at all as a screening device.- Seldom has there been an objective-type study made with the specific intent to inform the administrator of the use of the polygraph solely for screening purposes. The author is not aware of any study that is available to the administrator in which a detailed discussion of the polygrafiiexamination, to include a sample listing of questions that could be asked, is pre- sented. This study has been conducted to assemble the 5 available information for analySis so that the administrator may be better prepared to make a decision regarding its use. In addition, it will furnish him with enough information on the pPOper utilization of the polygraph so that he will be in a better position to appraise its merits. EQIAQE.D£.IDQ.L1I§IE&N£§. The literature pertaining to the utilization of the polygraph for screening purposes has been primarily limited to the police field. Excellent textbooks have been published which explain in detail the mechanics of polygraph Operation. Some of these are Lie Detection and Eriminal Inteznggatign by Inbau and Reid; TDEWWt onamticnbyC.D.Lee; and Agggemy,geg§ure§,gn,gie Detection, Volumes I and II, edited by V. A. Leonard. However, none are known to exist which pertain only to screening procedures. Periodicals contain- ing articles relating to psychology, criminology, and police science are the only media available which discuss the sub- ject. A majority of these articles have been written by persons who depend upon their use of the polygraph as a means of livelihood. Therefore, the questionnaire was resorted to as a major source of information. The ques- tionnaires, coupled with personal conversations with busi- ness executives, civilian police administrators, and military police officers attending the United States Army Military Police School at Fort Gordon, Georgia, provided an excellent sampling of different points of view. II. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE THESIS Chapter I. The content of this thesis has been divided into seven chapters. The preceding portiOn of Chapter I has served to introduce the subject to the reader, present the problem, and to impart the significance and importance of the study. The remainder of this chapter contains a listing of words and their definition as they apply to the polygraph fiéld. A brief discussion of the history Of the polygraph instrument as well as a resume of its use for screening pur- poses concludes Chapter I. ,Only those historical accounts considered necessary to provide the reader with general information of their development were included. Chapter 11. Chapter II contains a discussion of the polygraph instrument and the examiner. Personal qualifica- tions of the examiner involving education, training, and utilization are discussed. The polygraph instrument, psy- chological conditions, and physical surroundings required for its most effective use are reviewed. Figures dipicting polygraph instruments that contain three major data trans- mitting components plus a drawing of an examination room .concludes the chapter. th2&12.111x The systems that are generally employed plus the costs for these systems are examined in Chapter III. Commercial firms employing their own examiners, consultant polygraph firms, and police departments are included. The average cost reported by each of conducting an examination is submitted. Chapteg.11. Chapter IV contains the results obtained by the users of the polygraph in their screening program. The information was obtained from the questionnaires that were returned and from articles appearing in periodicals. The chapter is divided into two sections. The first section refers to police and security organizations while the second includes commercial firms. Chapter 1. Chapter V includes the arguments given by the opponents to the use of the polygraph for screening purposes. The chapter includes three main sections: labor unions, law enforcement and security agencies, and other 'Opposition. Opposition from other sources is limited because little literature is available other than that con- taining the views of the aforementioned three agencies. ghgpteglll. Chapter VI is considered to be the most important chapter in the thesis. The chapter projects a prOposed system for use in a law enforcement agency. The police administrator can refer to this chapter to determine ' I how the system should work. It is subdivided into two major parts: the overall personnel screening program and that part which pertains only to the polygraph examination. §h§n&22.111. This chapter contains the summary and conclusions based on the contents of the previous six chap- ters. The summary and conclusions are considered together. Every effort has been made to be objective in the findings. All conclusions have been based on what is considered to be a preponderance of the evidence available.- The recommenda- tions are by no means all inclusive. They are considered to be actions which must take place within the next five years. Although the recommendations will not be easily accomplished, they are deemed essential if the polygraph is to enjoy a productive and extended life in screening operations. III. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ADEIIQEE&.§EEIEELIQE. Applicant evaluation refers to a polygraph examination given to an applicant to verify information provided the employer by the applicant and to help to determine the suitability of the applicant for employment. Pre-employment personnel screening is another ,term sometimes used to describe the examination. gnagg. A chart is the paper on which the physiological changes are recorded in ink. It provides a permanent and .visual history of what is recorded during the test. .QQEELQI.QN§§£lQn. A control question is one relative to a similar but unrelated offense utilized in general ques- tion tests and designed in such a manner that the examines will usually lie in responding to it. The results are uti- lized by the examiner in overall chart interpretation. Examination. A polygraph examination consiSts of everything that transpires from the moment the examines enters the polygraph room until the time he leaves the room. The examination is generally divided into three distinct phases. These are a pretest interview, a testing phase during which time actual tests are administered, and a post-test interview. Examinea. The individual being examined with the polygraph is generally referred to as the examinee or subject. Ex ner. A polygraph examiner is a trained and skilled individual who conducts a scientific examination, using an established and proven technique, interpreting 10 physiological changes, and rendering an opinion. Polygraph a; Lia Detactgr. This is a diagnostic instrument which records with ink on a chart changes in relative blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration cycle, and skin resistance to electricity. QQEETEI.QM§§LADE.TQSI. An irrelevant-relevant ques- tion test containing one or more control questions is called a general question or control question test. Irrelevant Questign. An irrelevant question is one which does not pertain to the case for which an examInee is being tested on the polygraph. It is designed to elicit a minimum emotional response and to act as a criterion for establishing a norm in the subject. It is also known as a non-crucial, immaterial, or non—pertinent question. Paag g£_TensiQn Taafi. A series of relevant questions envelOped by two or more irrelevant questions at the begin- ning and end of the series is a peak of tension test. It is designed to detect the question in the series which is the most tension producing to the suspect or examines. Relaxant RESELLER. A relevant question is one which pertains directly to the matter under investigation for which 11 the subject is being tested on the polygraph. It is also known as a crucial, pertinent, or material question. Test. A single test is that which transpires from the time the instrument is turned on until it is turned off. Questions are asked during this period resulting in a chart. Usually there are two or three tests or charts during an examination. IV. BACKGROUND Elam 9!. Lin Helm. Man has been telling lies since his creation. The first attempt at detection of decep- tion in all probability was concomitant with the first lie. Msrston cited the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as the earliest instance of lie detection.1 As man lied and was detected, he became intrigued by the advantages which could be realized over his adversary through the ability to know when he was lying and when he was telling the truth. Trovillo, a forensic psychologist and student of Keeler, explained the ancient attempts to uncover deception or to determine the guilt or innocence of accused persons by the use of trial by combat, the ordesl, and torture. He pointed William M. Marston, Lie Detector. Test. (New York: Richard K. Smith, 1938). P. 3. 12 out that most of these ancient tests stemmed from SUpersti- tion and religious faith and were not based on an understand— ing of the psychology of deception.2 However, one such test did have a psychophysical basis. This was the rice chewing ordeal utilized by the Chinese. During the trial the sus» pect was given a handful of consecrated rice to chew while he was being questioned. After a few minutes he was instructed to spit the rice out. If the rice was found to be dry, the suspect was adjudged guilty. 'If the rice was wet, he was considered to be innocent. Consciousness of his crime and fearfulness of his punishment by the gods and the Judge or ruler caused the mouth of the guilty to become dry. The innocent believed in the Justice of his god and the ordeal of the consecrated. Therefore, he was not emotionally disturbed.3 Another test utilized by a Hindu prince to determine innocence or guilt was based on superstition, yet it dis- played sound psychological principles and a good understand- ing of human behavior. In this test the suspects were told that in a darkened room there was a sacred ass which would 2Paul V. Trovillo, "A History of Lie Detection," The Journal of Criminal Law_and Criminology, March-April and May-June 1939. (Reproduced in full by Special permission in School Reference 19-13, United States Army Military Police School, Fort Gordon, Georgia, September 7, 1961), pp. 1-6. 3Clarence D. Lee, The instrumental Qetectign of Qecen- tion, (Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas, 1953), pp. 3-4. 13 bray when his tail was pulled by a guilty person, and that they were to go into the room one at a time, pull the don- key's tail, and return. After all suspects had done this and the donkey had not brayed, the hands of the suspects. were examined. Only one of the suspects had come out with clean hands--the guilty one. The prince had dusted the don- key's tail with black powder. Those who were telling the truth did not fear that the donkey would bray, so they blackened their hands by pulling his tail.“ The notion that lies could be detected by observing certain changes in physiological phenomena fascinated man. Trovillc comments on one of the earliest records of an attempt to detect deception by objectively utilising obser- vation of physiological changes: During the Middle Ages it is related that a nobleman suspected his wife of infidelity, and told his suspicions to one of his advisers who agreed to make a test to determine the facts. At dinner he sat next to the nobleman‘s wife, casually laid his hand upon her wrist and conversed with her. During a brief conversation he mentioned the name of the man suspected by the nobleman, whereupon the lady's pulse immediately quickened. He later brought up the name of the husband but perceived no similar response. It is said a confession was later elicited. U1 “me” p. 1+. 5Trovillo, on 913., p. 6. 14 Lombroso, the Italian criminologist, was one of the first persons to be successful in conducting tests associated with innocence or guilt. As early as 1895, he was conducting tests in which blood pressure and pulse changes were recorded while questioning criminals. In 1906, Dr. James Mackenzie, a famous English heart specialist, developed an instrument which he called "The Ink Polygraph." This instrument, although used only for medical testing, is similar to the basic polygraphs of today. It continuously recgrded blood pressure, pulse, and respiration changes. At about the same time that Dr. Mackenzie was using "The Ink Polygraph" in England, Munsterberg, a German psychologist, was advocating the use of instruments for recording pulse rate, blood pressure, respiration, and the psychogalvanic reflex.7 ' Others were eXperimenting with various means of deception throughout the first quarter of the 20th century. One of these was Reverend Walter G. Summers of Fordham University. He developed the 'Pathometer,‘ a psychogalva— nometer utilized in conducting deception tests. Summers“ instrument was utilized in numerous laboratory eXperiments 6Richard 0. Arther and Rudolph R. Caputo, Interro- gatien Lee: W, (New York: William C. Copp and Associates, 1959), p. 210. 7Lee. en. sit... p. 9. 15 --and a limited number of actual cases involving the question of the guilt or innocence of criminals.8 . Dr. John A. Larson was the first to make use of the polygraph in a police department in the United States. While employed by the Berkeley, California, Police Department, Dr. Larson conducted hundreds of polygraph examinations which reportedly revealed amazing accuracy. It was during these examinations in 1925 that a young high school student named Leonardo Keeler became interested in Dr. Larson's work. Subsequently, he designed his own instrument and in 1930 accepted a position with the Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory at Northwestern University. He opened his own training institute in Chicago in 1938 to instruct in his polygraph techniques. 'Since that time other nationally recognized polygraph training institutions have emerged. film 91'. W. The use of the polygraph for personnel screening was found to be no new procedure. It was first utilized by banks, department stores, and restau- rants in the Chicago area as early as 1931. In one of the first applications of this practice, a large chain store system with a ‘1, “00,000 annual inventory shrinkage employed 8Trovillo, an, eit., p. 31. 91166. me Me, PP. 1n-17e 16 the polygraph to determine if this enormous annual inven- tory shrinkage was due to employee theft and pilferage. Keeler's initial examination revealed that seventy-six per cent of the employees tested were stealing money or merchan- dise. The names of the employees involved were kept confi- dential. However, they were told that in the future they would be examined every six months and that they would be dismissed for any subsequent thefts. Six months later a re-test showed that less than three per cent of them were repeaters.%9rb In 1945 the United States Government hired Keeler to screen a group of German prisoners of war being held at Fort Getty, Rhode Island, prior to their being sent back to Ger- many to aid the United States Occupation Forces in governing the American Sector of Germany. The screening procedure was highly successful and resulted in other Federal agencies' L resorting to the use of the polygraph for screening purposes.11zi The Manhattan Engineer District at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, utilized the polygraph between 19u2 and l9b5 for screening scientists and top level administrative persons who would have access to the final products used in the building of fissionable materials. When the Atomic Energy Commission (ABC) 19Robert D. Steel, “A Tribute to Leonardo Keeler, 1903-1918." Belles. (July-August 1958). pp. no-u5. 37‘ 11Lee m 17u—175 (f3, . , no a , PP. e 17 assumed Operation of the Oak Ridge Project, January 1, 19#7, the use of the polygraph was continued for screening pur- poses. A high level panel was formed in 1952 to consider its future use within ABC. The panel recommended to the General Manager of the AEC that its routine use, even for top positions and activities, be discontinued. The recom- mendation was put into effect in March, 1953. Since that time the polygraph has been used only about six times in individual cases. The approval of the General Manager of ABC must be obtained before it can be used in any given situation.12’7Additional information-regardingrthe”AEC+s use of the polygraph for screening purposes is contained- tux-W _ Since wOrId War II there has been a significant increase in the use of the polygraph by management for screening purposes. Thousands of Americanemployees were screened in 1962 with the polygraph by more than #00 com- mercial polygraph firms, governmental agencies, and munici- pal, county, and state police departments. 12Robert E.1Pharp, Assistant Director, Personnel Security, Division of Security, United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C., Personal Interview, February 12, 196“. (Note: Mr. Tharp was the Chief, Personnel Clearance Branch, Security Division, Oak Ridge Operations Office, during the time period indicated in the discussion above and in Chapter V). CHAPTER II GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN POLYGRAPH OPERATION The polygraph used in lie detection has received as much publicity and has attracted as much public interest as any other diagnostic instrument in existence. It has been praised and described as a panacea for almost everything, and it has been condemned and called a fraud. Neither of these claims is correct. The polygraph is a diagnostic instru- ment with the capabilities and limitations inherent in all other diagnostic instruments. Since it is a mechanical instrument, it is only as effective as the examiner control- ling its operations and the conditions under which it is used. I. EXAMINER In the field of polygraph usage the examiner is the most important single factor. It is he and not the instru- ment that points to deception or truth. Therefore, it is the examiner and not the instrument that detects deception. The best polygraph instrument'manufactured is worthless when operated by an unskilled or poorly trained examiner. For this reason, extreme care must be used in selecting, training, and utilizing an examiner. 19 Education. Ideally an examiner should be a college graduate. Naturally a baccalaureate degree in psychology or police science does not insure that the recipient will be a better examiner. It does provide him with professional status and furnish him with advanced knowledge in the police field. The minimum acceptable educational standard wOuld be a high school education with additional specialized training in psychology and physiology. Training. The examiner should have attended a recog- nized polygraph training school having a course of instruc- tion at least six weeks long. In addition he should have served an internship of at least four months under the guid- ance of a senior polygraph examiner. gilliggtign.' The polygraph examiner should work exclusively in his field of specialization. To do other- wise would Jeopardize his proficiency. Experience has proved that the examiner who devotes his full time to the polygraph is the most efficient examiner. Finding enough work to keep him busy may pose a problem for a small police department. ”This problem may be partially or fully over- come by using the same examiner for both criminal and screening tests. 20 III. POLIGRAPH INSTRUMENTS The polygraph is a diagnostic instrument operated under scientific conditions on much the same order as the electrocardiograph, an instrument for recording the changes. in electric potential produced by the contractions of the heart. ‘Numerous types and makes of instruments are produced and marketed as so-called "lie detectors.‘ They range in price from twenty-five to several thousand dollars and in complexity from a single swinging needle unit instrument to multi-unit research instruments. For example, the Reid Polygraph, a multi-unit instrument which records muscular activity alongwith changes in blood pressure, pulse, respi- 1 and the Arther ration, and psychogalvanic skin reflex, Polygraph, also a multi-unit instrument, simultaneously record wrist pulse rate and changes in blood pressure, upper arm pulse rate.and changes in blood pressure, chest breathing, stomach breathing, variations in electrical resistance of the skin, and skin temperature changes. "The single swinging needle unit measures only variations in electrical resistance of the skin,and is unreliable and 1Fred 3. Inbau and John 3. Reid, L1Q,D§§gg§1gnfllng 92ininal.lnie§raxattgn. (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company. 1953 . p. . 21 invalid.“2 The exact cause for the galvanic skin reaction has never been fully agreed upon by those who have tested the phenomenon. It is generally agreed that perspiration plays the most important part. The single swinging needle does not provide other tracings of the physiological changes in the body with which to make comparisons. These compari- sons are necessary for the most nearly accurate interpre- ' tation of the charts. The multi-unit research instrument is too complex for the average examiner. Between these two extremes there are reliable instruments manufactured specifically for the detection of deception. Tmaflnamumemllemmmandad. In order to provide the examiner with the maximum diagnostic criteria with whichto detect deception, the polygraph instrument utilized should consist of at least three major data-transmitting components. These are the cardio-sphygmograph, pneumograph, and a galvanograph. In addition, a data-recording unit called a kymograph is neces- sary for efficient Operation of the instrument. ZRichard o. Arther and Rudolph s. Caputo, m- garden fax: W. (New York: William 0. Corp and Associates, 1959), p. 209. 22 Cardig—Sphygmograph. This component transmits the pulse rate and amplitude as well as the blood pressure changes of the person being tested. Pneumograph. The function of this component is to transmit the breathing pattern of the person being tested. Galyanggraph. This component records the changes in the examinee's resistance to an external electrical current. Kymggraph. The function of this component is to move the chart paper under the writing pens of the other three components. Polygraph Manufacturers. Instruments of the type recommended are manufactured by Associated Research Incorporated, Chicago, Illinois, and C. H. Stoelting Company, Chicago, Illinois. Examples of the instruments manufactured by these two companies are shown in Figures 1-4. III. REQUIRED CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDINOS If an examiner is to achieve consistent success, cer- tain psychological conditions and physical surroundings are required. The primary consideration for a polygraph exami- nation is privacy. Extraneous noises, such as the ringing 23 'of a telephone or the conversation of other individuals, must be eliminated. All distracting stimuli must be reduced to a minimum. Any distraction, psychological or physiologi- cal, may distort the rocordings and make diagnosis of decep- tion difficult or impossible. EelxszanhHELsmlnslden.Easel The exact type and size of the examination room is dependent upon many factors. A major one will be the finan- cial capabilities of the organization administering the examination. A room offering the ideal conditions and sur- roundings is depicted in Figure 5, page 30. Location. The room should be located in an area where there is a minimum of activity. Size. A room twelve feet byfifteen feet with a nine-foot ceiling provides ample space without excess roominese. Qggzg. There should be only one door leading into _the room. It should be of plain structure. Padding isv necessary for soundproofing. There should be a warning device, normally a sign, on the outside of the door to indi- cate when a test is in progress and that no one is to enter. gingggg. The room should not have windows. If win- dowa cannot be avoided, they should be well covered with 2U drapery so as to block exterior distractions. This covering will also contribute to the soundproofing of the room. figoog. The floor should be carpeted to reduce noise. Carpeting on wood is preferred to carpeting on concrete.' Lighting. Indirect illumination should be utilized. Bright glaring lights are distracting and should be avoided. Fluorescent lighting, unless well shielded, will adversely affect the galvanometer of the polygraph. Ventilation. A noiseless air circulating unit should be utilized. The temperature should be maintained at a com- fortable level. An air conditioning unit is required in most situations. Decorations. The decorations should be kept to a minimum. Wall paint or paper and drapery should be simple in form and without specific patterns or designs. Pastel shades of color are best. Fogoishings. The room should be furnished with a polygraph and desk, a swivel chair for the examiner, and a comfortable chair with wide arms for the subject. A tele- phone should no§_be in the room. The one-way mirror should be inconspicuously placed so that it will not distract the subject. A microphone should be concealed in the desk or 25 polygraph. The room should be free of ornaments, pictures, or other objects that would in any way distract the person being tested. finnndnznnfinz. The entire room should be sound- proofed by the use of acoustical material. This material should be pastel in color and not of a type that would be distracting to the subject. An additional piece of glass behind the one-way mirror in the observation room is required to create an air cell for soundproofing. Qbaanxaiianlhaan. There should be an observation room with a one-way mirror adjoining the polygraph examination room., This provides an area for supervisors and other essential per- sonnel to watch and listen to the examination. This room should be equipped with stools or chairs for the observers, an amplifier, and a tape recorder. There should be some type of light signal on or in the examiner‘s desk with a switch in the observation room so that the examiner may be called from the room without alerting the person being tested.3 3The features of the examination room are those recommended by the United States Army Military Police School, Fort Gordon, Georgia. However, numerous other authors and examiners recommend basically the same features. A recent addition is closed-circuit television to allow monitors to observe the questioning. It also precludes the necessity of a female witness when the examinee is a female unless a female witness is specifically. requested. In.eddition, a video tape may be made for subsequent referral. 26 Figure 1. . Associated Research (Keeler) 'Positive Pattern“ polygraph, Hcdel 6303 containing components for the continuous recording, simultaneously of variations in pulse-blood pressure respiration and electrodermal responses. Utilizes 115-115 volts, do cycle AC current. Weight 3“ pounds. (Picture and description courtesy of Associated Research, Incorporated, Chicago, Illinois). 27 Figure 2. Associated Research (Keeler) transisto- rized portable polygraph, Model 6317, containing cardio- sphygmograph, pneumograph, galvanograph, and kymograph components. Net weight 19 pounds. (Picture and description courtesy of Associated Research, Incorporated, Chicago, Illinois). 28 JNTERROGRAPH .- as ”animate . = (messr_'ze.~nlez’.' : * ‘ 0° ' ., Mr . “Mg , ‘ ' muss .A'l"... ‘ Figure 3. Stoelting transistor 'Interrograph,‘ Model 22530, containing cardio-ephygmograph, galvano- graph, pneumograph, and kymcgraph components. Weight 11-12 pounds. Normally uses 110-115 volts, 60 cycle AC current. A power pack can be used to convert to 6 or 12 volts DC to 115 volts AC. (Picture and description courtesy of C. H. Stoelting Company, Chicago, Illinois). .AmaonaaaH .owmoaso .hqmdeoo wndpaooum «m .0 no amopasoo aoapaaaomou .oessod an pawns: uoz one unspeamv .unmanso on cacao ow .uHob oaa mmaaaapa .mpaas madnaocoa maaspmean use Hmeaoeoapomam .oasmueaa vocab nmwwameoauoon .e on an weanamasoo .oommm Home: c.59mawouuoconu waaoaooum 9 2 ‘gn: ' ' sul- ' I ... :f_ ~ '.~ H O s " e. ,, ... % A I .f v.34“ .3, O ... , I. . x . l I ? t'v Huh 1 4“ A ‘I ‘ It... 0 IMLmWAvAvManw.. aw. ,l-. 0 3 .Ameaooo .nonaoo paom .Hoosom moaaom manpaaas hens mepmum mounds cc ammuasoo oasuoamv .Hooaom moaaom hamuanaz heed mopmpm moves: on» an couaoeaocea aooa nodumbaomno and: soon soapmnaemwo somewhapm .m.oasmam . mHOOpm . m mam 3: noapmadmau .HH sounds he: one .5 . sumac m.aoaaemwm .n can» Hmoapmsoo< .oa assumed .w ,mpmoa Ham donnmuwm\3 Adamo .N ascendsuo venom .m aoqoapdnnoc had .m anon dam hopocpon can .a nuuomoq -WW a rseaaewm flw MN‘ l/fi _ X . sees . sees 3925836 22.52.33 '0 Isl CHAPTER III LIE DETECTION SYSTEMS THAT ARE GENERALLY EMPLOYED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR SCREENING PURPOSES AND COSTS INVOLVED I. SYSTEMS EMPLOYED The replies to the questionnaires indicated that there was not a standardized system being used for appli- cant evaluation or periodic personnel screening. The systems utilized included a broad scope. They varied from the simple irrelevant-relevant type tests of approximately eight ques- tions to the more complex peak of tension type tests which, in some instances, consisted of fifty or more questions. The Cincinnati Police Department reported that after a lengthy pretest interview, peak of tension type tests were used. The number and type of questions used on the first and subsequent tests depended upon the information obtained through the local character investigation, responses during the pretest interview, and reactions during the tests. ' The Delaware State Police employed general questions type tests to screen police applicants who had successfully 1Cincinnati Ohio, Police Department, Questionnaire Reply, November l9é2 32 completed other phases of the selection process. The other phases consisted of a rigorous background investigation, intelligence and psychological testing, medical examination, and personality analysis by a psychiatrist.2 The Oakland Police Department reported utilizing the polygraph for applicant evaluation only whenever discrepan- cies are noted in any phase of the selection process.3 The Maine Highway Patrol, the Salt Lake City Police Department, and the Phoenix Police Department, in answering the questionnaire, reported utilizing the irrelevant-relevant type testing for applicant evaluation. However, they did not indicate the number of questions asked or the techniques utilized. Chief O'Keefe, Stockton, California, commented that * a consultant polygraph firm was utilized to conduct poly- graph evaluations of their police applicants. The average examination required one hour. The questions were generally based upon the background information the applicant provided the examiner and other general questions concerning sex, 2Paul T Riley, 'Use of the Polygra h for Pro-employ- ment Testing of Police Recruits,'Ju1y-August 1961). 3Oakland, California, Police Department, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 33 military serfice, use of liquor and narcotics, marital infor- mation, health information, arrest record, work history, honesty, and general habits. O'Keefe did not indicate the type of testing techniques utilized.“ Lindberg offered the following remarks: The standard pro-employment (applicant) exami- nation in this laboratory consists of the applicant's answering 157 questions in the Reid Report . . . and undergoing a polygraph examinatign (Reid Technique) consisting of two or more tests. Harman reported that in conducting a pro-employment examination, he had the applicant fill out a questionnaire which provided the examiner with basic background information for use in initiating the interview and formulating test questions. The questionnaire was reviewed with the appli- cant and test questions formulated during the pretest phase of the examination. Harman did not report the type test utilized.6 A Other consultant firms reported similar systems to “Jack A. O'Keefe, ”Use of the Polygraph in Police Applicant Screening,“ (Paper read at the International Association of Chiefs of Police 1962 Conference, St. Louis, Missouri). 5George w. Lindberg, Letter, John E. Reid and Asso- ciates, Chicago, Illinois, November 15, 1962. 6George v. Harman, John E. Reid and Associates San Francisco, California, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 3“ those that have been listed. The irrelevant-relevant tests were used by Myatt.7 Tupkelewicz employed a modified general question type testing technique.8 Furr utilized as the primary system the general question type test.9 Berman reported utilizing the probing peak of tension type tests for pro-employment testing and the general question tests for periodic personnel screening.1O II. COSTS INVOLVED The systems utilized did not materially affect the cost of the screening programs. Valid figures pertaining to cost were difficult to determine in agencies which uti- lized the examiner, instrument, and facilities for both criminal and screening purposes. Estimated costs for agen- cies utilizing personnel, instruments, and facilities for both functions ranged from $2.50 to $16.00 per examination 7h. w. Myatt, Truth Conformation, Incorporated Okla- homa City, Oklahoma, Questionnaire Reply, November.l962. 8John Tupkelewicz, Security Engineers, Incorporated, Birmingham, Alabama, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 9Lloyd B. Furr, Letter Furr Investigations, Wash- ington, D.C., November 1?, 1962. 10Milton Barman, Berman and Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 35 with $7.50 being the average. Agencies employing consultant firms paid from $15.00 to $50.00 for each examination with $25.00 being the average. Only one consultant firm charged $50.00 while two reported charging as little as ‘15.00 per examination. The lower costs resulted from employment of the firms on a retainer basis. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OBTAINED BY USERS OF THE POLYGRAPH IN APPLICANT EVALUATION AND PERSONNEL SCREENING In order to determine the results of the use of the polygraph in applicant evaluation and personnel screening, a survey by letter, questionnaire, and personal interview was conducted. A representative sampling of law enforce- ment and security agencies, private corporations, labor unions, and lie detection consultant firms in the United States was made. The principal means of communication was 1 by questionnaire. Information was requested concerning their use of the polygraph in applicant evaluation and per- sonnel screening. A total of 138 replies were received from the 20h agencies that were consulted. I. POLICE AND SECURITY ORGANIZATIONS A total of 167 questionnaires were sent to municipal, state, and federal police and security agencies in the United States (see Appendix C). All state police agencies except those in Alaska and Hawaii were queried. Municipal police departments from the Atlantic to the Pacific that serve a minimum population of 50,000 people were consulted. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Security Division of the Atomic Energy Commission represented the Federal government. 37 From the total number of questionnaires sent, 118 replies were received. Twenty-three of these police agencies reported that they used the polygraph in applicant evaluation. Two departments-—Jacksonville, Florida, and San Antonio, Texas-- reported that they were in the process of initiating an appli- cant screening program. Eleven other agencies also replied that they were seriously considering the future use of the polygraph for applicant evaluation only (see Remarks--Appen- dices D and E). Although no effort was made to determine whether or not the police department used the polygraph for criminal purposes only, some of the ninety-two state and municipal agencies which indicated that they did not use it for applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screening probably use it in criminal work. No department reported the use of the polygraph for periodic personnel screening. The twenty-three police agencies reporting full-time utilization of the polygraph for applicant evaluation are as follows: Stoto Bolioo. Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Munioipal Police. Akron, Ohio; Amarillo, Texas; Cincinnati, Ohio; Dayton, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Fort Worth, Texas; Lincoln, Nebraska; Miami, Florida; Montgomery, Alabama; Oakland, California; Phoenix Arizona; Salt Lake City, 38 Utah; San Diego, California; Stockton, California; Tucson, Arizona; and Wichita, Kansas. The Richmond, Virginia, Police Department reported the utilization of a consultant firm to conduct occasional polygraph applicant evaluation tests. Other police depart- ments known to be using the polygraph in applicant evaluation are those in Burbank, California, and Evanston, Illinois. However, neither replied to the survey questionnaire. The general results reported by the twenty-three police departments that utilize the polygraph in applicant evaluation are listed below. (See Appendices D and E for a listing of those agencies not using the polygraph for screening purposes). Materially Reduced YES. NO. Unknonn.p!o.§ommani Personnel turnover 11 3 7 2 Training costs 8 h 9 2 ' Disciplinary problems 13 3 5 2 Number of applicants 5 8 8 2 Materially Increased Caliber of employees 117 1 3 2 Public confidence 8 1 12 2 Employee efficiency 10 2 9 2 A survey by Yeschke, staff member of John E. Reid and Associates, Chicago, Illinois, revealed the following; One hundred and eighty questionnaires were sent to police departments serving cities with papulations of 100,000 or more, and to all state police agencies. One-hundred and sixteen replies were received. 39 Of the 116 replies to the survey: 6“ agencies do not use polygraph testing on applicants; 3 agencies have policies against such testing; 26 agencies are considering the use of polygraph testing in the future; A agencies occasionally use polygraph testing; and 19 agencies are presently testing applicants with the polygraph. Early in 1950 the Burbank, California, Police Depart- ment utilized the services of a commercial polygraph examiner in an eXperiment to determine the value of a combined psycho- logical and polygraphic testing technique for screening police applicants. The experiment revealed that this technique screened out a large number of applicants who were not physiologically, mentally, and emotionally oriented toward police work but who had successfully passed through the other phases of the screening process including the back- ground investigation. The specific results reported in this eXperiment were as follows: During the first ten examinations the polygraph, based on conformed admissions from the applicants themselves, rejected 60 per cent of the prospective applicants. In a later screening series, when twenty- four applicants were interviewed and examined with the polygraph, the rejections, based again upon actual admissions by the subjects themselves, amounted to fourteen. Quite a shocking figure, considering that all twenty-four had been thoroughly investigated, given psychological test batteries, and interviewed 1Charles L. Yeschke, "The Advantages and Limitations of Police Applicant Testing with the Polygraph," (Paper read at the Ninth Annual Meeting, American Academy of Polygraph Examiners, Chicago, Illinois, August, 1962). 40 by the various city departments participating in the selection. The fourteen applicants were eliminated for one or more of the following reasons: Excessive alcoholism Excessive gambling Poor credit standing Record of arrest until then successfully concealed Homosexuality Serious emotional problems Other than honorable discharge from the military service Serious health defects.2 (I) \lO‘xUl tkDNs—s The Georgia Bureau of Investigation reports that during the two months the applicant evaluation program has been in effect, twenty-two applicants have been tested. Six were rejected based on information revealed during the poly- graph examination. The reasons for rejection were larceny, falsification of application, and mental illness.3 The Cincinnati Police Department has used the poly- graph for applicant evaluation since August, 1955, with out- standing results according to their evaluation. The examiner who conducts the applicant evaluation tests summed up the value of the polygraph in the screening of police recruits as follows: The improved methods of selection and constant striving Of the staff to demand only the finest personnel have placed the Cincinnati Police Department 2 Chris Gu as, "Better Policemen Through Better Screen- ing." Police, July-August 1962), pp. 57-58. 3B. G. Ragsdale, Letter, State of Georgia, Department of Public Safety, Atlanta 1, Georgia, November 13, 1962. #1 among the first in the nation. This is shown, not only in the reduction of dismissals of undesirable policemen, but also, in the high percentage of crimi- nal cases solved. The improved caliber of personnel in the Police Department is further emphasized by the increase of good public relations. The citizen's reapect for the department has reached the highest pinnacle in its history. Although this cannot be attributed solely to the use of the polygraph in selection of personnel, there can be no doubt the polygraph is playing a prominent role in the selfiction of the most capable and desir- able personnel. ‘ A confirmed user of the polygraph for applicant eval- uation is the Stockton, CalifOrnia, Police Department. Their chief thinks that the results are gratifying as the following remarks indicate. The Polygraph Interview (lie detector interview) has been in use in screening applicants fer the City of Stockton Police Department in excess of four years. The Polygraph Interview is a major useful tool for screening applicants. It is more valuable, in the writer's opinion, than the psychiatric interview or an oral board. The Polygraph Interview is a tre- mendous step forward in the raising of the standards of Policemen. (sic) We are extremely satisfied with the polygraph as a part of the screening process for new officers with some #0 officers presently on the department having passed through this examination . . . . These men who have been selected have been above standard. - “Gerald Elam, "Poly raph--An Aid in Recruiting,” Lesandilndsr. (July. 1960 . pp. 24-27, #2 The polygraph is used on the basis of uncovering information which normally might not be brou ht to light in a general background investigation. Chief O'Keefe set forth the following cases as being_ representative of what the polygraph interview has accom- plished for his department: . . . a twenty-one year old male police appli- cant; after a thorough background check which pro- vided no negative traits, the polygraph interview revealed that he had had abnormal sex relations with other boys up to and including age nineteen years. Upon interview . . . he readily admitted this activity On a twenty-two year old male applicant, after having been fingerprinted with negative or record free return, the polygraph interview revealed that he had served an eighteen-month term in a reforma- tory for robbery when he was seventeen years of age. Two male applicants who were employed by a public hospital agency and who had very high racemmendations in their personnel histories at the institution were found, through the polygraph, to have geaten patients and to have stolen money from inmates. The City of Evanston, Illinois, has utilized the polygraph in applicant evaluation since 1959. The Evanston Personnel Director revealed these interesting results. When the first group of police and firecandidates were asked to take the test, five waived appointment either because they had obtained employment elsewhere 5Jack A. O'Keefe, “Use of the-Polygraph in Police Applicant Screening,“ (Paper read at the nternational Association of Chiefs of Police 1962 Conference, St. Louis, Missouri). 61b1d. 43 or for other reasons, and six of the remaining thir- teen were not hired as a result of the tests. When the candidates on the second police list of seventeen were asked to take the test, three waived, seven were cleared satisfactorily, and seven failed to pass the requirements. Of the first seven persons on our fireman list who were asked to take the test, six passed and one is still under question for further investigation. From the third police eligible list of fifteen, eleven passed, two failed and two are still under further investigation. Those under further investi- gation are usually asked to take a second or, if necessary, a third polygraph test in addition to L/// psychological and psychiatric tests. We are now able to more thoroughly examine the backgrounds of ques- tionable applicants because the use of the polygraph reduces the number that needs to be scrutinized. For those who did not meet the requirements, the tests showed long histories of thefts, serious If undetected crimes, debt problems, homosexuality, use I of narcotics, alcoholic tendencies, gambling prob- lems, and other undesirable traits. Most of these characteristics were not discovered by other methOdB e e e .7 Evanston has broadened the scope for their use of the polygraph to include periodic personnel screening. The pro- gram first began in 1959 with parking lot attendants, but it has now been extended to include policemen. The periodic screening program includes only those policemen employed since the applicant evaluation program for them began in 1959. 7George J. Washnis, "Polygraphic Tests for City Employees.” Dahlia Personnel Relies. (July. 1962), ppe 192-198. 44 The Delaware State Police have found the polygraph to be a very definite asset in their recruit screening program. The results depicted in the following comments note the value of the polygraph in the department. When the polygraph examination of the applicants was completed it was found that approximately ten per cent of the available pool of recruits had been elimi- nated for such varied reasons as false statements on applications, false statements to interviewers, and prior involvement in minor criminal activity. The Vermont State Police gave a similar situation in their department. It is quite possible that the use of the LD has reduced the number of applicants for positions with the Department, but there is no question that with the use of the LD we eliminate many undesirable applicants who would otherwise get onto the force. As a re ult the people we employ are much more satisfactory. The Wichita Police Department has used the polygraph for twenty-five years in applicant screening. They regard it . as quite reliable on the basis of their experience with the instrument. Both fire and police applicants are run on the polygraph as a late step in the applicant screening process. This step of personnel selection is extremels important and we feel that we couldn't do without it.1 8Paul T. Riley, "Use of the Polygra h for Pro-employ- mentuTegting of Police Recruits,“ Polioo, July-August 1961), pp. 2- 3. 9Ray C. Smith, Letter, State of Vermont, Department of Public Safety, State Police Division, Montpelier, Vermont, November 16, 1962. 10Wichita, Kansas, Police Department, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. “5 The cost of professional psychological evaluations for each police applicant had a great influence upon the decision of the Dayton Police Department to utilize the polyé graph for applicant evaluation. After two years' eXperience, the Department reports that polygraph applicant screening is an invaluable aid and has resulted in the disclosure of undesir- able traits in approximately thirty-five per cent of the appli- cants who had successfully passed the background investigation.11 The Amarillo Police Department reports screening approximately fifty applicants annually and made the follow- ing comments concerning the results: It is our opinion that the polygraph is inval- uable in the screening of applicants. It also saves 33:2.iavestigation that would otherwise have to be The recruitment of outstanding police personnel has been a problem to which Gugas, for many years a West Coast polygraph examiner and at the present time Director of Public Safety, Wichita, Kansas, has devoted extensive time and study. ' His conclusion that the pro-employment screening of police applicants should include a polygraph examination was based upon the results obtained during his period of research. 11Dayton, Ohio, Police Department, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 12Amarillo, Texas, Police Department, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 46 The following statistics were prepared by me after examining approximately 510 applicants for approximately seven police departments in the Califor- nia area. It must be pointed out that the rejection of the applicant was solely the responsibility of the Personnel Department and the Chief of Police. In no situation did this office recommend what action should be taken. The reports usually Spoke for themselves, and it is interesting to note that in over 90% of the subjects examined, admissions were made by them on things which had been purposely left off the applica- tion form by the subject himself. Police Department No. 1: 27H applicants were scgeened, and 108 were rejected, which is a total of ho . Police Department No. 2: 4H applicants were screeged, and 29 were rejected, which is a total of 65 . Police Department No. 3: 97 men were examined and 48 were rejected, a total of 50%. . Police Department No. h: 19 men were examined and 12 were rejected, a total of 60%. a Police Department No. 5: 13 men were examined and 8 were rejected, a total of 6wz. ' _ Police Department No. 6: in men were examined, 12 were rejected, a total of 85%. In all a total of 510 men were screened by the polygraph and 233 were rejected, the gross rejection amounted to approximately #5} of all those examined. It is interesting to note that the majority of the above-listed Police Departments did conduct as thorough an investigation as possible on all of their applicants prior to asking them to take a polygraph examination. .. In checking back with all of the departments / that have hired those who successfully passed the b/ polygraph examination, we have yet to find one appli- cant who has gone "sour." 47 The polygraph screening program for police appli- cants . . . has greatly reduced the number of poten- tial misfits in the 901109 departments concerned, L'l lowered recruiting costs because of the decrease in turnover, and it has also increased the morale of the department as a whole.1 II. CONEEHCIAL ORGANIZATIONS The commercial use of the polygraph has continually increased over the years. The majority of all polygraph examinations conducted today are pro-employment and person- nel screening'type examinations administered for industry and private companies by the more than 400 commercial poly- graph firms rendering such services. Questionnaires were sent to thirty-three of the major firms known to be engaged in pro-employment and personnel screening testing.. Twenty replies were received, Without exception the firms replying to the questionnaire reported outstanding results in pro-employment screening. The major- ity reported the same results in personnel screening; however,- comments on this type screening ranged from praise to condemnation. John E. Reid and Associates, one of the oldest established polygraph firms, conducts more than 3,000 pre- employment and periodic personnel screening examinations 13 Chris Gugas, “Better Policemen Thro h Better Screening,“ 22119:, (July-August 1962), pp. “-58. #8 annually. The firm's services are utilized by practically every type of enterprise; manufacturers and distributors, department and other retail stores, insurance companies, banks and other financial institutions, transportation com- panies, hotels and hospitals, and law enforcement agencies. An assistant director reports achieving outstanding results 0 in both applicant and periodic personnel screeningglu’o From the West Coast_of the United States cgmes a similar report. The General Plant Protection Company, Los Angeles, California, a pioneer in the polygraph screening field, reports the following dramatic results concerning the rate of employee turnover after initiation of polygraphic screening. During 1955. the last year during which our company operated without the polygraph (but with psychological aptitude tests) our rate of turnover for the organization as a whole, including all its offices, was b.665. . During.l956-57 to date (or since the introduc- tion of the polygraph) this turnover has been out to 2.175%--a reduction of 53.35. (There were no wage increases or other changes to affect the above results.) Even more dramatic, however, has been the results of a control test conducted during this period between two of our installations, which in manpower are of approximately equal size., 4—— 1hCeorge w. Lindberg, Letter, John E. Reid and Associates, Chicago 5, Illinois, November 15, 1962. “9 In office A, the polygraph has NOT been used; while in Office B, it came into use with the hiring of the first man, and has been employed on every single employee from manager to newest recruit. In 1955, the turnover of personnel in office A was 3%; during 1956-57, this figure actually increased, and has reached the present level of H.3%--a rise of some “3%. In office B, the turnover has remained constant at a figure of .009%. With these controls producing such conclusive proof of the effectiveness of the polygraph screening process in reducing employee-turnover, it is not sur- prising that the management of our company has decided that henceforth the polygraph screening examinati shall be I'standard procedure” in all our offices. . 7 An employee research service organization in El Paso, Texas, after having conducted thousands of pro-employment and periodic personnel screening polygraph examinations, stated that their experience had proved that these poly- graphic screening programs materially reduce personnel turn- L/” over, training costs, disciplinary problems, inventory short- ages, and if approached properly by both the polygraph exami- ner and employee, materially increased employee morale.$6/O Gregory, a nationally prominent polygraph examiner with more than a quarter of a century of polygraph experience /’ ‘1’150hrisGugas, “A Scientifically Accurate Method of Personnel Screening," Enligg, (November-December 1961) pp. 20-2 . . 16Otis C. Campbell, Letter, Employee Research Ser- vice, El Paso, Texas, November 19, 1962. 50 reported phenomenal results utilizing the polygraph for pre- employment and periodic personnel screening. The following examples are typical: . . . In one Michigan supermarket, “inventory shrinkage“--business's polite term for merchandise losses from employee thefts and unexplained dis- appearances-~amounted to $22,000 a year. Following polygraph tests which indicated many of the employees knew what had become of missing merchandise, stricter records systems and other security measures were instituted, and inventory shrinkage dropped to $5,000 within a year. Similarly, the parts-department inven- tory shrinkage at a Michigan auto dealership dropped ’, 60 per cent after periodic testing with the polygrapha67 Arther, for many years a polygraph examiner, consultant, and educator, conducts approximately 300 pro-employment appli- cant and 750 periodic personnel screening examinations annually.f8 His experience with periodic personnel screening has convinced him of its importance in crime prevention. The following examples of the advantages accrued by businesses utilizing periodic personnel screening are cited by Arther. One chain organization had an average shrinkage of over $h7,000 per year. Then this "routine" or periodic lie-detection testing began. Now, after three years, the total shrinkage is down to less than $14,000 a year although their sales volume and number of branches have increased. One bank had a night-deposit of $885 missing from one of its branches.. It was decided to give lie-detector tests to all the employees who could ”'17Alex Lee Gregory, "Workers Steal," The §g§gzgai honing Past. (November 10. 1963). pp. 30-33. 18Richard O. Arther, Scientific Lie Detection, Incor- .porated, New York, New York, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 51 have taken it. Not only did the polygraph examiner determine who took the missing $885, but 21 out of the 22 tellers confessed to stealing from the company. . . . Arther . . . recommended that none be fired. However, this recommendation was dependent upon the condition that these employees be told that they would be given another test in six months. When this second group of tests was conducted, only 2 of the 19 still employed had stoleggany money from the bank since their original tests. A; Myatt conducts approximately 1,000 pro-employment and 500 personnel screening examinations annually. In his opinion these tests have proved to be of great assistance to the firms utilizing the servicengd/B Low reported that his firm conducts 2,500 to 3,000 pro-employment and periodic personnel screening examinations annually. The results that he obtained have convinced him that. . . ”when properly used--the polygraph is the most ,p/ efficient and effective tool in personnel work. . . ."2‘0/ His~reply~waswsimilar‘to several"others that were~rsceived' .from consulting firms which.reported outstanding success- ”’lghichard 0. Arther, "Stopping Employee Thefts," (Paper read before various business associations, New York, New York, 1961-1962). 20M. w. Myatt, Truth Confirmation, Incorporated, Okla- homa City, Oklahoma, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. 21Joseph W. Low, Affiliated Food Stores, Question- naire Reply, November 1962. 52 ' Who—polygraphnn applicantand- personnel,screening;£2 The McKesson Bobbins, Incorporated, pharmaceutical firm has successfully utilized the polygraph for years Fdn applicant screening. They also use it to screen probationary employees at the end of their probationary period. However, they do not utilize the polygraph for periodic personnel screening. Concerning the cost of the program to the com- pany and the value received from such a program, the McKesscn Robbins representative made the following statement: The cost of the program is only a ''drop in the bucket" in relation to reduction of inven ry short- ages and annual loss due to theft . . . . /5’ Harman, after many years of experience in the poly- graph field, made the following comments concerning pre- employment and periodic personnel screening: . . . I do not do much in the way of periodic tests. I don't particularly believe in them as necessary. . . ."I believe that most of our problems today with unions and with anti-polygraph legislation 0/ have been caused by the imprOper use of the routine 0 or periodic test. 22Edwin L. Seals, Director, Management Systems Eval- uation Service, Arlington, Virginia; Charles Zimmerman, Scientific Security, Incorporated, Boston, Massachusetts; Milton A. Barman, Berman and Associates, Louisville, Ken- tucky; and Lloyd Purr, Furr Investigations, Washington, D.C. 23Kirk Barefoot, McKesson Bobbins, Incorporated, Skokie, Illinois, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. . . . Polygraph pro-employment screening has proved to be most helpful in stabilizing the work force of a company. Employee turnover is substan- tially reduced. This is an advantage both to the employegkand to the employer, and ultimately to the public. /Cp rHarman was not listed as opposition becausemherindié eatedmthat some periodic personnel screening was-performed7~- His-objection appeared to be based on the improper use of ‘ the test rather~than the procedure itself.s George W. Harman, Director, Scientific Lie Detection, San Francisco, California, Questionnaire Reply, November 1962. CHAPTER V OPPOSITION Opposition to the use of the polygraph in applicant evaluation and personnel screening ranged from resistance because of the funds required to utilize the procedure to condemnation solely because of moral considerations. An issue frequently encountered was the contention that results of the polygraph test are not admissible in court and there- fore should not be condoned for any type of screening pur- pose. This admissibility issue appeared in practically all cases in which differences existed. No effort was made to justify the arguments in favor of either side of the legal issue. The fact is that the polygraph has not achieved scientific acceptability in court. That is, the chart itself and the examiner's opinion as to what it indicates not admissible. Labor unions, law enforcement agencies, and a few other miscellaneous persons or groups have led the oppo- sition parties. Arguments advanced by each proved to be revealing and reflected deep concern for their position. I. LABOR UNIONS Replies received from major unions revealed that all are not in agreement on their outlook toward the poly- graph in applicant evaluation and personnel screening. Some unions themselves had resorted to the polygraph as an aid 55 in settling union conflicts within the union as well as with other agencies. Others, led by the Teamsters, violently cpposed the use of the polygraph for any type of screening endeavor. A comment contained in a letter from the Teamsters Union portrays their position. action Our organization is strongly opposed to attempts by employers to give lie detector tests. Requesting employees to take such tests puts such employers in the category of suspecting all their workers. Such tests violate a worker's private rights, as well as being an unreliable method of arriving at the truth. We consider them an invasion of privacy. Questions used in testing are often quite personal.1 A local Teamsters affiliate in California initiated in the form of a resolution to emphasize its views. WHEREAS employers and law enforcement agencies have resorted to the use of lie detector machines to add them in detecting persons engaging in such unlaw- ful conduct, and . WHEREAS, the results of such lie detector devices are totally unreliable, and inadmissible in a court of law, and WHEREAS, it is insulting and degrading to any individual to subject him to a lie detector test, and force him to do so is rep ant to the consti- tutional protections guarantee to every individual by the Fifth endment to the Constitution of the United States. 1International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,-LetterIS Washington e Office of James Hoffa, Washington 1, D.C., cember 10, 1962. 21bid. _ 56 Victor Riesel, noted newspaper columnist, in his travels throughout the country, observed that only one major union violently opposed the use of the polygraph in the screening process. In Chicago--in fact over a 10,000-mile circuit-- I found that there was only one union which was bit- terly.battling the use of the lie detector in any case the Teamsters. "The AFL-CIO has not up to this point taken any position with regard to the use of lie detectors, either for screening job applicants or in other connections,‘ said an associate general counsel in a personal letter.” A similar letter mailed to the New York headquarters of the International Longshoremen's Union was not answered. II. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY AGENCIES Law enforcement agencies queried consisted of federal, state, and municipal departments. Although the Atomic Energy Commission is not principally recognized as a law enforcement agency, its security program qualifies it to be included in this section for discussion. 3Victor Riesel, ”Beach Waiter Holds His Job,“ mug Hismi News. March 15. 1960. D. 12A. - “American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus- trial Organizations, Letter, Washington 6, D.C., December 6, 1962. 57 ". . . The FBI does not use the polygraph in any mat- ters pertaining to applicant evaluation."5 Mr. Hoover did not explain his negative answer in the letter reply. While he has not commented upon the use of the polygraph for applicant evaluation, he has previously made the following 'comment concerning the use of the polygraph in criminal cases. . . . Whenever the human element enters into an [// interpretation of anything, there is always a vari- ance. I would never accept the conclusion of a lie detector as proof of innocence or guilt. All that it can be called is a psychological aid.6 As was discussed in Chapter I, the Atomic Energy Commission did not completely eliminate the polygraph from their screening program. But since they have conducted only about six examinations during the past ten years-after having used it extensively for at least six years prior to 1953, it appears apprOpriate to categorize the AEC as being among the opposition.7 Even though the general use of the polygraph for screening purposes was discontinued, it proved to be success- ful in two activities.of the security program. It produced I o ...; ‘— A ‘ A .5J. Edgar Hoover, Letter,'Federal Bureau of Investi- gation, Washington D.C., November 1962. 6United States Congress, House of Representatives Committee on Uri-American Activities, Smilax W In the National Security Agency, Hearings before Subcommittee, 87th Congress, 2d Session, August 13, 1962 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 14. 7Tharp , 199,. 9.1.32. 58 'results that were very reliable when persons were questioned as to whether or not key material had been removed to an un- authorized location. It also proved to be of limited value in determing the validity of the information contained on the personal history questionnaire and the application form of the applicant.8 The polygraph as an aid in the screening program was not successful at the Oak Ridge Project when its use was extended to determine the ideological thoughts or state of 5%” mind of the examinee. In efforts to determine whether or not the examinee was a member or follower of a subversive group whose purpose was to overthrow the United States Government, the polygraph yielded negative results. Con- clusive opinions could not be given. In addition, resent- ment was aroused among the employees who were being examined. This resentment was adverse to the use of the polygraph for any screening purposes.9 The extensive polygraph screening program was not dropped from the Oak Ridge Project because of labor opposi- tion. Rather, the scientific personnel and the senior admin- istrative officials were principally responsible for its general use being discontinued. A person seeking employment with the ABC is still asked if he will be willing to take a polygraph examination if it is deemed appropriate. Regardless BTharp. lea..sii. 9Tharp. lac, cit. 59 ~of his answer, it does not affect the further processing of his application.10 State and municipal police departments' objections were similar to those of the FBI. As the size of the department decreased, fund limitations became more prevalent L// as one of the reasons for not using the polygraphic screen- ing procedure. For a complete listing of those agencies and departments who answered the questionnaire that do not utilize the polygraph for screening purposes and their reasons for not doing so, see Appendices D and E. h The representative in the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation perhaps best summed up the feeling of many departments with this thought-provoking remark: We are still old-fashioned out here. “We prefer the man-to-man approach, plus a thorough background / investigation when dealing with prospective employees.b” Also, we believe that there is a little sin in every- one's life--past, present, and future--and feel that we are capable of handling these situations with the time-tested Tgthod of requiring the accuser to face the accused. III. OTHER OPPOSITION An article appeared in Hammond Business Rules in 10Tharp . lea. sit. 11South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation, Attorney General's Office, Letter, Pierre, South Dakota, November h, 1962. 60 _1962 which strongly advocated the banning of the polygraph in all aspects of both criminal and screening functions.12 The authors, two associate psychologists and a graduate student in industrial management, criticized the inadequacies Ax” of the instruments, the lack of training of their Operators, It and morality of the procedure. The laxity on the part of the manufacturers of polygraph instruments to keep pace with the electronic advances made in similar measuring devices used in laboratories and in aerospace programs was severely criticized. They put it this way: The relatively primitive devices used by commer- cial operators, as compared with those in use in laboratory and aerospace applications, are only part of the limitations on the polygraph techniques. Even with better instruments, the real problem is not acquiring the data but interpreting the data. . . . It is no exaggeration to say that commercial operators are using the equivalent of biplanesr in a rocket age.13. They further contended that the national associations, whose function would be to prescribe the required training for operators, seem to have been organized solely for pro- motional purposes. They added that: The training of professional operators is often less than adequate. There is no governing body which stipulates requirements to be met and passes on by 12Richard A. Sternbach, Lawrence A. Gustafson, and Ronald L. Colier, ”Don't Trust the Lie Detector, flfizxggg nging§5R_§11§g, November-December 1962, pp. 127-13 131nm” p. 129. 61 the candidates, as in the case of doctors, lawyers, accountants, clinical psychologists, and many other groups. The Operator may simply have read a book on the subject, or takfin a course lasting from a day or two to six months.1 The morality issue and its influence on the employer and abuse against the potential or present employee was lastly considered by the authors. Although no statistics or tangible evidence can be adduced from their findings, they developed a number of points to substantiate their ‘ argument. The use of polygraphic techniques either to detect or to avoid hiring certain persons constitutes a subversion of Judicial processes to "trial by poly- graph." An individual is persuaded by social pressures to testify against himself through a distorted, error- ridden medium; he may be denied the right to work without ever knowing the reason why; he may be "con- victed" of certain tendencies" without having com- mitted an illegal act; and he has no defense against the operator's report, since it is unknown to him and he has no rights in the process by which it is drawn up and used. 5 Colonel Oldham, a former Kentucky State Police Superintendent, advocated complete abolishment of the pro- cedure. In his condemnation he gave particular emphasis to the integrity of the individual as his remarks that follow indicate. - These screening examinations are often euphe- mistically referred to as "detection of deception,“ ”1219... p. 131. 1511151.. p. 123. ,/ I 62 "truth verification," etc., and are predicated upon the basic premise that an individual 3 word is no longer worthy of acceptance without the blessings of the polygraph examiners. By such compulsion the burden of proof is even reversed to be upon the unaccused, but manifestly suspect, individuals-- suspect only because they have the audacity to seek employment in a free society.1 Much has been said about outlawing the use of the polygraph for screening purposes. But, as of December 31, 1963, only California, Oregon, and Massachusetts had enacted laws specifically banning the use of the polygraph as a con- dition of employment. Similar bills had been introduced in the legislatures of several other states. States which had passed legislation to license polygraph examiners as of December 31, 1963, were Illinois, Kentucky, and New Mexico. 16Colonel Charles D. Oldham, "Police Forum, Subject: The Polygraph," Th§_£g11g§.gn1§£, August 1961, p. 1h. CHAPTER VII A PROPOSED SYSTEM FOR USE IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY A number of systems are now used by administrators in an effort to screen applicants. They generally consist of one or more of the following; (1) written aptitude and intelligence tests, (2) emotional stability evaluation by psychological testing or psychiatric examination, (3) Phys- ical examination, (h) personal interview, (5) and character investigation. Police agencies that have utilized these methods of screening have proved their value by the number of undesirable applicants eliminated by the tests. Unfor- tunately, however, experience has shown that these screen- ing devices do not eliminate all of the undesirable appli- cants as was shown by Gugas in his study of the Berkeley Police Department recruiting program discussed in Chapter IV. Gugas had indicated earlier that the primary reason for the failure of these screening devices to eliminate all undesirable applicants was the deceptive and misleading data provided by the applicant in answering the questions on the application form, the psychological tests, and the oral interview.1 1Chris Gugas, 'A Scientifically Accurate Method of Per- sonnel Screening,” £21121. (November-December, 1961), p. 19. 6h . According to Price, a secondary reason was the failure of the character (background) investigationto reveal certain character defects of the applicant due to the reluctance of I the individuals interviewed to provide derogatory information.2 A third reason was the inability of these methods to reveal undetected crimes committed by the applicant, such as larceny and homosexuality. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned screen- ing procedures do aid the administrator in making a selection; however, the defects noted indicate that there still exists a need for improvement. The prOposed system that follows is designed to provide the needed improvement by the poly- graphio verification of the data provided by the applicant and the results of the physical and psychological tests. I. THE OVERALL SISTEM The proposed overall screening system contains eleven elements. These elements are: (l) a set of qualifications, (2) a comprehensive application form similar to the outline suggested by Germann,3 (3) an audit of the applications at 2Carroll 8. Price, 'An Instrumental Approach to Applicant Evaluation,“ Police. (May-June, 1961), p. to. 3A. 0- 00mm. idling Ransom]. harassment (Spring- field Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1958), pp, 3 -HH. . 65 the time they are filed, (4) aptitude and intelligence tests, (5) physical agility test, (6) an oral interview, (7) a medi- cal examination, (8) a community character inquiry, (9) a psy- chiatric evaluation, (10) a polygraphic evaluation, (11) and a complete background investigation. with exception of the polygraphic evaluation, the elements of the system are in common usage today and are thoroughly covered in literature on personnel management. Therefore, these elements will not be discussed further. Q§dg§_9£,§§£§§ningt The order of screening was designed to eliminate an undesirable applicant as quickly and as economically as possible. Thus the more economical and expeditious screening devices of application audit, aptitude and intelligence testing, physical agility test, the oral interview, and the medical examination should be utilized first. A number of_applicants would autématically be elimi- nated by these devices,leaving only the best qualified to be screened by the more expensive and time-consuming devices of the community character inquiry, the psychiatric examination, the polygraphic evaluation, and the background investigation. Because of the high percentage of applicants that are eliminated by the polygraphic evaluation, the expensive and time-consuming complete background investigation should be accomplished last. However, a community character inquiry 66 .should be conducted prior to the polygraphic examination in order to provide the polygraph examiner with some positive data for the examination. It is desirable to conduct a thorough background investigation on all applicants rejected on the basis of the polygraph results, unless the applicant admits attempting deception. Areas of deception should be utilized as primary investigative leads. II. THE POLIGRAPHIC EVALUATION The polygraphic evaluation was designed to verify the information provided by the applicant and to substantiate the results ofthe medical examination, the psychological tests, and psychiatric examination. The examination consists of a pretest interview period, a series of polygraph tests, and a post-test interview period. The total time required for the evaluation is approximately two hours. W Areas Emma. The twenty areas listed below were considered to be critical areas of data provided by the applicant that should be verified by polygraphic test— ing. Detection of homosexuality is considered to be especially important by governmental agencies which require security clearances. Name. Use of alcohol Birth Use of narcotics Residence Indebtedness r 67 Education/Training Extent of gambling Military service Accident record Physical health Arrests Mental health Undetected crimes Previous employment Loyalty Employment permanency Homosexuality intentions Answers given on psychological Marital status tests and to the psychiatrist Preliminary Preparations, In preparing for the polygraph examination the examiner must first study the application form, the results of the aptitude and intelli— gence tests, the psychiatric and medical reports, the com- munity inquiry investigation, and the oral interview evalua- tion. The questions asked during the examination should be based on these documents and the information furnished by the applicant during the pretest interview. 22gtegt,lniggxi§ut The polygraph examination must include a pretest interview between the applicant and the examiner. LThis interview would normally be conducted Just prior to the actual tests. During this interview the applicant would be made comfortable, allowed to smoke, and encouraged to relax. The initial phase of the interview would be devoted to establishing rapport and explanation of the polygraph examination to the applicant. After this had been accomplished, the examiner would advise the applicant that an untruthful answer would disqualify him for the posi- tion for which he was applying. The entire application 68 would be reviewed with the applicant, and specific questions (see Appendix B) concerning each of the twenty areas to be covered during the actual tests would be asked. His answers would then be discussed with him and recorded on the question sheet. Based upon these answers and the information on the application, the examiner would formulate the acutal ques- tions to be asked during the testing phase and discuss them in detail with the applicant. These questions should be the same or modifications of the questions listed in Appendix A. This interview would require approximately one hour. The pretest interview would psychologically condition the applicant for the polygraph tests that would follow after a brief intermission. The intermission should provide the applicant ample time to contemplate the correctness of his answers and to correct any erroneous answers he may have given on his application, personal interview, or pretest polygraph interview. It could be a "face-saver" for the applicant and a "time-saver" for the examiner. Prior to administering the tests following the inter- mission, the examiner would again briefly interview the applicant. The initial step during this interview would be to reestablish rapport. After this had been accomplished, the applicant would be invited to make any changes or core rections he desired to the information that he had previously 69 provided. Sufficient time would be allowed for the applicant to discuss any areas of doubt concerning the correctness of the information he had provided and to eXplain the reasons for any changes or corrections he desired to make. Upon completion of this phase, the test questions would be modi- fied, if required, and all questions to be asked during the test would again be reviewed with the applicant. After the examiner had assured himself that the applicant clearly understood the questions to be asked during the tests, he would attach the blood pressure cuff, pneumograph tube, and electrodes to the applicant. Upon completion of this task, the examiner would review the test- ing procedure with the applicant and administer the tests. . Testing Ehfiflfi. This phase of the examination would consist of dividing the series of questions (see Appendix A) into two groups and enveloping each group by adding two irrelevant questions to the beginning and end of the group. To ask all of the questions in a single test would cause discomfort to the applicant. Two tests covering each of the two groups of questions would be administered utilizing the probing peak of tension technique. There should not be any discussion or interrogation between tests. Upon completion of the four tests, the examiner would diagnose the charts. 70 If deception was indicated to one or more questions in either or both groups, the questions to which deception was indicated would be removed from the group, and a third test administered covering the remaining questions in the group. Upon comple- tion of all tests, the examiner would remove the components, diagnose the charts, and notify the applicant of the results Of the tests. Post-test,lntezzigw. If deception was not indicated, the applicant should be thanked for his cooperation and referred to the personnel director or other official that requested the examination. If deception was indicated on one or more questions, the applicant should be given an Opportunity to explain and make any admissions he desires concerning the deception. Should the applicant deny decep- tion, the examiner would attempt to Obtain additional specific information concerning the deception by adminis- tering additional probing peak Of tension or general ques- tion tests utilizing the apprOpriate specific area questions (see Appendix B). ,ggggnt, The examiner would render a simple and factual report to the administrator who requested the exami- nation. This report would contain the examiner's Opinion concerning the truthfulness of the applicant in.answering 71 all Of the questions as well as any investigative leads that were develOped during the examination. Specific questions would be pointed out in which deception was indicated. The examiner would not make specific recommen- dations concerning the acceptance or rejection of the appli- cant unless requested tO do so by the administrator request— ing the examination. Cost, An agency which utilized the polygraph as an investigative aid in criminal investigations would need only to have the experienced examiner further trained in personnel screening. This could be accomplished by sending him to one of the polygraph schools for a minimum of two weeks to Observe and learn the polygraph techniques involved in personnel screening. He then should serve an apprenticeship with an experienced examiner in personnel screening until proficiency has been attained. The costs, excluding the examineris salary, would involve tuition, material fees, quarters, rations, and other expenses incidental to the apprentice- ship training. An agency initiating a polygraph program for either criminal or screening purposes or both would be required to train an examiner, purchase an instrument, and convert an existing room into an examination room. The Albuquerque 72 Police Department spent approximately $2800.00 to initiate their polygraph program. [This figure included the cost Of an instrument plus the expense Of training the examiner. It did not include the salary of the examiner nor the cost Of the examining room.“_ The Delaware State Police expended slightly less than $5000.00 to initiate their polygraph program. This figure included training and salary of the examiner plus the cost Of a new instrument. However, it did not include the cost of an examiner's room.5 ”Bill Slevin, "Police Lie Detector Proves Its Worth,” Keeleré_%11g_am, Associated Research Bulletin6 -15. 3, (Undatd , p. 5Colonel John B. For uson, “The Polygraph Knockers, ” _hsmfiolisa.9hisf, (May 1962 . p. 39. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It is concluded from this study that the polygraph can be a definite asset to an administrator in his screening program. The polygraph becomes a valuable aid only when the examiner is skilled in his profession. The aid is effective only when it is used under conditions conducive to the prOper functioning of an extremely sensitive diagnostic instrument. Conventional screening programs now in use Often fail to detect undesirable traits and behavior symptoms that would adversely affect an applicant in the performance Of his duty Or bring discredit upon his organization. Existing screening procedures can be made more effective by using the polygraph. The instrument should be used only after enough information has been Obtained to construct a valid test. Use of the polygraph has not yet been generally accepted by police administrators as a supplement to con- ventional applicant evaluation. This finding, depicted in Chapter IV and in Appendices D and E, may be misleading when the numerical ratio of one to the other is the only consideratiOn because the majority Of both the municipal police departments and the state police agencies replied that they do not use the polygraph for the stated purposes. 74 Of this total, only seven municipal departments and four state agencies gave as their reason for not using the polygraph a lack Of confidence in polygraph techniques and examiners. The resentment that would result reported by only two state agencies and four municipal departments further indicates that there is no overwhelming Objection to the use of the polygraph for screening-purposes. But, satisfaction Obtained from other methods such as psychologi- cal tests, background checks, and personal interviews suffices at the present time for evaluating a potential employee. There is, however, a definite trend toward the use Of the polygraph for screening purposes in that twenty- three agencies reported that they are well pleased with their polygraph as an aid for this purpose. Others reported seriously considering its use in their applicant screening programs for the future (see Appendices D and E). All known commercial firms that have resorted to the use of the poly- graph have had good to outstanding results. With the exception Of the Atomic Energy Commission, no evidence has been dis- covered in which other users Of the polygraphic system have discontinued the practice. Even though used sparingly in individual cases, for all practical purposes the AEC has dis- continued its use (see Chapters I and V). Use Of the polygraph for periodic personnel screening 75 has not been accepted by police administrators; nevertheless, it can be utilized effectively for this purpose. Its use, however, should be limited to personnel who have agreed to take the tests prior to employment. TO initiate the testing ' procedure after personnel have been hired would adversely affect morale and create dissension. It was revealed that those few police departments that do resort to the poly- graph for these purposes relied upon outside agencies to conduct the examinations. This procedure appears to be a wise one in that it is less likely to receive criticism Of favoritism from the parties involved. Then, too, some examiners are reluctant to give a fellow employee an exami- nation. The polygraph has achieved greater acceptance in commercial firms than it has in police agencies as a screen- ing aid. .Management reports that it has been a valuable tool in applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screen- ing. They claim that there have been reductions in merchan- dise losses, monetary thefts, personnel turnover, training costs, and disciplinary problems when the polygraph has been employed. The caliber of employees, their efficiency, \/ and the confidence of the public have been enhanced by prOper use of the instrument. ' . Polygraph consultant firms regard the identities Of 76 the commercial firms for which they provide services as restricted information. These consultant firms, which num- ber more than #00, claim outstanding success for their clients which consist of practically every type Of business entity. Accepting these claims as valid, there appears to be a place for its use in applicant evaluation and periOdic screening Of policemen. The outstanding results claimed by non-police orga- nizations utilizing the polygraph for screening purposes reflect that once the polygraph has been established, the adverse criticism by employees that its use is an invasion ,, of their rights to personal privacy soon becomes less pro- 8 nounced. This reduction in adverse criticism has been achieved to some extent by management's emphasizing the protection of the innocent from suspicion of having com- mitted some-offense, -TO achieve the results claimed by polygraph consultant firms, each examination must be con- ducted ethically by an efficient examiner. The instrument cannot be resorted to as a crutch for solving all employer- employee personnel problems. The fact that the results Of polygraph examinations are not generally accepted in court in itself does not invalidate the use Of the instrument as an aid in the screening program. PrOponents of its use maintain that 77 an applicant and screening program is not a court of law and should not be treated as such. Rather, the polygraph is being used only as another aid in assisting the employer to Obtain either good or bad information about potential. employees and personnel already on the payroll. The require- ment to take a polygraph examination is a condition Of employment and should not be objected to when it is adminis- tered under the conditions prescribed in earlier discussion. As of December 31, 1963, California, Massachusetts, and Oregon had passed legislation which prohibits the requirement Of a polygraph examination as a condition of employment. As of this same date, only Illinois, Kentucky, and New Mexico had established a licensing law for polygraph examiners. W 1. Administrators, both in police organizations and in commercial firms, should seriously consider the adoption Of the polygraph as an aid in their own applicant evaluation and periodic personnel screening program. 2. Polygraph examiners must form a professional association in order to promote favorable legislation in state and federal law-making bodies. 3. Polygraph examiner associations must unite and establish minimum prerequisites for a qualified examiner. 78 4. Polygraph examiner associations must conduct a vigorous campaign for favorable legislation to rid the field of Operators who do not meet the minimum standards established by statute. - av ' 5. Polygraph examiners and manufacturers Of instru- ments must combine their resources to acquaint police and business administrators of the capabilities and limitations Of the polygraph instrument. They must emphasize the proper conduct Of an examination. 6. Polygraph examiner associations must convince administrators and present and potential employees that the properly conducted polygraph examination is not an invasion of the individual's right to privacy. 7. Use of the polygraph to protect the innocent must be publicized rather than its use to detect the guilty if it is to achieve maximum success in screening operations and Overcome the stigma attached to it as a 'lie detector." BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Arther, Richard O. and Rudolph 3. Caputo, Interrogation,fon Ingestigatozs. New York: William C. Copp and Associates, 19 9. Coleman, James C. W Enemies and ME 6 Malian. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1960. Combs, Arthur W. and Donald Snygg, W W. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Dudyche. George J . Balancing far: Les W 9.2mm. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1955. Germann, A. 0.. Police Perennial Management. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1958. InheU. Fred E. and John 3- Bem. Lie. Detection and Cuisine]. Igterrggatign. Baltimore: The Williams and Nilkins Company, 1953. Larson, John A.i George w. Haney, and Leonardo Keeler, Lyipg_ang__t§;2§t§gtign4 Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1932. Leonard, v. A. (ed.). Acadamx Lssimscn Liam. Vol. 1, Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1957. . (och). WWmMgW ’6 - Vol. 11. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1958. Lee, Clarence D. The. W]. W of Deception. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1953. Marston, William M. The Lie Detectgr Egg}. New York: Richard K. Smith, 1938. Morgan, Clifford T. and Eliot Stellar. Wins]. 1231- gnglggy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1950. Morgan, Clifford T. Introduction t Psychglogy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19 1. 81 Mulbar, Harold. Intezrogation. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1951. Wilson, 0. H. 2.9.1199. Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. B. PERIODICALS lBusiness Uses the Lie Detector,” Bonino§§,!§ok, June 18, 1960, pp. Ion-106. ' _ Davis, John R. "The Use Of the Polygraph in Private Indus- try," Poiioo, Septerber-October 1960, pp. 44, 46. Dyas, Robert D. "The Mental Miasma--A Police Personnel Problem," goiioo, July-August, 1959, pp. 65-69. Elam, Gerald. "Polygraph--An Aid in Recruiting,” Lou and_ o d , July, 1960, pp. an, 26-27. Ferguson, John B. "The Polygraph Knockers," The Polioe finial. May. 1962. p. 39. ‘ Garrett, Felix B. "The Lie Detector Aids Crime Prevention Survey8.g Tha.niliianx.Ealics.lnurnal. June. 1960. pp. 15-1 . , Gregory, Alex L. "Why Workers Steal,“ 2ho,§gtpzdgy,§yening ROSE. Vol. 235, NO. #0. (November 10, 1963), pp. 30-33. Gugas, Chris. "A Scientifically Accurate Method Of Personnel Screening," £91192. November-December 1961, pp. l9-2h. . "Better Policemen Through Better Screening," Polioo, July-August, 1962, pp. 5h-58. Inbau, Fred E. “Lie-Detector Test Limitations,“ ggpgngl Qt Foren goigpogg, Vol. 2, NO. 3. (July, 1957) pp. 255-2 2. . Keeler, Leonarde. "Debunking the Lie-Detector," The J 9.: 22mins]. Lam and 21mm. XXV (May. 19310. PP. 153-159. ' 82 LaCouture, Ronald A. “The Merits and Application Of Psycho- logieglagesting,' In: £oiioo.§hio£, August, 1960, PPo ' . Marcy, Lynn P. ”The Forensic Polygraph Examination,”11ho 29.1191 Mal. XLVI (Winter. 1962). pp. 2-3. 8. 19-25- Oglesby Thomas W. "The Use Of Emotional Screening in the SeIection Of Police Applicants," Polioo, January- February, 1958, pp. 49-53. O'Keefe, Jack A. "Background Check by Polygraph Interview a Useful Tool,"‘1no.£oliog.ghio£, August, 1960, pp. 5-6. Oldham, Charles C. "Police Forum, Subject: The Polygraph,“ .11.“ £911.93. Quiet. August, 1961. p. 1“. Price, Carroll 8. ”An Instrumental Approach to Apfilicant Evaluation,"£o1ioo, May-June, 1961, pp. 39- 2. Riley Paul T. "Use of the Polygraph for Pro-employment Testing Of Police Recruits," Polioo, July-August, 1961. pp. hZ-hB. ' SkOusen, w. Cleon. "What About Polygraph Examinations for Police Personnel?" Lou and Ogden, July, 1961, pp. “LP-“'7 9 77 e I . Steel, Robert D, "A Tribute to Leonarde Keeler, 1903-1949," 2211.929 Jul-Y'Auguat 9 1958 v ‘ppo “0"“5 e - Sternbach, Richard A., Lawrence A. Gustafson, and Ronald L, Colier. "Don't Trust the Lie Detector,” W Business, Region, November-December 1962, pp. 127-13“. Trovillo, Paul V. ”Scientific Proof Of Credibility,“ Police, July-Au ust, 1957, pp. 36-u3; January-February 1958, pp. 36- . . “A History Of Lie Detection," The Journal Of Crimi- nal Law and Criminology, March-April 1939, pp. unknown; May-June 1939, pp. unknown. (Reproduced in full by special permission in School Reference 19-13, United States Army Military Police School, Fort Gordon, Georgia, September 7, 1961) Washnis, George J. "Polygraphic Tests for City Employees," Public Lemma]. Rules. Jun. 1962. ppe 192-198. 83 C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Arther, Richard O. “Stopping Employee Thefts," Paper read before various business associations, New York, New York, 1961-1962. O'Keefe, Jack A. ”Use of the’Polygraph in Police Applicant Screening,“ Paper read at the International Association of Chiefs of Police 1962 Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, October 6-11, 1962. Slevin, Bill. "Police Lie Detector Proves Worth," Polygzgm, Associated Research Bulletin 6-15.3 undated) p. . D. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS Department of Ares. Becoming Lia Detects: Mimi-£52 and ANZQ§§=22, Army Technical Manual 11-553 A. Washington: 1957 ' United States Congress, House Of Representatives, Committee on Un-American Activities. mm mm in the . Hearings beforeSubcomnitte, National Security. . 87th Congress, 2d Session, August 13, 1962.. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962. E. NEWSPAPERS Riesel, Victor, "Beach Waiter Holds His Job,‘ The Miami Hogs, March 15, 1960, 12A. APPENDICES APPENDIX A mesa: QUESTIONS covssntc m m CRITICAL anus APPENDIX A TEST QUESTIONS COVERING THE TWENTY CRITICAL AREAS 1. Have you been completely truthful concerning your name? 2. To the best of your knowledge is the place and date of your birth shown on your application correct? .3. Have you been completely truthful concerning present and former residences? u. Have you been completely truthful concerning your education (training)? 5. Have you deliberately withheld any unfavorable infor- mation concerning your military service? ‘ 6. Have you intentionally withheld any information con- cerning a past or present physical ailment or injury? 7. Have you been completely truthful concerning your men- tal health? ‘ 8. Have you deliberately withheld any unfavorable infor- mation concerning previous employment? ' 9. Are you seeking long-term employment with this agency? 10. Have you been completely truthful concerning your marital status? ' 11. Have you been completely truthful concerning your gambling habits? 12. Have you been completely truthful concerning your alcoholic drinking habits? 13. Have you ever used, bought, or sold narcotics or drugs for other than medical reasons? 1“. Have you been completely truthful concerning your financial status and Obligations? 87 15. Have you intentionally withheld any unfavorable infor- mation concerning an automobile accident? 16. Have you deliberately withheld any information.concern- ing your police record or arrests? 17. Have you ever committed any serious undetected crimes? 18. Have you ever been a member Of any organisation advo- cating the overthrow Of the United States Government? 19. Since the age Of sixteen have you engaged in sexual acts with a man; a child; an animal? 20. Were you completely truthful in answering the questions on the psychological tests? NOTE: The phrase "other than what you have told me about“ may precede any of the above questions to which the appli- cant has made partial admissions. APPENDIX B SPECIFIC TEST QUESTIONS COVERING THE TWENTY CRITICAL AREAS 89 Critical Area One--NAME 1. Is the name shown on your application your real full name? ‘2. Is it identical with the name recorded on your birth certificate? 3. Is the name shown on your application spelled correctly? h. Have you ever spelled it any other way? 5. Have you ever had your name changed legally? 6. Have you ever assumed a fictitious name? 7. Have you ever represented yourself to be somebody else? 8. Have you ever attempted to conceal your real identity? 9. Have you ever used on police records any name other than your real name? 10. Have you ever used on employment records any name other than your real name? 11. Have you ever used on military records any name other than your real name? 12. Have you ever registered in a hotel or motel using a name other than your real name? 90 Critical Area Two-~BIRTH 1. Have you ever seen your birth certificate? ’2. To the best Of your knowledge is the date of birth shown on your birth certificate your true date of birth? 3. TO the best of your knowledge is the place of birth shown on your birth certificate your true place Of birth? a. Is the date of birth shown on your application the same date recorded on your birth certificate?‘ 5. Is the place Of birth shown on your application the same as the place recorded on your birth certificate? -6.. Have you ever used a date Of birth other than the date Of birth shown on your application? 7. Have you ever used a place of birth other than the place Of birth shown on your application? 8. Have you ever intentionally lied about your date Of birth for any reason? , 9. Have you ever intentionally lied about your place of birth for any reason? ‘ 91 Critical Area Three--RESIDENCES 1. Are all your former residences listed on your application? 2. Is the information about your residences correctly listed on your application? 3. Have you actually resided at all the addressee listed? h. Have you intentionally omitted any residence? ‘ 5. Have you ever lived any place other than at the addres- ses listed on your application? 6. Is your present address (residence) correctly listed? 7. Have yourever changed residence because of trouble with neighbors? 92. Critical Area Four-~EDUCATION 1. Are all the secondary schools colleges, and universi- ties that you have attended listed on your application? 2. Have you actually attended all the schools listed on your application? 3. Did you complete the years of education indicated on your application? b. Have you intentionally misrepresented your level of education? 5. Were you ever suspended from school? 6. Were you ever expelled from school? 7. Were you ever placed on probation in any school? 8. Were you ever directed to transfer to another school for any reason? 9. Did you ever have disciplinary trouble at the schools you attended? 93 .Critical Area Five-~MILITABY SERVICE 1. Have you actually completed the military service listed on your application? 2. Have you intentionally omitted any period of military service? ~' 3. Have you ever been rejected for military service for any reason? a. Have you ever been discharged for physical or mental reasons? 5. Have you ever received a discharge other than an honor- able discharge? 6. Have you ever been court-martialed? 7. Have you ever appeared as a defendant before a military board? 8. Have you ever falsified information to be eligible for military service? , 9. Have you ever falsified information to keep from being drafted? 94 Critical Area Slx--PHYSICAL AILMENTS OB INJURIES 11. seriously sick? 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ment 11. 12. 13. 1h. 15. Have you ever Have you ever Have you ever Have you ever Have you ever Have you ever Have you ever Do you suffer Besides routine childhood diseases, have you ever been suffered from heart trouble? had TB? had a serious effect' from an allergy? been seriously injured?‘ been inJured in an accident? suffered a head injury?- "blacked out"? from headaches for long periods of time? During the last year have you been under medical treat- for any reason? During the last five years have you been under medical treatment for any reason? Do you presently have any complaints about your health? Are you physically handicapped in any way? Have you intentionally misrepresented your state of health in any way? Have you intentionally omitted any injury or illness from your application? 95 Critical Area Seven--MENTAL DISORDERS ’1. .2. Do you presently have any emotional problems? Do you think you are presently in need of mental or psychiatric treatment? 3. Have you ever suffered from a nervous breakdown? Have you ever suffered from a mental breakdown? ever OVBP ever 676? BVBP ever BVOP ever. u. 5. Have you vous disorder? 6. Have you 7. Have you 8. Have you 9. Have you 10._ Have you 11. Have you 12. Have you 13. 1h. suffered from any type of mental or ner- been confined to a mental institution? been confined to a rest home? been under psychiatric treatment? consulted a psychiatrist? consulted mental hygiene personnel? attempted to commit suicide? seriously considered committing suicide? Has any member of your immediate family ever been con- fined to a rest home? Has any member of your immediate family ever been con- fined to a mental institution? 96 _ Critical Area Eight--PBEVIOUS EMPLOYMENT 1. Have you correctly listed all your employments on your application? 2. Have you intentionally omitted any employment? 3. Are the true reasons for leaving your previous employ- ments correctly listed on your application? h. Were you ever fired from any employment? 5. Were you ever asked to resign from any employment? 6. Did you ever resign a Job because you thought you were going to be fire ? 7. Did any of your employers ever discipline you for mis- conduct? ' 8. Did you ever intentionally act against the interests of any of your employers? 9. Did you ever steal anything from any.of your employers? 10. Did you ever help others steal from any of your employers? 97 Critical Area Nine--LONG~TEEM EMPLOYMENT 1. Are you seeking long-term employment in applying for this position? 2. Are you applying for this position because you like the type of work involved? 3. Is there some other type of work that you would prefer to law enforcement? h. Do you intend to make a career of law enforcement? 5. Do you presently have any applications for employment pending with other organizations or companies? 6. Have you agreed or arranged to accept another position at some future date? 98 Critical Area Ten--MABITAL STATUS (Single Applicant) '1. Is the information contained in your application con- cerning your marital status complete and correct? 2. Have you ever been married? 3. Have you ever been engaged to be married? (Married Applicant) 1. Is the information contained in your application concerning your marital status complete and correct? 2. Have you ever been married before? 3. Have you ever been divorced? 4. Have you ever been separated from your wife because of domestic difficulties. 99 Critical Area Eleven--GAMBLING 1. Have you ever bet money on cards, horses, dice, num- bers, fights, ball games“ etc.? 2. Have you ever played the slot machines or pinball machines for money? 3. 1+. 5. 6e 7. Have you ever bet more than $20.00 on a single bet? Do you presently owe any gambling debts? Have you ever borrowed money to gamble? Has your family ever suffered because of your gambling? Have you ever worked for a company which was organized for purposes of gambling? 100 ' Critical Area Twelve--ALCOHOL 1. Have you ever used alcoholic beverages? 2. Have you ever used alcoholic beverages to excess? 3. Have you ever been drunk? Q. Have you ever borrowed money to buy alcoholic beverages? 5. Have you ever been in any kind of trouble as a result of your drinking? 6. Have you ever lost time from work because of your drinking habits? 7. Have you ever been arrested for being under the influ- _ence of alcohol?- 8. Have you ever been fired or asked to resign from a Job because of your drinking habits? 9.- Have you ever been in a sanitorium for alcoholism? 10. Have you ever been treated by a doctor for alcoholism? 101 Critical Area Thirteen-~NABCOTICS 1. Are you now or have you ever been addicted to the use of habit-forming drugs? 2. AHave you ever used narcotics or drugsfor other than medical reasons? A .« 3. Have you ever bought narcotics or drugs for other than medical reasons? u. Have you ever sold narcotics or drugs for other than medical reasons? 5. Have you ever been involved in any other way in the illegal traffic of narcotics or drugs? 102 Critical Area Fourteen-—FINANCIAL STATUS AND OBLIGATIONS 1. Have you intentionally omitted listing any of your debts on your application form? 2. Are you presently behind in making payments on any of your debts? 3. Has a creditor ever repossessed merchandise from you because of delinquent payments? 4. 5. 6. 7. Have you ever been sued for not paying a debt? Have you ever refused to pay a legitimate debt? Have you ever been refused credit? Have you ever resorted to the laws of bankruptcy? 103 ' Critical Area Fifteen--AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS 1. Have you intentionally omitted from your application form any information concerning automobile accidents in which you have been involved? 2. Have you ever failed to report an accident in which you were involved? 3. Have you ever been involved in an accident that resulted in death or serious injury? h. Have you ever been involved in an accident resulting in extensive prcperty damage? 5. Are there presently pending any lawsuits or police actions resulting from accidents in which you have been pinvolved? 6. Has your drivers license ever been suspended or revoked because of an accident? 7. Has your automobile insurance coverage ever been.can- called because of an accident? 8. Have you ever been refused automobile insurance? 10h_ Critical Area Sixteen-- POLICE RECORD 1. Have you intentionally omitted from your application any arrests or detentions by any law enforcement agency? '2. Have you ever been accused of any offense but not arrested or detained? 3. Have you ever been interrogated as a suspect by aylaw enforcement officer but not arrested or detained? h. Have you ever been charged as a Juvenile delinquent? 5. Have you ever been charged as a youthful offender? 6. Have you ever been charged as a wayward minor? 7. Have you ever been in trouble with any law enforcement _agency? 8. Have you ever appeared in court as a defendant? 9. Do you presently have any charges of any kind pending against you? , 105 Critical Area Seventeen--UNDETECTED CRIMES 1. Have crime? 2. Have you ever committed any serious undetected you ever helped anyone commit a serious unde- tected crime? 3. Have lance? - #. Have you could 5. Have 6. Have 7. Have 8. Have A 9. Have 10. Have 11. Have 12. Have you ever committed any undetected acts of vio- you ever done anything for which you feel that be blackmailed? you ever accepted a bribe? you ever threatened anyone with a weapon? you ever assaulted anyone with a weapon? you ever broken into anyone's home? you ever broken into a place of business? you ever stolen a car? ' you ever stolen anything of value? . you ever forced a woman to have sexual inter- course with you? Critical Area Eighteen-~LOIALWI 1. Have you ever been 2. Have you ever been- organization? 3. Have you ever been organization? h. Have you ever been 5. Have you ever been 6. Have you ever been zation? 7' a a member member member "member member member of of of of of of 7. Have you ever been a member of advocates the overthrow of the United States constitutional government? 106 the Communist Party? a communist front a communist controlled a nazi organization? a fascist organization? an un-American organi- any organization that 8.‘ Have you ever contributed money to the activities of any of these organizations? 102 Critical Area Nineteen--. HOMOSEXUALITI SINCE THE AGE OF SIXTEEN: i. have you engaged in acts of oral sodomy with other men or boys? 2. have you engaged in acts of anal sodomy with other men or boys? 3. have you and another man or boy engaged in mutual acts of masturbation? ' n. have you engaged in sexual activity with animals? 5. have you engaged in a sex act with a child? 6. have you sexually exhibited yourself? 108 Critical Area Twenty-~PSXCHOLOGICAL TESTS 1. Did you answer all the questions on the psychological tests truthfully? 2. Did you give misleading answers to any of the questions on the psychological tests? 3. Did you give evasive answers to any of the questions on the psychological tests? A. Did you give false answers to any of the questions on the psychological tests? NOTE: The specific questions to be used would be dependent upon the type of psychological tests employed. APPENDIX C POLICE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS TO WHICH QUESTIONNAIBES HERE SENT APPENDIX C POLICE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS TO waxes QUESTIONNAIRES wens SENT' I. FEDERAL 1. Federal Bureau of Investigation 2. Atomic Energy Commission (Security Division) II. STATE .All State Police Agencies Except Those in Alaska and Hawaii. III. MUNICIPAL 1. Akron, Ohio . 1h. Binghamton, New Iork 2. Albany, New York A 15. Birmingham, Alabama 3. Albuquerque, New Mexico 16. Boise, Idaho. 4. Allentown, Pennsylvania 17. Boston Massachusetts 5. Amarillo, Texas 18. Buffalo, New York 6. Atlanta, Georgia 19. Burlington, Vermont 7. Atlantic City, New Jersey 20, Butte, Montana 8. Augusta, Georgia 21. Canton, Ohio 9. Baltimore, Maryland ‘22. Charleston, South Carolina 10. Baton Rouge, Louisiana 23. Charlotte, North Carolina 11. Beaumont, Texas 2h. Chattanooga, Tennessee 12. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 25. Chicago, Illinois 13. Billings, Montana 26. Cincinnati, Ohio (con't) APPENDIX C 27. Cleveland, Ohio #9. 28. Columbia, South Carolina 50. 29. Columbus, Georgia 51. 30. Columbus, Ohio 52. 31. Corpus Cristi, Texas 53. 32. Dallas, Texas 5#. 33. Davenport, Iowa 55. 3#. Dayton, Ohio 56. 35. Denver, Colorado 57. 36. Des Moines, Iowa 58. 37. Detroit, Michigan 59. 38. Duluth, Minnesota 60. 39. El PaSo, Texas. 61. #0. Erie, Pennsylvania 62. #1. Evansville, Indiana 63. #2. Flint, Michigan 6#. #3. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 65. ##. Fort Wayne, Indiana 66. #5. Fort Worth, Texas 67. #6. Fresno, California 68. #7. Grand Rapids, Michigan 69. #8. Greensboro, North Carolina 70. 111 Hartford, Connecticut Houston, Texas Indianapolis, Indiana Jackson, Mississippi Jacksonville, Florida Kalamazoo, Michigan Kansas City, Missouri Knoxville, Tennessee Lansing, Michigan Las Vegas, Nevada Lincoln, Nebraska Little Rock, Arkansas Los Angeles, California Louisville, Kentucky Madison, Wisconsin Memphis, Tennessee Miami, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Minneapolis, Minnesota Mobile, Alabama Montgomery, Alabama. Nashville, Tennessee 71. New Haven, Connecticut New Orleans, Louisiana New York, New York Norfolk, Virginia Oakland, California Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Omaha3-Nebraska Peoria, Illinois Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phoenix, Arizona ' Pittsburg,Pennsylvania Portland, Oregon . Providence, Rhode Island Racine, Wisconsin Raleigh, North Carolina Reading, Pennsylvania Richmond, Virginia Rochester, New York Sacramento, California St. Louis, Missouri St. Paul, Minnesota Salt Lake City, utah San Antonio, Texas 9#. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 10“. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 11#. 115. 116. 117. 112 APPENDIX C San Diego, California San Francisco, California Savannah, Georgia Scranton, Pennsylvania Seattle, Washington Shreveport, Louisiana South Bend, Indiana Spokane , Washington Springfield, Illinois Springfield, Ohio Syracuse, New York Tacoma, Washington Tampa, Florida Toledo, Ohio Topeka, Kansas Trenton, New Jersey Troy, New York Tucson, Arizona Tulsa, Oklahoma Waco, Texas Washington, D.C. Wichita, Kansas Winston-Salem, North Carolina Youngstown, Ohio APPENDIX D STATE POLICE AGENCIES ssranwc TO QDESTIONNAIRE THAT Do use 083 was ponmonxrs APPENDIX D STATE POLICE AGENCIES REPLXING TO QUESTIONNAIRE THAT DO NOT USE THE POLYGRAPH Minnesota Code: (1) Resentment-That Would Result--2 (2) Cost Involved--3 (z) Shortage of Applicants--i ( ) Size of Organization-~3 (5) Lack of Confidence in Polygraph Technique--2 (6) Lack of Confidence in Polygraph Examiners--2 (7) Have Never Been Approached--7 (8) Satisfaction from Other Methods-~9 (9) Remarks: Replies--35; Considering Its Use-~2 STATE (ll~(2] (3) (fl) (5] [6] (2] (El (91 Alabama . X ' Arizona X X Arkansas X X LD has place ' in screening Colorado X Florida ’Idaho X Indiana Department policy Kansas X LD is valid but psychologi- cal test is best for them. Kentucky X Louisiana No provision in Civil Service Massachusetts (con't) STATE Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee APPENDIX D L1) (2) (3) (#1 (5) (6) (z) (8) X X X X X X X X X 115 (9) Appointments are political in nature Requires state legislation Five examiners are too busy with criminal cases Operate a six weeks competi- tive recruit ‘school Stress system in 1# weeks basic training. Do not use Sin in every- one's life Complete inves- tigation made -116 ,(con't) APPENDIX D STATE (1) (g;i(3) (Q) (5) (6) (7) (8), (9) Texas ‘ No comment Utah Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Seriously considering the polygraph for applicant screening:. Michigan West Virginia > APPENDIX E MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS REPLIING TO QUESTIONNAIRE THAT DO NOT USE THE POLXGRAPM APPENDIXLE MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS REPLIING TO QUESTIONNAIRE THAT DO NOT USE THE POLIGRAPH' Code: (i) Resentlent That Would Result--# “ (2) Cost Involved--lO a) Short ( ) Size 0 ( é -( ( MQNIQIEALIZII Atlantic City New Jersey Augusta, Georgia‘ Baton.Bouge Louisiana . Billings , Montana Birmingham; Alabama Boston Massachusetts. Buffalo, New York Canton , Ohio Charlotte North Carolina Chattanooga Tennessee e of Applicants---3 Organization--6 5) Lack of Confidence in Polygraph Techniques-~3 6) Lack of Confidence in Polygraph Examiners-—# 7) Have NeveruBeenApgroaChed-aa 8; Satisfaction from 9 Remarks: Replies-~57; Considering Its Use-~11 (11 (al_ill_1&1_iil_1§l_izl_1§l .(91 ther Methods--28 Considering its use Do not use polygraph Do not use Considering its use No comment (con't) N P I 'Columbia South Carolina Columbus Georgia Columbus, Ohio Corpus Cristi Texas Dallas, Texas Davenport, Iowa Des Moines Iowa Detroit Michigan Duluth Minnesota El Paso, Texas Erie Pennsylvania Evansville Indiana Fort Lauderdale Florida Fresno California Grand Rapids Michigan (1) (z) (3) (k) (5) (6) (2) (8) X X APPENDIX 3 x .. X X X 119 (9) Only for crimi- nal cases Considering its use Have con- sidered it Considered but reJected Have not inves- tiga ated its pose bilities. Desire to but insufficient funds 120 New York (con't) APPENDIX E MUNICIPALITY (1) (g) (3) (it) (5) (6) (z) (8) (9) Greensboro X X X North Carolina Indianapolis X X Indiana Jacksonville Considering Florida its use Lansing X .Michigan Las Vegas X X X X Nevada Little Rock X X Seriously Arkansas considering purchasing a polygraph Los Angeles X. No not use California .polygraph Madison X Other methods Wisconsin are not satis- . factory Memphis X Tennessee Milwaukee X Wisconsin Nashville X Tennessee New Haven Considering Connecticut its use I New York X 121 (con‘t) APPENDIX E MUN C P T (i) (2) (3) i#) (5) (61 (7) (8) (9)1 Norfolk X Emphas Virginia personal interview Oklahoma City X Very recep- Oklahoma tive but budget problems Philadelphia X Pennsylvania Providence X X Rhode Island Racine X 'X X Wisconsin Raleigh Considering North Carolina its use Rochester X X New York Sacramento, X California San Antonio Considering Texas its use San Francisco X Civil Service California must approve Savannah X X X X Used for Georgia interdepart- mental con- flicts Springfield No polygraph Illinois Springfield Considering Ohio its use (can't) APPENDIX E 122 W (11 (21 (31 (#1 (51(6) (2) (8) (91 St. Paul Considering Minnesota its use Toledo, Ohio X Topeka, Kansas Considering its use Tulsa, Oklahoma Considering its use Winston-Salem X 'X North Carolina Youngstown, Ohio X APPENDIX r QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO CONSULTANT FIRMS. APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO CONSULTANT FIRMS 2#23 Dickey Road Augusta, Georgia (Date) (Organization and address) Dear Sir: I am a Military Police officer presently assigned as an instructor to the United States Army Military Police School, Fort Gordon, Georgia. I am writing a thesis for a graduate degree in Police Administration from Michigan State University. I have selected as a subject for my thesis, "An Inquiry Into the Use of the Lie Detector in Applicant Evaluation and Personnel Screening.“ Your assistance is requested for me to complete his task. Please complete and return the enclosed question- naire. Indicate in your reply whether or not your comments may be included in the thesis. Thank you, CHARLES D. 00003 Captain, MPC United States Army 125 QUESTIONNAIRE SUBJECT: "An Inquiry Into the Use of the Lie Detector in Applicant Evaluation and Personnel Screening“ INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate by marking or commenting in the appropriate Spaces those statements or ques- tions which apply to your organization. A. In utilizing the LD in applicant evaluation and personnel. screening (periodic re-examination): 1. 2. 3. What systems do you use? What background areas are verified in your applicant evaluation? At what time intervals are personnel screening tests (periodic re-examinations) administered? How many exams are conducted annually? Applicant evaluation ; personnel screening______. What is the approximate cost per examination? _. What type organization(s) utilize your services? What type of non-police organization is predominant in the use of your LD service? Are you authorized to identify the organizations utilizing your services. YES____5 NO___. If YES, please list major users. ' B. COMMENTS: Please commentas well as include any material that may be of value. Signature - Organization APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO POLICE ORGANIZATIONS APPENDIX G QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO POLICE ORGANIZATIONS 2#23 Dickey Road Augusta, Georgia (Date) (Organization and address) Dear Sir: I am a Military Police officer presently assigned as an instructor to the United States Army Military Police School, Fort Gordon, Georgia. I am writing a thesis for a graduate degree in Police Administration from Michigan State University. I have selected as a subject for my thesis, "An Inquiry Into the Use of the Lie Detector in Applicant Evaluation and Personnel Screening." Your assistance is requested for me to complete this task. Please complete and return the enclosed question- naire. Indicate in your reply whether or not your comments may be included in the thesis. Thank you, CHARLES D. GOOCH Captain, MPC United States Army 128 QUESTIONNAIRE SUBJECT: “An Inquiry Into the Use of the Lie Detector in Applicant Evaluation and Personnel Screening." INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate by marking or commenting in the appropriate spaces those statements or questions which apply to your organization. A. _YES, this organization uses the LD in _applicant evaluation; ___personnel screening (periodic re—examination). If NO, see Part B. i. What system(s) do you use? 2. What position(s) to be filled by applicants do you use the LD? 3. Does refusal to take a LD test deny the applicant employ- ment? YES . NO___. OTHER #. Is the applicant aware of the LD test prior to applying for a job? YES _. NO _. 5. How much emphasis is placed on the LD test results when it differs with: (1) Completed application form; not any___, very little same_ LD test overrules_ ? '72) Physical —background check; not any___g very little_ same _, LD test overrules_ ? 6. If personnel screening (periodic re-examination) is used, at what interval is the test administered? 7. What was the approximate cost to initiate the applicant evaluation and/or screening program? '8. What is the estimated cost per year for operation of your program to include operators, equipment, and facilities? (Pro-rate if same are used for qzimxnal and applicant or screening tests). 9. How many applicant evaluation and/or personnel screening exams are conducted annually?- 129 Questionnaire (con‘t) 10. 11. 12. Has your program materially REDUCED: (1) Personnel turnover , (2) training costs ___J (3) disciplinary problems , and (#) number of applicants ___? Has your program materially INCREASED: (1) calibre of employees___, (2) public confidence.___, (3) employee efficiency__? 1.. COMMENTS: B. NO, this organization does NOT utilize the LD in: applicant evaluation___3 personnel screening____(periodic re-examination). BECAUSE 1. 2. 3. 8. Resentment that would result,___. Cost involved ___, Demand for and shortage of applicants prohibits selectivity . Size of organization does not justify suCh a program___. Lack of Confidence in lie detector techniques____, Operator(s) . Have never been approached , or considered such a program____. ' Satisfactory results obtained from other applicant and screening methods, such as psychological tests___, background checks , and personal interviews OTHER: (please comment). . C. Does your organization utilize the LD to resolve conflicts within the organization____; complaints or accusations made by the public against employees? (Comments desired). EPR111917JMf4-erf/b ”We? f”. .-.I . in. Se “ HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES