The Danger of Using Lie Detector - Case Study Example

The Social Benefits of Using Lie Detectors Also known as a polygraph, the lie detector is a controversial piece of equipment. The equipment is claimed to be a dependable way of detecting whether people are lying or not. The process of detecting a lie in an individual by the lie detector involves the connection of electrodes to the person being questioned, and recording their psychological responses, for instance, breathing rate, skin electrical conductance and blood pressure. By doing this, it is claimed that polygraphs are able to make guilty and innocent determinations. There is a heated debate ranging between those who claim that lie detection tests are reliable and those who take an opposite stance. The danger of using lie detector is that innocent people will be mistakenly pronounced as being guilty since the test only measures physiological responses. Such responses may be caused by a number of emotions, for instance, fear and anger of which guilt is only one. The device has an equally unacceptable rate of falsely accusing innocent people. One question that is emerging is that; how reliable are the polygraph tests? Background information Cheating is human. There has never been, nor ever be, an honest society. So long as human beings lack the means to quantify lies or weigh hypocrisies, there is no need of any individual or society, supposing that any other society is more dishonest than another. Various culture of the world can be distinguished on the basis of how it copes with deceit, the types of lies it denounces, the type of institutions it fashions to expose the deceits(Messer and Jones, p 108). The lie detector and its used have been great in the modern society. The instrument has become one of the greatest projects of the twentieth century, aiming at improving the effort to transform the central moral question of our collective life and how to fashion a just society. The instrument also drew its legitimization from two noble half-truths about our political life which states that: democracy depends on transparency in public life and that justice depends on equal treatment for all persons. As a society based on the political principles rather than a common history or shared kinship, the modern society has decided to resolve social conflicts with public rules regardless of any other factors taking place behind the scenes. Social rules are often in conflict and the society is quick to justify them in the name of science. Science, in itself, is considered as the least arbitrary and the most transparent form of rule making. This has led to the treatment of deceit and the original sin of the social contract, with a redoubled dose of science. The polygraph and its possible success have been repeatedly criticized by respectable scientists. It is a surprise that science has never stopped members of the modern society from believing in something, especially when the media has endlessly praised its success. The modern society is also eager for justice that is swift and sure, it doesn’t matter that the lie detector succeeds by pretence or not; the society seem to have reached a conclusion, the lie detector works, and that is enough. The lie detector has been crowned several powers. It resolves cases, extracts confessions, assumes fidelity, and underwrites credibility. In summary, it provides answers to our daily problems and nothing feels better. The lie detector is just but a technology than a technology of detecting truth (Adler, p 108). How polygraphs work Polygraphs are technologically advanced instruments that are used to measure and record several physiological processes. These processes include blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration and skin conductivity. When an individual is being asked questions in relation to these physiological processes, it is believed that the deceptive responses will produce physiological responses that can be recognized from those associated with non deceptive answers(Messer and Jones, p 109). Polygraph examiners are trained to operate analog or digital equipment which are commonly known as detectors. Polygraphs are medical devices that monitor the changes in individual’s respiratory rate, blood pressure, pulse rate and sweat gland activity as the y answer questions. Polygraphs cannot detect whether a person is lying or not, the instrument can only detect if a person is showing deceptive behavior (Vrij, p 164). The examiners are expected to follow strict procedures and protocols when they are conducting their examinations. When taking a polygraph test, the examiner uses four to six sensors from the equipment. The sensors are then attached to the subject. Multiple signals from the sensors are then recorded on a single strip of moving paper. The sensors are expected to record the subject’s breathing rate, pulse rate, blood pressure and perspiration. In addition, the polygraph may also record things like arm and leg movement. Application Polygraphs are used by the law enforcement officers. When polygraph operators are just about to conduct their tests, they first of all collect information a bout a case, the issues to be tested, and the subjects to be tested. The police may use the lie detector, case files and other documents in determining the magnitude the lie. The examiner then develops a set of questions which they will ask the subject, for example, if the case is about robbery; the examiner will as questions about each robbery (Vrij, p 165). Further, polygraph testing is widely used in the intelligence community to screen employees. They are also used to establish the eligibility for access of classified intelligence information. Again, if the employer wishes to establish the cleanliness of staff, for instance, to know who is working and who is lazy. This is important because it can prevent the big loss of monetary and material assets as the employer strives to save and avoid economic loses Limitations Assessment of any test’s credibility is based on the assumption that the test consistently measures the same properties. A test’s reliability also refers to the consistency across the examiners. A reliable polygraph test should yield equivalent outcomes when subjects are tested and as well be scored similarly other subjects other that the initial subject. For example, if one examiner comes out with a conclusion that the subject was deceptive, any other examiner should also be able to reach at the same conclusions. The arrival at the same conclusion by two different examiners might be affected by the amount and the type of training of the examiners (Vrij, p 164). If a testing procedure is not measuring what it purports to measure, it is unusual for the procedure to come up with the same result again and again. There are cases when examiners who consistently agree that they are seeing deception, may in fact be measuring anxiety or some other form of arousal. Reliability is a necessary condition for valid results of the tests to be established. Attest that is valid will necessarily be reliable. Another limitation touches on the test’s validity. A polygraph is designed to test deception; it is therefore very important to clearly define the construct of deception and separate it from other concepts such as guilt. To determine validity, it is necessary to both describe it and show how it is related to the conceptual framework of the test. Validity should be based on theoretical predictions of how items should interrelate, actual evidence, for instance, scores from similar tests is examined. On the basis of criterion validity, the test accuracy is questioned. This aspect of validity refers, in the case of polygraph examination, to the relationship between test outcomes and a criterion on the grounds of truth. In some cases, it is not clear which aspects of attest are responsible for accuracy, and what factors cause a test to be inaccurate. Lie detectors have also been able to discriminate between liars and truth tellers. The ability of the lie detector to be able to statistically discriminate between a group of liars and a group of truth tellers in a particular context cannot be used be used to determine whether one person in lying or telling the truth. Training people in the use of technological devices such as the polygraph, to detect lies on an individual basis, is still not completely reliable (Vrij, p 164). Human beings are worse at detecting liars than it is believed and that there is no simple and reliable way to detect deception. At the present, the most successful strategy for determining if someone is telling truth is likely to be the objective evidence from other sources that confirm or discredit the subject’s account. History of the lie detectors The lie detector was invented by John Larson who was a medical student at the University of California. The device was invented in the year (19210. It has been used in the police interrogation and investigation since 1924. The polygraph is still controversial among psychologists; ad is not always accepted in the judiciary. Its name (polygraph) was derived due to the fact that the device monitors different body responses simultaneously while the subject is being examined (Adler, p 108). Eye studies The eyes have proved to be better detectors of lies than the polygraphs. The eyes are used as clues about whether a subject is telling the truth or the subject is lying. In the modern society, there is a team of Utah psychologists who are working on developing a new device of detecting lies. The device relies on eye-tracking technology to detect lies and it is expected to monitor eye movements that accompany a suspect’s response to questions to determine whether they are bound to lie or not. The researchers argue that the technology is more effective because the eye normally reveal a person’s cognitive reactions to truth and lies. The eyes rarely react to emotions like the lie detector (polygraph) (Weisten, Lloyd, Dunn and Hammer, p 72). Brain studies Studies have shown that brain scans may be used to replace the polygraphs in the process of detecting lies. Polygraphs use physical indicators of anxiety, however, the FMRIs purport to reveal which individual is telling a lie by revealing the areas in the brain that have increased activity. The brain scan is claimed to predict up to 90% probability in lying. It is still controversial whether the brain scans have the validity to ascertain a high accuracy level. Scientists are yet to agree on which parts of the brain should be scanned to indicate the possibility of an individual lying (Popular science, p 58). Unconscious studies The conscious studies rely on an individual’s confidence while giving evidence. On the contrast, anxiety can cause a person to be viewed as being a liar. High confidence in an individual ensures that he or she receives better treatment from others. In the use of lie detectors, not showing anxiety may prove that an individual is no telling a lie. Problems, especially interpersonal ones, can be solved with a healthy adoption of confidence and self-esteem (National Research Council, p 38). Social aspects of lie detectors It is still controversial whether the outcome of the lie detector is related to the confidence on an individual. Lack of confidence in social interactions will make people also less confident in judging social interactions. This could mean that people high levels of anxiety are less confident in their ability to detect deceit than their counterparts. Being anxious is probably more beneficial to the lie detector (National Research Council, p 38). Being knowledgeable about diagnostic cues to deception also makes an individual better at detecting truths or lies. He or she may also use these cues to avoid being detected of having lied. Other social issues to lie detectors include its credibility (National Research Council, p 38). The lie detector should be able to come up with the same results no matter the number of tests carried out. Initial tests might show that an individual is a liar; other subsequent tests should not yield different results. Validity: The lie detectors should give valid results. Two different polygraph examiners should be able to come up with same results due to testing on the same subject. Variation in results among the examiners might be due to their expertise in using the polygraph. Discussion There are circumstances in which people are good at lying. Individuals are more effective lie tellers if they have had time to prepare and practice their lies. It may, therefore, be a better idea to conduct any interviews where a person is suspected of lying at Avery short notice, rather than giving the person time to prepare answers. For instance, if asocial worker suspects a case of child abuse, it would be good to turn up for the interview with the parents immediately. Giving the parents tome to prepare for the interview will lead to lying about the case. As a general rule, suspects should not be given time to prepare any answers or rehearse any explanations for their actions (National Research Council, p 38) Another point to note is that the higher the stakes involved with the lie, the more likely an individual is likely to leak clues to deception. If the person has a lot to gain by the lie being delivered, and a lot to lose by the lie being delivered, there is a good chance that they will betray themselves with some kinds of deception cues (Messer and Jones, p 107). Finally, there is a distinction between easy and hard lies. Easy lies are cases where the deceiver does not have to cover up their emotions, or present a false impression about their emotions. In this case, there has been ample opportunity to plan and rehearse the lie, the liar is experienced at lying and the person being lied to is not suspicious. A hard lie would mean the opposite. It is slightly easier to lie about facts than it is to lie about emotions (Messer and Jones, p 107). Conclusion The lie detector (polygraph) cannot be used to detect lies. This is based on a number of facts. To begin with, the lie detectors are not accurate since the subject being examined might be acting out of fear. In addition, various results are bound to be achieved when the test is carried out severally or when two different examiners carry the same test with the same individual. The polygraphs are therefore not the best methods of coming up with the truth. Truth should be based on the evidence against or in support of a particular fact. Works cited Aldert Vrij. Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities. New York, Wiley interscience, 2008. Pp 173-176. David J. Messer and Fiona Jones. Psychology and social care. Jessica Kingsley publishers, 1999. Pp 107-110. Ken Adler. The lie detectors: the history of an American obsession. Simon and Schuster Publishers, 2007. Pp 163-168. National Research council (US). “Scientific validity of polygraph testing,” New York, DIANE, 2010, publishing, pp 37- 40. “Popular science”. Published by bonnier corporation, august 2002. Vol 261, no. 2. P 58. Wayne Weisten, Maegaret A. Lloyd, Dana S. Dunn and Elizabeth Yost Hammer. Psychology applied to modern life: adjustment in the 21st century, Cengage learning, 2008, p 72. Read More