UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Geoff Price <Geoff@CalibanMW.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:20:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:41:40 -0400
Subject: Lie Detection in UFO Controversies
Lie Detection in UFO Controversies
=A91997 Geoff Price
Grappling with fraud and deception is par for the course in the context of
UFO claims, and as a result, "lie detector" tests are frequently demanded
of UFO claimants, and their results, positive or negative, brandished as
evidence.
Some cases in particular have put lie detection in the spotlight, notably
the Travis Walton abduction case of 1975, as well as the more recent (and
divisive) case of Ed Walters and his Gulf Breeze photographs.
Kevin Randle, in his latest book the Randle Report, rules both cases a
hoax, pointedly citing the original, failed polygraph test of Travis Walton
(administered by John McCarthy, hereafter "the McCarthy test".) Gulf
Breeze detractors, such as Carol and Rex Salisberry, have cited the
successful voice stress analysis test conducted on a taped deposition given
by Tommy Smith (who says he observed the fabrication of photographs by
Walters).
Both of these examples represent somewhat irresponsible use of "lie
detection" evidence, illustrating some of the pitfalls and common confusion
that surrounds the topic.
Does It Work at All?
Is there any validity in lie detection at all? In the domain of applied
psychology, lie detection is referred to as the psychophysical detection of
deception (PDD). The most common PDD technique is the polygraph, a general
term describing tests which measure and correlate a variety of
physiological activities (sweat and gland, cardiovascular, respiratory
activity) using analog ("conventional") or computerized instruments.
The polygraph has always been a controversial topic, and much of the public
-- and many introductory textbooks in psychology courses -- treat the
matter with considerable skepticism. However, the more strident criticisms
of the polygraph were spurred by inadequate earlier techniques, long since
soundly rejected by academic scrutiny. Contemporary studies have found
significant validity in the most common of current techniques, the "Control
Question Test" (CQT).
A recent article in the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness
Psychology reviews the empirical and review literature concerning CQT, and
concludes that, "when the ecologically valid laboratory studies and the
high quality field studies are considered, both indicate high validity for
the CQT."[1]
The Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in its decision in the U.S.
vs Posado in 1995, overturning "per se" exclusion of polygraph evidence,
gave the following overview of the state of the evidence for polygraph:
"There can be no doubt that tremendous advances have been made in
polygraph instrumentation and technique in the years since Frye. The
test at issue in Frye measured only changes in the subject's systolic
blood pressure in response to test questions. ... Modern instrumentation
detects changes in the subject's blood pressure, pulse, thoracic and
abdominal respiration, and galvanic skin response. Current research
indicates that, when given under controlled conditions, the polygraph
technique accurately predicts truth or deception between seventy and
ninety percent of the time. Remaining controversy about test accuracy
is almost unanimously attributed to variations in the integrity of the
testing environment and the qualifications of the examiner. ... Further,
there is good indication that polygraph technique and the requirements
for professional polygraphists are becoming progressively more
standardized. In addition, polygraph technique has been and continues
to be subjected to extensive study and publication. Finally, polygraph
is now so widely used by employers and government agencies alike."
And according to another court review:
"The predominant format employed in the field of polygraphy is the
'control question' technique ... There is no dispute in this case that
the 'probable lie' version of the control question technique, when
properly employed, is a highly accurate method for detecting deception
and possesses the type of scientific validity that satisfies the
reliability prong of Rule 702. Through numerous field and laboratory
studies, researchers have determined that polygraph examinations using
this technique produce results that have an accuracy rate of
approximately ninety percent. ...
"The most thorough treatment of polygraph admissibility issues can be
found in two district court opinions from Arizona and New Mexico
[Galbreth and Crumby] ... both courts found that polygraph theory and
technique had been tested by the scientific method and repeatedly
validated in field and laboratory studies, subjected to stringent
peer review and extensive publication, shown to have a remarkably
low error rate when properly applied by a skilled polygrapher,
enjoyed substantial acceptance within the scientific community,
and was widely used within government and industry."
In short, there is sufficient evidence of the validity of polygraph testing
to justify its use as one form of supporting evidence in the evaluation of
UFO and other "extraordinary" claims, particularly in multiple witness
situations.
However, the responsible use of lie detection evidence requires a clear
understanding of which kinds of tests are well-grounded in scientific
validity and which are not.
Walton and the McCarthy Test
A total of thirteen polygraph examinations have been administered in
conjunction with the Travis Walton case of 1975, a prodigious case as far
as the use of polygraph evidence is concerned. A total of nine individuals
were tested, including the seven primary participants and Walton's mother
and brother. Eleven of the tests were passed, one was inconclusive, and
one, the McCarthy test, was failed -- by the primary actor Walton.
Initially, the six alleged witnesses to the close encounter (during which
Walton was zapped by a "blue light" from a close, hovering "smooth" and
"reflective" disc-shaped object) were subjected to polygraph tests. These
were CQT examinations administered by Cy Gilson of the Arizona Department
of Public Safety (state police), primarily addressing the possibility of
some non-extraordinary foul play at work, but pointedly questioning the
witnesses regarding the veracity of the reported UFO event. Five of the
six passed, with one inconclusive result. Since an "inconclusive" reading
is not the same as a "deceptive" reading (it is simply an unsuccessful
test, to be disregarded) the results provided strong evidence of a real
event.
Next, a private investigator named John McCarthy was hired to test Walton
relatively soon after his reappearance. McCarthy ruled Walton deceptive,
and the test results were regrettably suppressed by the ufological group
APRO and the National Enquirer. A follow-up examination by George Pfeifer
ruled Walton truthful.
Twenty years later, in 1993, Cy Gilson retested key participants Travis
Walton, (foreman and Walton friend) Mike Rogers, and Allen Dalis (the
original "inconclusive" result), using a state-of-the-art computer-scored
CQT methodology. All three passed.
The probabilistic significance of the unanimous passing of CQT examinations
by all six witnesses is not to be taken lightly. Since they are
independent tests, the odds of gross hoax (all participants lying about the
UFO encounter) is less than one-tenth of a percent using the conservative
figure of 70% for test accuracy, and on the order of one in ten million
using the 90% figure. In short, quite strong evidence that some kind of
startling event or elaborate hoax took place.
Nonetheless, the PDD results for the primary actor Walton were
contradictory ("dueling" results). In the Randle Report, Kevin Randle
reviews this contradiction and settles in favor of the McCarthy test. He
cites the opinion of a polygraph examiner who believes that Walton could
have become comfortable with his fraud in the retelling, and thus passed
the later tests in 1993. He then emphasizes the 1975 McCarthy test,
stating that, given its proximity to the original event, this test "speaks
volumes" about Walton's truthfulness.
Unfortunately, Randle never raises the issue of polygraph methodology. John
McCarthy in 1975 was still using what is called the "Relevant/Irrelevant"
(RI) examination format. Test transcripts were forwarded by Allan Hendry
of CUFOS to Dr. David Raskin, a published scholar and recognized authority
on the polygraph, who described the technique as "unacceptable" and "thirty
years out of date".[2]
A cursory examination of the literature readily confirms the degree to
which the RI technique is held in low regard. The aforementioned
psychology article on polygraphy states brusquely, "Of the three techniques
discussed in this paper, there seems to be general agreement in the
scientific literature that the Relevant-Irrelevant Test lacks validity".
Crucial is the issue of why, specifically, RI tests have been found to be
unreliable. The same court review that praises CQT as "a highly accurate
method for detecting deception" explains that:
"The relevant/irrelevant technique has been determined by researchers to
produce an unacceptably high number of 'false positive' errors (because
even an innocent subject will recognize the significance of the relevant
question and may react to it) and has generally been discarded in favor of
other techniques that have been shown to have a higher degree of
reliability."
Dr. Charles Honts, another heavily published scholar of PDD techniques, and
an authority who has testified as an expert witness in key court cases
involving polygraph evidence, concurs that "the relevant/irrelevant
technique has been conclusively shown to be an invalid technique in
published scientific research."[3]
Specifically, "the relevant/irrelevant technique is known to produce a
large number (80+%) of false positive errors (the truthful fail the test).
A failed RI test should be given no weight for any purpose."
In other words, under the right conditions, you would want to bet -- and
bet heavily -- that a truthful respondent will fail a RI polygraph exam.
In this context, the other issues raised by critics of the McCarthy test --
Walton's psychological distress, McCarthy's alleged hostility -- simply
establish that we have exceptionally good reasons to discount the results.
Randle's comment that the McCarthy test "speaks volumes" about the veracity
of the case is in striking contrast to Honts' comment that a "failed RI
test should be given no weight for any purpose", and is rendered more
disappointing still by the fact that even a cursory review of the
literature would have prevented it.
The 1993 Gilson Tests
With the McCarthy test disregarded, we're left with the remaining
successful tests, most notably the 1993 CQT exams of the key players by
Gilson. Critics have floated a number of reasons as to why these tests
should (also) be considered suspect.
I asked Charles Honts to comment specifically on Randle's suggestion that
the tale gets easier in the retelling. He replied, "I know of no
scientific evidence that suggests that the passage of time, per se, would
affect the validity of the polygraph. In fact the available research fails
to show such effects, but no study has looked at time intervals in terms of
years."
"I think the suggestion that telling a story over and over would make you
comfortable with the story and enable you to pass the test is most
unlikely."
Others have suggested, based on McCarthy's feelings in 1975 that Walton was
trying to consciously "distort" his breathing to beat the test, that Walton
has trained himself in "countermeasures" to beat polygraph examinations.
To this possibility, Honts replies, "Possible, but very unlikely. Research
has shown that under the proper conditions there are techniques that people
can learn to enable some of them to beat comparison question test.
However, this research also shows two additional things: Sophisticated
training is necessary for the countermeasures to work, and the computer
analysis that Gilson used is very hard to beat, much harder than the
numerical scoring used by polygraph examiners. In fact the CAPS/CPS
computer scoring is THE BEST COUNTER-COUNTERMEASURE known." (emphasis
original)
Honts provides additional background on the examiner and technique employed
in the tests in question: "The computer analysis program that Gilson used
has been the topic of peer-reviewed scientific publication and has been
shown to be valid see, Kircher and Raskin (1988) J Applied Psychology."
"I have known Cy Gilson for about 14 or 15 years. He was a respected
police officer and polygraph examiner while he worked for the State of
Arizona. I have seen his polygraph work in other cases and it has been of
high quality. My impression of Cy Gilson is that he is not give to wild
flights of fancy. I know of nothing that would suggest to me that he is
anything but an honorable and honest man."
Ultimately, even ascertaining Walton's truthfulness will never completely
solve the mystery of his five-day disappearance, since it's possible that
he was the subject of an entirely sophisticated kidnapping/hoax.
Nevertheless, the eyewitness testimony, endorsed by rigorous polygraph
cross-examination, provides strong evidence that the events have been
faithfully reported by the relevant parties.
Kevin Randle does provide some other (new) evidence of hoax in the case,
casually dropping in his conclusion that some unnamed members of Walton's
family have confided to some unnamed investigators that the whole business
was indeed a hoax planned and executed by Walton. Well... polygraph
evidence may not be as "hard" as a proverbial flying saucer on ice, but it
is at least more solid than this sort of curious hearsay, and it seems fair
to request substantiation of such rumors before weighing them seriously.
Gulf Breeze, Ed Walters, and Tommy Smith
Another controversial case which features "dueling" PDD evidence is the
"Gulf Breeze" case of Ed Walters and his sensational UFO photographs and
videos. One of the many explosively controversial moments in the case came
with the testimony of Tommy Smith, a young man who claimed in a taped
deposition that he was with Ed Walters on an occasion when Walters hoaxed
(fabricated) a UFO photograph.
Investigators applied a voice stress analysis (VSA) test to the taped
testimony, which was passed. A VSA test is a (usually computerized)
mechanical analysis of the human voice to determine truthfulness. It
differs from polygraph tests in that it monitors only voice patterns. In
concept, as advertised by the companies that sell it, VSA promises a
powerful tool for evaluating claims, since it can be conveniently used on
any recorded testimony at the leisure of investigators.
Lined up against Smith's VSA success is an also successful but controlled
VSA test conducted on testimony by Ed Walters, in which he denies
perpetrating a hoax. A controlled test compares critical testimony against
control testimony -- a normal sample of the subject's voice patterns
(apparently unavailable in the Smith case.)
Do we prefer the Walters VSA test on the grounds that it was controlled?
Ultimately, the issue of controlled versus uncontrolled VSA tests is hard
to settle, because there simply is no compelling body of evidence
supporting VSA in any form.
The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute conducted an extensive
inquiry into VSA tests, and eventually made the following statement in
September of last year (1996):
"To date, we have found no credible evidence in information furnished by
the manufacturers, the scientific literature, or in our own research, that
voice stress analysis is an effective investigative tool for determining
deception. ... The preponderance of evidence indicates the polygraph is far
more accurate at detecting deception than is voice stress analysis."
Charles Honts concurs: "For once, I am in total agreement with DODPI!
There is NO published evidence to support the validity of VSA." This is in
sharp contrast to the many lab and field studies that have been conducted
in the study of the polygraph.
Which suggests that, until appropriate validation is presented, VSA claims
should be disregarded entirely, particularly in light of the uncritical
citing of very high accuracy rates provided by manufacturers (eg 95%
accuracy according to some touting Smith's testimony.)
Judging from the available information, the elimination of VSA claims
leaves only the passed polygraph test administered to Walters by Harvey
McLaughlin in Feburary, 1988 as far as PDD evidence goes. Reports seem to
indicate that this test was competently administered, although details are
scarce.
Some critics have argued that Ed Walters is (or could be) a sociopath, and
would therefore be able to beat polygraph tests at will. This is another
"common sense" objection that doesn't have much support in published
research. Certainly in the case of psychopathology, the data is
particularly clear in that psychopaths have no special ability to fool the
polygraph.[4]
Notes
[1] From the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology,
1997, Vol. 1, No. 1, 9-32, hosted by the Department of Psychology of Boise
State University, "Truth or Just Bias: The Treatment of Psychophysiological
Detection of Deception in Introductory Psychology Textbooks", by Mary K.
Devitt, Oklahoma State University, Charles R. Honts, Boise State
University, and Lynelle Vondergeest, University of North Dakota.
An online version is available at:
http://truth.idbsu.edu/jcaawp/9602/9602.html
A fuller excerpt:
"The most commonly used test in the field is the Control Question Test.
We will focus most of our analysis on validity studies of the CQT. ...
A recent review (Honts & Quick, 1995), found four field studies of the
CQT (Honts, 1994b, now in press; Honts, & Raskin, 1988; Iacono &
Patrick, 1991; and Raskin, Kircher, Honts, & Horowitz, 1988) and two of
the CKT (Elaad, 1990; Elaad, Ginton, & Jungman, 1992) that were able to
meet the stringent requirements for a useful field study described
above. Three of the field studies (Honts, 1994; Honts & Raskin, 1988;
Raskin et. al., 1988) produced accuracy rates above 90%. The independent
evaluators in the third study (Iacono & Patrick, 1991) produced a high
false positive rate, although the accuracy rate of the original
examiners exceeded 90%.
[...]
"Laboratory Studies Concerning Forensic Settings. A recent meta-analysis
of 15 laboratory studies (Kircher, Horowitz, & Raskin, 1988) of the
Control Question Test indicated a wide range of validity estimates. One
study found near chance results, while six of the studies produced
moderate validity estimates, and eight of the studies report validity
coefficients of 0.7 or better. In four of the studies, the validity
coefficients exceeded 0.8. The Kircher et al. meta-analysis noted that
these laboratory studies differed widely in their ecological validity.
Some studies used mock crimes and procedures that closely modeled field
conditions while other studies were very artificial and used unrealistic
procedures. Moreover, the Kircher et al., meta-analysis indicated that
those laboratory studies that most closely modeled field conditions
produced the highest accuracy rates.
[...]
"Although there is controversy, the empirical and review literature
concerning PDD suggests the following conclusions: There is little
support for the Relevant-Irrelevant Test, but this test is in frequent
use only in employment settings. The laboratory and field data
concerning the Control Question Test are mixed. However, when the
ecologically valid laboratory studies and the high quality field studies
are considered, both indicate high validity for the CQT."
[end quote]
[2] Dr. Raskin has testified as an expert witness on polygraph in
influential court cases and before Congress. Some of his published studies
are mentioned in the citation above.
[3] A selection of Dr. Honts' professional publications and reports is
available online:
http://truth.idbsu.edu/honts/cv2.html
In terms of the specific comment here re:RI tests, Honts advises the reader
to see the paper by Horowitz et al in the first issue of the 1997 vol of
the journal PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, a "peer-reviewed scientific journal".
[4] See [1]
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com