Brokaw, J. R.

Heckel, R. V.

Salzberg, H. C.

Wiggins, S. L.

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 53Issue 3 September Article 15Fall 1962Polygraphic Variations in Reactivity BetweenDelusional, Non-Delusional, and Control Groupsin a Crime SituationR. V. HeckelJ. R. BrokawH. C. SalzbergS. L. WigginsFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclcPart of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice CommonsThis Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationR. V. Heckel, J. R. Brokaw, H. C. Salzberg, S. L. Wiggins, Polygraphic Variations in Reactivity Between Delusional, Non-Delusional,and Control Groups in a Crime Situation, 53 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 380 (1962)POLYGRAPHIC VARIATIONS IN REACTIVITY BETWEEN DELUSIONAL,NON-DELUSIONAL, AND CONTROL GROUPS IN A "CRIME"SITUATIONR. V. HECKEL, J. R. BROKAW, H. C. SALZBERG, AND S. L. WIGGINSR. V. Heckel, Ph.D., is Director of the Psychological Supply Company, North Augusta, SouthCarolina; Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry (Psychology) at the Medical College of Georgia;and Coordinator of Psychology Research and Training at the Veterans Administration Hospital,Augusta, Georgia. He has previously practiced with the Greenville Mental Health Clinic, andserved as Assistant Professor of Psychology, Furman University.J. R. Brokaw received a master degree in Psychology from the State University of South Dakota,and is a personnel consultant with the Psychological Supply Company.H. C. Salzberg, Ph.D., is a consultant to the Personnel Division of the Psychological SupplyCompany and in Behavioral Modification at the Veterans Administration Hospital, Augusta, Georgia.S. L. Wiggins received a master degree from the University of Georgia, and is a research consultantwith the Psychological Supply Company while continuing his graduate studies at the University ofGeorgia.-EDITOR.Lie detection experts engaged in the training ofcriminal investigators report the use of simulatedor hypothetical crime situations for training pur-poses in which subjects "act out" the variousroles associated with a crime, "the criminal,""the possessor of guilty knowledge," and so on.Limitations of this procedure are that role playingoften does not parallel physiological functioning.Studies have been conducted on the measurabledifferences between normal and patient groups onvarious physiological measures such as heartrate, respiration, GSR, and blood pressure. Emo-tionally disturbed populations, in general, showhigher reactivity and greater sympathetic dom-inance (Wenger3, Gunderson1 , and Malmo2 ) undervarying resting and stress conditions.No accounts were found indicating how personsreflecting varying degrees of emotional disturbancereact when in an actual crime situation. Subjectivereports from polygraph operators suggest resultsof examinations of disturbed persons are apt tobe equivocal.The purposes of this study were: to determinethe differential reactions of normals, non-delusional(psychoneurotic), and delusional (psychotic)persons when accused in a crime situation; todetermine whether emotionally disturbed personsI Gunderson, E. K. Autonomic balance in schizo-phrenia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. ofCalif., Los Angeles, 1953.2 Malmo, R. B. Anxiety and behavioral arousal.PsY HOL. REV., 1957, 64, 276-287.3 Wenger, M. A. Studies of autonomic balance inArmy Air Force Personnel. CoMP. PSYCHOL. MONOGR.,1948, No. 101.frequently demonstrate greater sympatheticdominance under varying resting and stresssituations than normals; to test the assumptionthat mental aberrations of sufficient seriousness tomaterially affect a polygraph test may be evi-denced in the recordings produced.The study was structured in such a manner asto eliminate the artificiality of role playing andto produce the physiological stress reactions ofbeing accused of an actual crime.METHODSubjects. Non-delusional, delusional, and controlgroups were used in the experiment with fivesubjects in each group. The control group con-sisted of "normal" males from a local educationalinstitution. Non-delusional and delusional groupswere composed of males psychiatrically diagnosedand currently under psychiatric care. None werereceiving drugs at the time of this study. Thesubjects had had no previous experience withthe polygraph.Apparatus. The apparatus consisted of a portableStoelting polygraph with accompanying instru-ments for measuring respiration, heart rate, andgalvanic skin fesponse. A skilled polygraphoperator conducted all tests with this instrument.4Procedure. Subjects were brought to the ex-perimental area in groups of five under the guiseof taking psychological tests, and at this time a4 The authors wish .to express their gratitude to LieDetection Experts, R. L. Berry and T. T. Puckett,for their contributions and guidance in conductingthis study.POLYGRAPHIC REACTIVITY VARIATIONSNo. Type Example1. Irrelevant Are you wearing black shoes? (Known Fact)2. Irrelevant Do you have brown hair? (Known Fact)3. Relevant Do you know who took the money? (DYK)4. Irrelevant Are you wearing a black belt? (Known Fact)5. Revelant Did you take the-money? (DY)6. General Besides what you have told me about, did youControl ever steal anything else?7. Irrelevant Do you have brown eyes? (Known Fact)8. Guilt Did you take the portable radio that is missingComplex in the (dormitory, hospital, from this office)?9. Irrelevant Are you wearing a (dress, sport) shirt)? (Known Fact)10. Relevant Do you know where the money is now? (Misci Relevant)i11. Specific Besides what you have told me about, did you everControl steal anything from the (dormitory, hospital)?Figure 1. General Question Testmember of the research team administered severalshort psychological tests. During the last fifteenminutes of the testing session E began removingand examining the contents of his wallet. Roughlyfive minutes before the end of the testing sessionanother member of the team came into the roomand informed E that he was wanted in the mainoffice. At this time E made a show of leaving hiswallet on the table and left the room, therebyaffording the opportunity for any Ss to go up tothe tester's table and examine the contents of thewallet. After a lapse of several minutes, E re-turned and waited for Ss to complete their tasks,then collected the testing materials and dismissedSs. When Ss were a few steps out of the door Erushed out and shouted for them to stop andreturn to the room. When Ss were seated againthey were informed that someone had taken a$20 bill from E's wallet and they must return it.At this time all Ss denied any knowledge of thecrime. They were informed that the security officer,a lie detector specialist, had his office in thebuilding and he would be brought in to provetheir guilt or innocence.R. V. HECKEL, J. R. BROKAW, H. C. SALZBERG & S. L. WIGGINSThe polygraph operator was brought in andintroduced to the group and informed as to whathad happened during the testing session. Thesubjects were given the opportunity to submit tothe test or reject the test and following unanimousassent they were individually subjected to thepolygraph. The procedure for the examination wasstandardized and uniform for each subject. Thesteps were as follows:1. Pretest interview: Biographical data, ex-planation of test and instrument, review of casedetails, formulation of the general question teststructure, i.e., relevant-irrelevant and controlquestions. The pretest procedure was conducted ina non-accusatory, sympathetic manner to induceminimal stress.2. General question test: First administration ofgeneral question test, one chart only.3. Card stimulation test: A test wherein thesubject is asked to choose a card from a deck ofplaying cards and is instructed to answer "no"to each card the examiner calls, including thechosen card. The card test is designed to stimulatethe subject, increasing anxiety in the guilty whilereducing apprehension in the innocent by apositive demonstration that the polygraph willdisclose deception.4. General question test: Second administrationof the general question test.5. Posttest interview and dismissal: Each Sinformed that test indicated that he was truthful.After each group of subjects had completed thepolygraph test, they were assembled and informedas to the nature and purpose of the test, and anyquestions raised about the experiment wereanswered.RESULTS AND DIScUSSIoNFor analyzing the results of the study, fourexperts in lie detection who had no knowledge ofthe study independently rated each chart andjudged it to be "No Deception Indicated," "In-conclusive," or "Deception Indicated." Judgeswere informed only that the charts were those ofSs suspected of stealing twenty dollars. Table 1gives a breakdown of these values for each of thethree groups in the experiment.All four judges agreed on the five control Ss.In both the non-delusional and delusional groupsthere was no individual on which all four judgesagreed. In each of these groups, three judgesagreed on four individuals, and two judges agreedTABLE IRATINGS FOR CONTROL, NON-DELUSIONAL, ANDDELUSIONAL GROUPSControl Non-Delusional DelusionalSsScore Score Score1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 12 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 24 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 35 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3121313133 = NDI (No Deception Indicated)2 = I (Inconclusive)I = DI (Deception Indicated)on one individual. Over-all reliability of ratingswas quite high, but it decreased as emotionaldisturbance increased though there were no specificindications of psychiatric or emotional disturb-ances reflected on the charts themselves.Difficulties involved in this study grew out ofthe lengthy time required to test each subject,from one and one-half to over two hours, and thepreventing of "spreading the word" to others andthus removing the stress of being accused of an"actual" crime. This limited the number of Ssthat could be placed in each group.The reliability of judgments on the controlsubjects was perfect but reduced in the "psy-chiatric" groups. Such variability is consistentwith most measurements of the behavior of psy-chiatric patients.Though not included in the study the subjectiveobservation of the psychiatric groups' behavior inthe polygraph situation was of particular interest.It was not always easy to objectively determineduring a standard pretest interview and evaluationthe degree and extent of the patients' emotionaldisturbance from their demeanor and verbalcomments alone. Though variable and subject tomore gross movements and professed discomfortwith testing apparatus and procedure, much oftheir behavior was similar to that seen in personsattempting to conceal guilt. Evidence for sym-pathetic dominance is found in the fact that the"Deception Indicated" and "Inconclusive" classi-fications, based on physiological measures takenon sympathetic areas, were found to a high degree[Vol. 53POLYGRAPHIC REACTIVITY VARIATIONSin the non-delusional and delusional though not inthe normal group.Lie detection experts demand extreme accuracyin pointing the finger of guilt at an individual. Theresults of this study would tend to rule out testingfor the presence or absence of guilt in an emo-tionally disturbed individual. This suggests theneed for the utmost caution and alertness duringthe pretest and evaluative phase of the polygraphexamination for any symptoms of emotional dis-turbance. This further suggests the need forpsychological screening prior to a polygraphicevaluation where there is the slightest evidence ofan" emotional disturbance. Ideally, a routinepsychological screening would be helpful prior toapplying this technique. Psychologists can beuseful in devising a screening technique which thetrained lie detection expert can administer andinterpret.SUMMARYThis study was undertaken to determine theeffects of differing states of emotional adjustmenton the ability of lie detection experts to judgesubjects' innocence in a crime situation; to de-termine whether psychiatric patients demon-strated greater sympathetic dominance underresting and stress conditions and whether emo-tionally disturbed individuals demonstrated anysignificant polygraphic variations which wouldinform the operator of their condition. The resultssuggest that polygraphic testing of persons whoshow psychoneurotic or psychotic disturbancesproduce results which might in some cases lead toerroneous conclusions regarding guilt or innocence.Such individuals even though rated as delusionaldid not uniformly present polygraphic or be-havioral symptoms which could have readily beenclassed as indicative of severe emotional disturb-ances.It was suggested that psychological screeningbe performed where there is any suspicion ofemotional disturbance. It would be preferable, ifthe lie detection exjert could be trained to ad-minister and interpret such screening tests.

Polygraphic Variations in Reactivity Between Delusional, Non-Delusional, and Control Groups in a Crime Situation

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5114&amp;context=jclc

Polygraphic Variations in Reactivity Between Delusional, Non-Delusional, and Control Groups in a Crime Situation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons