Question Polygraph & CVSA

  • Thread starter Thread starter ex-orbinaut
  • Start date Start date
E

ex-orbinaut

Guest
Polygraph and CVSA as part of a normal job application procedure. To categorize it; not for high security government applications (ie; to private companies).

Have you had an experience of it? What is your opinion of it? If you agree with it, what do you think the conditions for its use should be? What is the legal stand point on it, where ever you are?

This is an intrusive method of interviewing a candidate for a job, supplementary to the fact that the candidate may already be presenting toxicology reports and police records, among any other evidence of a non-criminal background, as part of the application procedure.

If you are a person who has hears more than enough on the subject and are likely to say "this again?" on reading this post, instead share and post your links or references. Remember, we do not all read the same thing you do.

Thank you.
 
Polygraph and CVSA as part of a normal job application procedure. To categorize it; not for high security government applications (ie; to private companies).

No, I never had anything like that. I had psychologists observing me, but never such kind of nonsense. Polygraphs are pretty inaccurate, without a lot of effort to calibrate them, they indicate almost nothing.

Also, passing a polygraph does not make you competent... who ever requires that of you, should be better left alone, it it leaves no good impression about the atmosphere that awaits you at work later.
 
I've never encountered it as a standard policy kind of thing, no. Seems like overkill, really. I think the most I've had to have is a few criminal record checks (CRB Enhanced Disclosure) because of the nature of my previous employment, and some psych and physical evaluations - these were to determine that I was capable of doing my job, though, wheras it seems like a polygraph would just be to find out if I'd lied in the application.

In terms of intrusive I'd consider it less so than some of the tests I've had to complete, but only because I consider the inner workings of my mind more private than lies I may have told. And it also occurs to me that any lies you tell while applying are quickly disproven during your employ, so it seems a little pointless.
 
I've never had any sort of heavy backgrounds checks when applying for job. many of them have happened a few years into the job. Psycometric type testing mostly. I've never had a toxicology test. I have had a CRB check but thats about it.
 
Thanks for the comments.

The root of the question was - or should have been - if (where you are) there are any "standards" for the content or theme of the "interrogation".

Just by reading between the lines of the above I can see there is probably some misuse of the implement in the particular case that prompted me to post this. It has not been applied to myself or anyone who has already been in the company for anytime longer than the last three months, but new candidates are running the gauntlet of this, and from what I have been told (by them), there is little focus during the polygraph/CVSA of how well they do the job. It is, lightly put, intrusive and unrelated.

I have no qualms with psychometric tests, and have done several over the years. They are quite interesting.

Urwumpe said:
..who ever requires that of you, should be better left alone, it it leaves no good impression about the atmosphere that awaits you at work later.

This comment is already proven unfortunately true, lately.

Anyway, thanks, and all the best.
 
I was a Military Police officer with training in security and anti insurgency training - privy to some extremely classified information - the kind of stuff national security depends on being kept secret. While there was a background check performed on me, there was no lie detector or CVSA test.

There is no good reason to do this to employees - especially for jobs not directly related to national security. I've always felt that this kind of thing happens for a couple reasons put together. One is a lack of genuine competence in the management staff, and the other is the competence of the salesman for whichever "private security" company is providing the tests.

The truth is that these tests are pretty much useless for employee screening. The key to how useful and accurate a test like this is depends entirely on the quality of the questions being asked during the test. Questions need to be VERY specific to produce valid results.

For instance, a common question during these tests might be "Have you ever stolen from work?". When you get asked that question, it will raise your stress levels. You will be thinking "Crap! I took a pen home last night by accident, does that count?"

The result is that you will show elevated stress, even if you never stole anything - even by accident - because who is positive that they never took something trivial home by mistake? Innocent candidates will often fail the test because of poor questions like this. The questions need to be VERY precise; "Did you take a company pen home last night?"

So, using these tests will lead you to disqualify many good candidates (for no good reason). On the flip side, these tests aren't that hard to beat for a practiced liar. Most operators just don't have the right kind of mind to administer these tests correctly - they need to be part scientist, part psychiatrist, and most just don't have the skills to see when someone is gaming the machine. There are a couple fairly simple techniques that can be used - they just take a bit of practice.

So using these tests for screening leads to missing out on the best employees (the ones honest enough to think of walking off with a pencil as "theft"), while the dishonest candidates can pass the test and get hired (and, having passed the test, are now assumed to be honest and trustworthy so are somewhat beyond suspicion).

I do know of one employer who tells candidates that these tests are required - but the test lasts about a minute (on the off chance they even give the test) and boils down to "Is that your real name?". For that company, they figure that if you aren't willing to take the test, you don't want the job bad enough.

I wouldn't work for a company that uses tests like this to screen employees. It shows a lack of humanity among the upper management, and indicates that you will considered a necessary risk - rather than a desired asset. Your bosses will be constantly looking over your shoulder - and probably not just at work.

Unless your job requires them providing you with secrets essential to safety - or knowledge of "business secrets" at a high level (ie chip designers, accountants) there is no reason to give those tests - except for paranoia and a disregard for for the basic humanity of it's employees.
 
Last edited:
The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.

The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive.

The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions.

The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through.

Perversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers frequently claim they can detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to do so, and peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't.

In summary, poly tests are not used to detect any lies as that is impossible. Instead, they are used for and specially designed to illicit incriminating confessions form the test subject. The lie-detector part is a clever ruse the interrogator uses during the interrogation. Educating yourself with the methods used during poly "tests" is all you need to play with the interrogator.




.
 
Last edited:
Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue.

Is there any truth in this? "tightening your sphincter ani externus, while answering the control questions is the most effective way to beat the polygraph".
 
Yes and it is the reason why many are now starting to place a small pillow with an EMG circuit on the chair, to detect this.
 
From what I understand, as far as interrogations go, the lie detector is just a "good cop -bad cop" ruse, but a brilliant one. If you are the interrogator, you get to switch sides as many times as you want.
Sometimes you blame the "machine" for not telling you the truth, and other times you blame the person subjected to the test, simply because "the machine doesn't lie".

Ok, what's the next thing, one will have to go through to get a job? Waterboarding?
 
RCMP Pre Employment Polygraph (PEP) Experiences

A friend of mine did a pre-employment polygraph with the RCMP in the past several weeks and he/she was outraged by the whole experience. For those wondering, my friend did “Pass”, but the experience has left my friend shaken and demoralized. This not some bitter or biased story; it is factual and real. It is also detailed. The following is a composite of experiences, and key details have also been provided by one or two other applicants, all who had direct experience with the polygraph and recruiting process; therefore the information below is not from just a single source.

Here is some information pertaining to how RCMP pre-employment polygraph exams are conducted:

During the instrumentation phase the subject is instructed to close his/her eyes and only think about the question or issue at hand, focusing on it, and nothing else. The subject is sitting 90 degrees to the polygrapher. The subject is also told about the sensor underneath the seat pillow (and how it detects any movements or attempts at trying to cheat the device) and instructed not to move while the questions are being asked and the instrument is running. If the topic of countermeasures is brought up then the examiner briefly states that they are very obvious on the charts, that they don’t work, and that he/she has seen them in the past and can very easily recognize them right away since he/she conducted many tests.

Myth 1: There are no surprise questions asked.

Reality: This is one a total myth. Each question on the booklet that one fills out beforehand (which is publicly accessible as a pdf document on the recruiting website) is actually followed up during the test by several other previously unknown sub-questions (e.g., Have you ever…., How about…, Sometimes people in these situations…). These sub-questions also involve plausible scenarios that are pushed on the applicant in such a sly away as to suggest casualness and even an attitude that such activities are common, normal, and encouraged. In such an environment of questioning (especially when it comes to all sorts of implied scenarios totally out of the blue) someone who may get confused or more easily influenced could easily start to believe that some of these, up to now totally foreign possibilities, might in fact be possible, and maybe somewhere, sometime, might have even happened. Then at the slightest admission of possibility, the interrogator will start to insinuate and probe what previously did not seem to be a big deal at all. Pretty soon the minor detail is turned over its head, and something previously simple and innocent is turned around and framed as a major activity with menacing intent. Some of the extra questions asked can also be quite personally offensive and unjustly insinuating.

Myth 2: There are no tricks employed.

Reality: There are many tricks employed. There is no such thing as a “truth verifying question”, “baseline question”, nor is there such a thing as questions used to calibrate the instrument, or any other such made up mumbo-jumbo. The only questions that do not appear in the polygraph booklet that are asked when hooked up to the machine (about 20 minutes towards the end), are either asked as meaningless buffers between real questions, or as additional specific real probes to the real main questions. If the polygrapher suspects that the applicant might be familiar with polygraphy, then all questions (aside from the neutral buffers) will be real questions, and there will be simply an overall comparison made as to which showed the greatest response. The card trick is rigged (as can be inferred by the fact that the cards are special large cards specifically made for the test by the manufacturer of the instrument, and are not in a typical full deck).

Myth 3: There are no trick questions.

Reality: There might be dirty trick questions, especially at the end. For example, if a subject were to repeatedly answer “No” to a drug question, but the polygrapher think that the subject is lying, then questions such as “So when did you really do x drugs…”, or “So when was the last time that you did x drugs…”, “How often did you actually …” might surface at the end when the test is supposedly “over”. Of course, this is a bluff and the examiner will have a smirk on his face hinting that he/she has “figured things out”, that he/she has “caught you” and that you better stop playing games and finally come clean.

The examiner’s sheer silliness will be showcased by the fact that he/she will claim that the polygraph works almost flawlessly each and every time, and that it detects lying with practically close to 100% accuracy (especially when he/she so proudly “detects” the mystery card, which supposedly only the subject is aware of); but his tomfoolery is easily revealed by the fact that he/she will NEVER show you the computer charts, even when stating that “Yes, the charts show very clearly that the card you were holding is….”. The reason why the test subject is never shown the charts is because the charts don’t show anything, other than random patterns and “supposed reactions”.

Further proof usually comes at the “end” of the interview when the polygrapher might ask such questions as “How come you were so nervous when” (even when at the very beginning it was stipulated that nervousness is normal and expected in many people), “Which questions do you feel that you reacted the most to…the strongest to…(of course after initially claiming that the charts revealed all and were very clear during the card guessing phase), etc.

Myth 4: The examiner is fair and neutral.

Reality: The examiner might use psychologically coercive interrogation methods such as stating that there is a clear lack of information on the initial forms and that he/she expects a lot more to be revealed by the end of the test, as many others have done before. Other psychologically coercive tactics might be to explicitly state that there are a very limited number of training spots and that the process is very competitive (implying that if he/she doesn’t like that he/she hears, or what he/she doesn’t hear, then it only takes a small negative nudge to make sure one doesn’t make it through the process successfully). Periods of silence will also be used to maximum effect, as well as positive inducers such as “What else…”, “Go on…”, “And…”, followed by more induced silence.

The examiner will also play games by saying such things as “This test is voluntary but so it your job application”, “You don’t have to be here if you don’t want to, do you want to leave?, “It doesn’t look to me like you are really in the right mood (attitude) for this, would you prefer that we end it now?”, “It’s a long way until lunch, looks like we’re gonna be here for a while”, “Yup, this is going to take a lot longer than I thought”, “Uh huh, it definitely looks like we’re going to be here for a while, etc.” Some of these statements are made almost as quiet statements to himself/herself, which the subject is meant to only casually overhear.

Myth 5: The polygraph is not decisive but only one of many tools in the overall recruiting process.

Reality: This is a misleading half-truth. The polygraph examination does not use any quantitative or automatic scoring criteria. The examiner makes a report based on his/her holistic impression and the interview video is then viewed by a lower ranking recruiter, at recruiting headquarters at a later time, after which, based on the complete applicant file, a recommendation to continue with the process is either made, or a deferral is issued. Note that the Recruiting NCO is of much lower rank than the active duty polygrapher; therefore, it can be obvious how a biased personal opinion from the polygrapher can strongly influence the lower-ranking Recruiting NCO’s further decisions. And the final review and hiring decision is essentially made by the lower-ranking Recruiting NCO (and not by a final review committee as is the case in modern organizations).

Otherwise, the polygraph is used to generate leads for the background investigation and to formulate future schemas for handling the application. The polygrapher will claim that he/she only submits a report and then never hears about an applicant again. In reality, the polygrapher can also personally make a call or send an email to recruiting in order to subjectively express any concerns or opinions about the candidate that he/she may have; information which has nothing to do with the specific questionnaire items that the polygraph was intended for.

In other words, if the polygrapher likes the applicant (in terms of personality and personal background) and no significant admissions are made, then most likely that applicant will go on forward and be successful. If on the other hand the polygrapher takes offence personally with the applicant for whatsoever reason, then the applicant may still go on (assuming no damaging admissions were made); however, the polygrapher will now ensure that the applicant will not be successful during the background or later stages. All the polygrapher has to do in order to make sure an applicant does not make it through successfully to the hiring stage is to personally express his/her concerns about someone in terms of subjective qualities such as personality or cultural fit. This is because all future investigative steps and suitability evaluations are very strongly influenced and coloured by the polygrapher’s initial report/opinions. Therefore, the RCMP pre-employment polygraph is the most biased and subjective phase of the RCMP recruiting process, more akin to a popularity contest, as opposed to any strictly objective method.

Myth 6: The RCMP polygraph interview is very sophisticated and has been perfected over many decades.

Reality: The RCMP only started conducting pre-employment polygraph interviews in 2005 and the polygraph examiner did not have to undergo one as part of his/her initial job application process. The methods used are directly adapted from private American pre-employment polygraph companies, as are most of the guidelines and general procedures. The interviewer is an interrogator by trade, and will be fairly experienced, but he/she relies on surprise, subject inexperience, gullibility, and outright naiveté. Part of the scientific rhetoric spewed by the polygrapher (standard phrases directly from the polygraph instrument manufacturer) actually reminds the critical listener that the instrument was designed with the uneducated hill-billy deep-south criminals in mind; being that what is explained biologically/physiologically is both simplistic and scientifically inaccurate. Some of the things that polygrapher says initially are outright lies, while other preliminary things are in direct contradiction to what is later said or done. Any astute observer who critically listens to what is being said the whole time, will pick up on the contradictions and inconsistencies between the early rhetoric and the later actual procedure. The overall polygraph procedure is fairly crude, and the approaches are rather overt, as opposed to subtle. Some of the interviewer’s line of questioning can be somewhat more skilled and subtle, but only because he/she has done many suspect interviews over many years.

Myth 7: Everything that happens at the polygraph is “classified” and “confidential” and should never be talked to anyone about (this is the prevailing view between applicants).

Reality: The only confidential parts in the recruiting processing cycle from an applicant’s perspective are the RPAT test items and the RMSI interview content; the first two steps in the recruiting cycle. All the waivers and forms signed during the polygraph interrogation are one sided; they are designed so that the applicant waves away all rights to confidentiality and privacy in all possible contexts, both present and future. The waivers ensure that the RCMP can do whatever it wants with the contents of the polygraph interview (including the audiovideo recording), and also allows it to share any information with any other agency or department that it wishes at any time, while leaving the applicant powerless to do anything about it. Ironically, it is the applicant who signs away all of his/her rights and privacy during the polygraph exam interrogation. There are no documents signed that prohibit the applicant from talking about his/her polygraph experience.

The reason for posting this information here is because law-enforcement forums (supported by law enforcement specific advertising and related partnerships) will almost always censor and delete such information, and will supress any public debate about the realities of the RCMP recruiting process (specifically when it comes to the polygraph). And once again, the closed-in mentality of law enforcement applicants (who simply do not know better), prohibits any real public discourse from taking place, and therefore enables non-transparent, nonsensical, non-objective, and discriminatory hiring practices to continue.

Endnote: If this is the organizational culture exhibited during the recruiting process, then one can only guess what the working culture is really like within the organization. Suffice it to say, my friend was not impressed, and is hoping that other applicants might think twice before jumping so blindly into the proverbial deep end of the recruiting pool. My friend is now considering becoming a teacher and putting her creative skills to better use.
 
A different perspective to the RCMP PEP experience

It is unfortunate that your friend had such a negative experience with the RCMP PEP test; however, I do not believe that your friends experience is the norm. Although my knowledge of the RCMP recruiting process is limited, I am of the understanding that many of your comments are factually incorrect or at the very least inaccurate. For sure the Polygraph is not perfect, but when used properly it has proven to be a very valuable tool. Tell your friend to hang in there, because the RCMP officers I have spoken to say that it is the most rewarding career out there.
 
Back
Top