NCJ Number
191923
Journal
Polygraph Volume: 30 Issue: 3 Dated: 2001 Pages: 192-195
Date Published
2001
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article traces the earliest development and use of the comparison question to its current status in the polygraph discipline.
Abstract
Cesar Lombroso completed the earliest published report of a comparison question technique while recording the responses of subjects. Lombroso used a plethysmograph and sphygmograph to record the responses of criminal suspects as they were questioned concerning their knowledge and involvement in certain crimes. Lombroso used the hydrosphygmograph to determine that a suspect in a train robbery did not steal 20,000 francs, but was involved in the theft of certain documents and passports from the train. Lombroso came to this conclusion when the suspect showed no response to the questions about the train robbery, but a significant blood pressure drop was recorded when the question concerning the theft of the documents was asked. Lombroso reported that based on these results, the suspect was truthful about not being involved in the theft of the money, and that he was lying about his involvement in the theft of the documents. This was the first documented case of the use of a comparison-type question technique in a psychophysiological detection of deception examination. It differed from current comparison question methods in that two issues used for comparison purposes by Lombroso were relevant issues, since the examinee was suspected of both crimes. Dr. William M. Marston is credited with another major development in the realm of the comparison question technique. In the early 1920's he used the “hot question.” The description of this question corresponded to the non-exclusive probable-lie comparison question published by Reid (1947). In the late 1920's, Leonard Keeler was trying several types of comparison questions with his Relevant/Irrelevant technique. One was the Personally Embarrassing Question (PEQ), which was designed to evoke a response in the innocent person. The reasoning was that the guilty person’s attention would be on the relevant issue, and the innocent person would be more concerned with the embarrassing issue. Reverend Walter Summers was also a major contributor to the comparison question technique. Summers outlined his experimentation with psychogalvanograph to get a more precise index of emotion. The last noteworthy development in the comparison question technique was the direct-lie comparison (DLC) question. In the DLC family of techniques, the examiner and examinee agree before testing begins that the examinee will lie to the comparison questions. For the innocent subject there is no threat from the relevant questions, and they tend to concentrate on the DLC questions. Guilty examinees know the importance of both questions, however, the greatest threat comes from detection of the lie to the relevant issue because of the greater adverse consequences. References