Academic Discussions
Meijer (2008)
The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
-This technique is a variant of the Control Question Test
-General assumption: in innocent suspects control questions elicit larger physiological
responses than relevant questions
-Reversed expected in guilty examinees
-This assumption has no grounding in psychological theory
-Little reason to assume the QTZCT can overcome the problems of false positive outcomes
-Similar responding to both control and relevant questions leads to inconclusive results (no
decision)
-Not immune to countermeasures as Mangan et al. claim (e.g., biting your tongue)
- Mangan’s et al. study did not undergo scientific peer-review, therefore lack of
methodological rigour
Iacono (2008)
Problems using confessions to determine ground truth
-Problem: using confessions as the criterion against which to assess the accuracy of the test
is contaminated by the test outcome
-Arises because the polygraph examiner uses the test results to extract a confession from
the suspect if the polygraph test is failed
-Therefore, if the examiner concludes deception is demonstrated, the post-test interview
following the collection of the physiological data is used to pressure the suspect to account
for the deceptive verdict
Meijer et al. (2015)
Preliminary process theory does not validate the CQT
-PPT aims to explain the complexity of the observed autonomic stimulus-response patterns
associated with the orienting response (OR)
-According to the PPT the OR is not a unitary concept and each physiological measure
reflects a different aspect of stimulus processing
-However, in the CQT all measures are comparably interpreted and an increased relative
responding to the relevant questions is interpreted as an indication of deception, regardless
of the measure used
-Additionally, the PPT cannot account for earlier presented differential heart rate responses
of guilty suspects in the CQT, nor for the research results on the CIT suggesting that the
presentation of crime related details evokes increased deceleratory heart rate responses
-Both results do not fit into the PPT framework (unscientific)
Meijer (2008)
The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
-This technique is a variant of the Control Question Test
-General assumption: in innocent suspects control questions elicit larger physiological
responses than relevant questions
-Reversed expected in guilty examinees
-This assumption has no grounding in psychological theory
-Little reason to assume the QTZCT can overcome the problems of false positive outcomes
-Similar responding to both control and relevant questions leads to inconclusive results (no
decision)
-Not immune to countermeasures as Mangan et al. claim (e.g., biting your tongue)
- Mangan’s et al. study did not undergo scientific peer-review, therefore lack of
methodological rigour
Iacono (2008)
Problems using confessions to determine ground truth
-Problem: using confessions as the criterion against which to assess the accuracy of the test
is contaminated by the test outcome
-Arises because the polygraph examiner uses the test results to extract a confession from
the suspect if the polygraph test is failed
-Therefore, if the examiner concludes deception is demonstrated, the post-test interview
following the collection of the physiological data is used to pressure the suspect to account
for the deceptive verdict
Meijer et al. (2015)
Preliminary process theory does not validate the CQT
-PPT aims to explain the complexity of the observed autonomic stimulus-response patterns
associated with the orienting response (OR)
-According to the PPT the OR is not a unitary concept and each physiological measure
reflects a different aspect of stimulus processing
-However, in the CQT all measures are comparably interpreted and an increased relative
responding to the relevant questions is interpreted as an indication of deception, regardless
of the measure used
-Additionally, the PPT cannot account for earlier presented differential heart rate responses
of guilty suspects in the CQT, nor for the research results on the CIT suggesting that the
presentation of crime related details evokes increased deceleratory heart rate responses
-Both results do not fit into the PPT framework (unscientific)
