Prosecuting the ‘Psychological Set’: Polygraph’s Silver Bullet Unmasked?

Friedo J. W. Herbig
{"title":"Prosecuting the ‘Psychological Set’: Polygraph’s Silver Bullet Unmasked?","authors":"Friedo J. W. Herbig","doi":"10.9734/bpi/castr/v9/2838f","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ‘success’ of a polygraph examination is predicated on the establishment of differential or emotional salience (a ‘psychological set’) with an examinee. This, according to polygraph proponents, guarantees that an examinee will respond appropriately during the administration of the in-test (questioning) phase of the polygraph examination. However, polygraph procedure, as prescribed by its governing body, the American Polygraph Association (APA), is a static clinical Westernised process that does not make any provision for human multiplicity (culture/ethnicity, idiosyncrasies, level of education, language proficiency, ideologies, and so forth). Identical (one size fits all) test procedures are applied across the board – a highly controversial methodology. \n The objectives of this study were to explore the degree to which certain intentional and unintentional human behaviour modification strategies have the potential to counterbalance claimed polygraph probity from an ontological and discursive standpoint and expose disquiet (potential flaws) regarding polygraph theory in the context of the ‘psychological set’. This article, furthermore, seeks to create an awareness of polygraph’s epistemic ambivalence and provide food-for-thought regarding its unadulterated application.","PeriodicalId":228424,"journal":{"name":"Current Approaches in Science and Technology Research Vol. 9","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Approaches in Science and Technology Research Vol. 9","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/castr/v9/2838f","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ‘success’ of a polygraph examination is predicated on the establishment of differential or emotional salience (a ‘psychological set’) with an examinee. This, according to polygraph proponents, guarantees that an examinee will respond appropriately during the administration of the in-test (questioning) phase of the polygraph examination. However, polygraph procedure, as prescribed by its governing body, the American Polygraph Association (APA), is a static clinical Westernised process that does not make any provision for human multiplicity (culture/ethnicity, idiosyncrasies, level of education, language proficiency, ideologies, and so forth). Identical (one size fits all) test procedures are applied across the board – a highly controversial methodology.  The objectives of this study were to explore the degree to which certain intentional and unintentional human behaviour modification strategies have the potential to counterbalance claimed polygraph probity from an ontological and discursive standpoint and expose disquiet (potential flaws) regarding polygraph theory in the context of the ‘psychological set’. This article, furthermore, seeks to create an awareness of polygraph’s epistemic ambivalence and provide food-for-thought regarding its unadulterated application.
起诉“心理套”:揭开测谎仪的“银弹”?
测谎仪的“成功”是建立在与被测者建立差异或情感显著性(“心理集”)的基础上的。根据测谎仪支持者的说法,这可以保证考生在测谎仪的测试(提问)阶段做出适当的反应。然而,根据其管理机构美国测谎协会(APA)的规定,测谎程序是一个静态的临床西方化过程,没有对人类多样性(文化/种族、特质、教育水平、语言熟练程度、意识形态等)做出任何规定。完全相同(一刀切)的测试程序被广泛应用——这是一种极具争议的方法。本研究的目的是从本体论和话语的角度探讨某些有意和无意的人类行为修正策略在多大程度上有可能抵消所谓的测谎仪诚实,并在“心理集”的背景下揭示有关测谎仪理论的不安(潜在缺陷)。这篇文章,进一步,试图创造一个认识的测谎仪的认知矛盾,并提供思考的食物,关于其纯粹的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信