It should be emphasized that the detection of deception depends upon creating a setting which makes it possible to compare an individual's physiological responses to relevant questions (about which he might be deceptive) with control questions (that are intended to be more arousing than relevant questions for the innocent person but less arousing for the guilty person). Since there is no physiological response unique to deception, polygraphy is a psychological test using physiological changes as dependent measures. Provided the assumptions of the polygraph test are met (see Orne, 1975, p. 111ff) and the polgrapher is competent, research suggests that the accuracy of detection can be bracketed between 70% and 95%.

A great deal more work is needed to clarify in detail the circumstances under which the detection of detection through the use of polygraph is likely to be more or less accurate. Further, many other factors can affect the likelihood of detection-such as an individual's personality, the way he perceives the situation, and differences in physiological responsivity-all of which require more systematic research. Clearly, at our present state of knowledge, the applied use of polygraphy in the detection of deception inevitably runs the risk of error. Like all techniques of assessment, the examiner's experience and skill are as important as the application of scientific principles. Now, and in the foreseeable future, the application of the scientifically-based technology of polygraphy to the applied problem of detecting deception must be characterized as art as much as science. In order to view this application of technology in its proper perspective, it should be seen in the context of other procedures which are used to assess truthfulness. Comparing polygraphy with an interview by an experienced interrogator or personnel director, or for that matter a clinical interview by either a psychologist or a psychiatrist, there is little doubt that the appropriate use of the polygraph to detect deception is more effective. While there are policy questions about the circumstances which justify the use of polygraphy to help ascertain truth, such issues go beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. From an objective point of view one can say only that this technology, despite its faults, is the single most effective method presently available to validate the truth of unverified statements. However, in view of the profound potential consequences of polygraph tests, it is my personal belief that practitioners should not only be licensed but also accountable if errors of omission or commission result in harm to innocent individuals.

Respectfully submitted,

MARTIN T. ORNE, M.D., PH.D.

RELEVANT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Orne, M.T. Implications of laboratory research for the detection of deception. In N. Ansley, (ed.) Legal Admissibility of the Polygraph. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1975, pp. 94–119.

Orne, M.T., Thackray, R.I., and Paskewitz, D.A. On the detection of deception. In N.S. Greenfield and R.A. Sternbach (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. pp. 743–785.

Gustafson, L.A., & Orne, M.T. Effects of heightened motivation on the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 47(6), 408-411.

Thackray, R.I., & Orne, M.T. Effects of the type of stimulus employed and the level of subject awareness on the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52(3), 234–239.

Thackray, R.I. and Orne, M.T. A comparison of physiological indices in detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 1968, 4 (3), 329-339.

Gustafson, L.A., and Orne, M.T. The effects of verbal responses on the laboratory detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 1965, 2(1), 10-13.

Gustafson, L.A., and Orne, M.T. Effects of perceived role and role success on the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49(6), 412– 417.

Gustafson, L.A., and Orne, M.T. The effects of task and method of stimulus presentation on the detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48 (6), 383-387.

Senator BAYH. Dr. Barland?

Dr. BARLAND. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gordon Barland. I am a 1970 graduate of the Federal Government's polygraph school which was then at Fort Gordon, Ga.

My doctoral research was an attempt to estimate the accuracy of the polygraph technique with criminal suspects. After carefully reviewing the research of others and after conducting my own research, I believe that if the examiner is adequately trained and experienced, if he uses accepted testing techniques and procedures, and if he continues the examination to the point where he feels he can make a definite decision about the suspect's truthfulness, then the polygraph technique is probably somewhere between 80 and 95 percent accurate in the examination of criminal suspects. It is not possible at this time to estimate the accuracy of the polygraph technique in screening job applicants because of insufficient research data. Moreover, there are a number of variables which affect the accuracy rate, but a great deal more research is necessary to detemine how great an impact these variables have.

I believe that the interests of the public can best be met not by abolishing private use of the polygraph but by enacting strict licensing laws to insure that polygraph examiners are well-trained, competent, and conduct examinations properly.

Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Dr. Horvath?

Dr. HORVATH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Frank Horvath. I am an assistant professor on the faculty of the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University where for the past 8 years I have carried out various research projects related to the detection of deception with the polygraph.

Prior to my appointment at Michigan State University, I was a private polygraph examiner on the staff of John E. Reid & Associates for 7 years. During that period, I conducted thousands of examinations for both public and private agencies.

Based on my research and experience, it is my opinion that the polygraph technique is a unique, highly effective, and fair means of investigation in both criminal and noncriminal situations.

Although I do not contend that the polygraph technique is infallible and although I acknowledge readily that there are abuses in the field, I believe that when viewed from the perspective of other methods the polygraph is the best available means of assessing a person's truthfulness.

Moreover, it is my opinion that proper regulation of the use of the polygraph technique is a more appropriate and responsible course of action than is the prohibition of that procedure.

In support of my contention that relative to other methods of investigation the polygraph technique yields a high degree of validity and utility, I have offered for your consideration a recently published research report in which the polygraph was compared to other means of investigation.

Briefly, that research showed that the polygraph technique had a degree of accuracy at least equivalent to or greater than other methods of investigation and that the usefulness of that procedure was greater than eyewitness identification or even fingerprints.

That concludes my prepared statement.

Senator BAYH. The study you are referring to-is that your 1977 study?

Dr. HORVATH. No, sir. This is a study that was just published this year in June.

Senator BAYH. We have been hit by another crisis.

We have one witness who has to catch a plane here relatively shortly. Could he just make his statement, and then we can get down to the questioning? I have some questions I would really like to proceed on. You gentlemen are all highly educated and well trained. I would like to get your views.

Dr. HORVATH. I have a plane to catch at 4 o'clock.

Senator BAYH. Let us have Mr. Blews make his statement, and then I will ask you questions first, Dr. Horvath, and you can leave for the airport.

I am just very sorry we have gotten ourselves into this kind of a crack, but I don't know what to do about it now except that we are told that this young man must leave very shortly.

Mr. Don Blews from Siler City, N.C., and his attorney, Judith Kincaid of Raleigh.

Could you both come up?

I apologize for this musical chairs, but we will try to accommodate everybody here.

Please proceed, Mr. Blews.

TESTIMONY OF DON M. BLEWS, SILER CITY, N.C., STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; ACCOMPANIED BY JUDITH E. KINCAID, ATTORNEY, LABOR LAW CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C.

Mr. BLEWS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Don M. Blews. I live in Siler City, N.C.

Here with me today is my attorney, Judith E. Kincaid of the North Carolina Labor Law Center.

I am now attending the University of North Carolina at Greensboro as a full-time student, but from 1973 until May of 1978, I was employed as a store manager for a department store chain which has 106 stores in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

I started with this company in May of 1973. For the first 3 months I worked as an assistant manager while training to be the manager of my own store. Then I was promoted to store manager and assigned a store where I stayed for 5 weeks. Then I was promoted to manager of a bigger store where I stayed for 311⁄2 years.

In March of 1977, I was again promoted and moved to a still larger store which I managed until May of 1978. All three of the stores I managed were in the Carolinas.

As a store manager, my duties included supervising the 20 to 25 employees who worked at each of my stores. It was my responsibility to hire, fire, train, and give promotions to the employees who worked under me.

Approximately 1 year after I was hired, the company's headquarters instituted a policy of routinely administering polygraph tests to all of its employees, including store managers. These tests were given to all employees every 4 to 6 months and to management trainees before they were actually hired.

In my store, I had the responsibility for lining up the employees every few months for these tests. I also had the responsibility for firing the employees in my store who did not pass the test.

I am, therefore, very familiar with how the polygraph tests were used by this company to control its employees. I am here today to tell you of some of the ways these tests were used.

One way these tests were used was to fire black employees.

For example, 2 months after I started managing my third store, my district supervisor stopped in and happened to notice that there were two black women working there. They had been hired about 6 months earlier by the previous store manager, and the district supervisor had never noticed them before.

He told me to fire them because the company had a policy against hiring blacks. He said blacks "just don't work out."

I had been told this numerous other times by the personnel manager, but I had ignored it.

I refused to fire the two black women. I told the district supervisor that they were working out just fine.

He responded by saying: "OK, Mr. Blews, we'll have to show you how our polygraph test works around here."

Two days later, the polygraph company came into the store and tested every employee, including myself. As the polygraph man left the store, he told me that two employees had failed the test. They were the two blacks. He said their printouts had shown "a sign of a possibility of deceit."

This is in spite of the fact that they had already passed polygraph tests administered by the same company on two earlier occasions. The next day I was notified by headquarters that I was to fire these two employees. I fired them.

Throughout my 5 years with this company, the only exception to my authority to hire and fire employees as I saw fit was with regard to polygraph tests. After each of these tests was given, headquarters would tell me who to fire.

I mentioned earlier in my testimony that management trainees were given preemployment polygraph tests. The only two blacks that I recommended be hired for this program were turned down for failing their polygraph tests. One was not hired because during his test he admitted to having tried marihuana in the past. The other was not hired because his test showed that he had a "possible ulterior motive for coming with the company."

I actually reviewed the test printout for this second gentleman and saw no irregularities. I might add that I have seen many printouts and I have had them explained to me by polygraph company representatives, so I am able to understand what one looks for on the printout.

I also might add that I recommended about 20 whites for the management training program during my years with the company, and the only white who failed his polygraph test was one who had been in prison.

Even before the polygraph tests were given on a routine basis, they were used occasionally for preemployment testing of regular employees.

During 1973, there was a company policy that all prospective employees had to be given preemployment tests; but, in reality, the company headquarters was so busy that they only tested a few.

The practice of the store manager was to call headquarters each time. a new employee was tentatively hired and headquarters would determine whether the employee would be given the polygraph test. Headquarters always asked whether the person was black.

I called headquarters regarding about 25 new employees during 1973, and the only ones that headquarters required to take the test were two who were black. They both failed because the tests showed "a possibility of deceitfulness."

Let me give you an idea of the kinds of questions asked during the routine tests given to employees already on the payroll.

We were asked immediately whether we were happy with the company, why we came with the company, how long we expected to stay, and whether we were in good health. We were asked whether we had ever smoked marihuana or whether we knew anybody who had. We were asked whether we had ever stolen merchandise, seen people steal, or suspected anyone of stealing. We were asked whether we ever fraternized with fellow employees.

With each question there would be followup questions to press us for details if he was not satisfied. The test would take about 20 minutes, during which time we were continuously hooked up to the machine. The very youngest and the very oldest employees often complained about how much the testing hurt one's arm.

Before each test, each employee was required to sign a form releasing the employer and the polygraph company from liability for any decisions made because of the test results. I know of at least one person, another store manager, who was fired for refusing to sign this form.

These tests were used to find out a lot about a person's personal life. One of the employees in my store was fired because she admitted that her boyfriend had at one time smoked marihuana. Two other high school girls were asked who they had sexual relations with and how often. This upset them tremendously, and in each case the girl quit.

Another employee was fired because the test revealed that she had occasional migraine headaches. Although she had been with the company for 3 years and had been one of my outstanding employees, I was told to fire her because she was a "liability."

Other people were fired because they were not able to take the polygraph test for one reason or another.

For example, one employee had a history of heart trouble. Since it was unsafe for her to be hooked up to the machine, she was fired.

On another occasion, when the polygraph company came to test the employees and two of them were not present, they were fired. They were both high school students who worked part time and who couldn't come to work until after 3 p.m. The polygraph man refused to wait for them to come into the store after school, and they were fired for refusing to leave school to take the test.

One thing that concerned me very much was the fact that the interpretation of the test results seemed so arbitrary. Many people were fired because they showed a possibility of deceitfulness.

This reached the height of absurdity when in April of 1978 the polygraph man told me I would probably have to fire at least two employees. A third employee he would have to sleep on, he said, be

21-337 -79-26