International Journal of Psychophysiology 95 (2015) 29–30
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Psychophysiology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpsycho
Invited Commentary
The Comparison Question Test versus the Concealed Information Test? That was the question in Japan: A comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015) Tokihiro Ogawa ⁎, Izumi Matsuda, Michiko Tsuneoka National Research Institute of Police Science, 6-3-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-0882, Japan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 July 2014 Received in revised form 8 September 2014 Accepted 11 September 2014 Available online 18 September 2014 Keywords: Comparison Question Test Concealed Information Test Polygraph Physiological responses
a b s t r a c t Palmatier and Rovner (2015) discussed the possible interplay of two major methods of polygraph examination, the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). In this comment, we argue that such an attempt overlooks fundamental differences between the two methods. Specifically, both methods differ in their criterion variables; detecting deception versus detecting memory traces. This difference can lead to a different evaluation concerning their outcomes within a forensic context. However, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) attempt may blur the distinction between the two methods. Furthermore, at least for the present, it is difficult to give a unified explanation of physiological responses in the CQT and CIT based on the preliminary process theory of the orienting response. In sum, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) paper may add further confusion to the research and practice of polygraph testing. Additionally, their paper has no relevance to the current practice of Japanese polygraph examination, because Japanese law enforcement uses only the CIT for memory detection in real-life criminal investigations. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Palmatier and Rovner (2015) discussed the possible interplay of two major polygraph techniques, the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). In the present comment we argue that, from the perspective of current Japanese practice of polygraph examinations, Palmatier and Rovner's attempt is questionable. This is because each technique should be used for different purposes in criminal investigations. Specifically, the CQT and CIT have different criterion variables. The CQT, aside from its scientific status, was designed as a technique for lie detection or, as Palmatier and Rovner (2015) specified, credibility assessment. In contrast, the CIT is more properly understood as a memory detection technique with a scientifically sound rationale. Currently, in Japan, the CIT is the only method used for polygraph examination and is used to examine whether one possesses knowledge about the crime under investigation. The CQT is not used in the field because it has been widely criticized, primarily concerning the lack of sufficient control, as discussed in Ben-Shakhar and Elaad (2003). In 2012, approximately 6800 polygraph tests were conducted all of which used the CIT (Kai, 2013). In the CIT, question items are chosen so that an examinee with no knowledge about the crime would not be able to discriminate between crime-relevant and irrelevant items. This methodological feature provides suitable control and leads to a specific prediction about what would occur depending on the examinee's ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 4 7135 8001. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Ogawa).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.09.006 0167-8760/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
knowledge about the crime. It should be stressed that it is not an essential part of the CIT to respond deceptively to questions (i.e., verbally respond “no” to a correct item). Evidently, the CIT can be used for credibility assessment of one's statement, in a sense that it uncovers the memory which one claims not to have. Additionally, we do not deny the possibility that deception has some role in the physiological response during the CIT (Ben-Shakhar and Elaad, 2003). However, whatever the underlying processes, differential responding cannot occur without knowledge about the details of the crime (Ben-Shakhar and Elaad, 2003). We believe that grouping the CIT and CQT into the same category, namely polygraph techniques, is misleading and may lead to further confusion, and critically, interfere with future developments in this area. As the two methods differ drastically in their goals, the CIT should never be substituted for the CQT, or vice versa, in their practical use in criminal investigations. The two techniques have different preconditions for their effective use. It makes no sense to advocate the use of the CQT over the CIT due to difficulties in preparing a sufficient number of CIT questions. In Japanese practice, if it is impossible to construct proper CIT questions, the examination should be postponed. In the context of criminal investigation, we think that memory detection techniques are more useful compared with deception detection techniques in demonstrating criminal facts. For example, consider a case where the suspect denies that he or she ever encountered the victim; showing the presence of memory about the victim's clothes, for example, could imply that the suspect did encounter the victim.
30
T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 95 (2015) 29–30
Conversely, deception detection techniques would conclude that the suspect dishonestly responded to questions. Both outcomes of the memory detection and deception detection techniques could discredit the suspect or his/her negation in the eyes of investigators, prosecutors, and jurors. Diminishing credibility of a suspect's statements may often be useful for decision making in criminal proceedings. However, the deception detection outcome, focusing on a suspect's dishonesty during an interrogation, is not easily interpreted as suggesting what occurred during the crime. Furthermore, deception detection outcomes may be interpreted in a similar way to suspicious behavior, such as averting eye contact during interrogations. Under such circumstances, it would be unlikely that the results of deception detection would be treated as evidence and cited in a verdict as indicating criminal facts. For these reasons, we strongly contend that the CIT should be treated as a memory detection technique. Our major concern with Palmatier and Rovner (2015) article is that it could blur the distinction between the two methods discussed above. Specifically, they proposed that physiological responses observed in the CQT and CIT can be explained by the preliminary process theory (PPT) of the orienting response (Barry, 1996). Such a statement may lead to the view that the CQT and CIT are interchangeable, because they are similar in physiological responses with the same underlying processes. It may also help to strengthen the view of the CIT as a deception detection technique. One may argue that scientific understanding gained by comparing psychophysiological responses between the CIT and CQT, in a potentially relevant theoretical framework, would greatly outweigh the risk of blurring the distinction between the two methods. We do not deny such a view. Within the context of psychological study, there may be common underlying mechanisms or processes shared by the two methods. However, we believe that the distinction between the CIT and CQT in forensic settings deserves to be stated explicitly. The risk of blurring the distinction between the two methods would be negligible if all researchers and practitioners shared a common view concerning how the CIT and CQT can be used and differences between the tests. The application of each technique in real-life criminal investigations is a separate matter, even if it was demonstrated that both techniques share underlying mechanisms. Additionally, as discussed below, Palmatier and Rovner (2015) have failed to successfully show that the PPT can account for physiological responses in the CIT or the CQT. The arguments of Palmatier and Rovner (2015) attempting to connect the PPT with the CQT are weak, though their point may have been an attempt to make a proposition for further scientific study. Specifically, Palmatier and Rovner (2015) did not describe, in our understanding, any link between the PPT and the CQT. It is clearly insufficient to validate their argument by merely citing the PPT. In general, peripheral autonomic responses are non-specific and reflect various physiological and psychological factors. The psychological meaning of a physiological response becomes interpretable by taking into account the stimulus condition or behavioral context in which it occurred (Dawson et al., 2007). The CQT procedure differs in many ways from the orienting response experiments that the PPT is based on. Therefore, even if a superficial resemblance in physiological responses is found between the CQT and PPT, differences in methodological and situational features cast doubt on the inference that common underlying process are operating. Thus, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) discussion requires further detail to link observed physiological responses to processes postulated in the PPT. Additionally, Palmatier and Rovner (2015) say little about how the PPT explains the physiological responses observed during the CIT. This is rather surprising because their aim, in our
understanding, was to propose a possible link between the CQT and CIT through the PPT. Therefore, we do not think they were successful in linking the CQT and CIT via the PPT. Additionally, differential heart rate (HR) responses typically observed in the CIT suggest that the PPT cannot account for outcomes of the CIT. Specifically, in the CIT, differentiation between relevant and irrelevant items based on HR is evident more than 5 s after stimulus onset. Typically, a lower HR is observed after relevant item presentation compared with irrelevant item presentations both in field (Kobayashi et al., 2009) and laboratory settings (Gamer et al., 2008; Verschuere et al., 2004). However, the PPT focuses on HR changes within approximately 5 s after stimulus onset. It does not mention changes in later periods, as examined in the CIT. Palmatier and Rovner (2015) posited that HR is a promising measure for the assessment of differential responding, but this has not yet been established in the field, except in Japan and China. Certainly, HR is an efficient measure that can be used with the CIT in Japan (Kobayashi et al., 2009). However, differential HR responses in the CIT cannot be accounted for completely by the scope of the PPT, though it does not mean that the PPT is unrelated to the CIT. Moreover, the PPT has difficulty in explaining even earlier HR changes in the CIT. The PPT posits that initial HR deceleration reflects a stimulus registration process that is the same for crime-relevant and irrelevant items. However, initial HR deceleration is evident only after relevant item presentation as shown, for example, by Verschuere et al. (2004). Thus, it is premature to posit a unified view of the CQT and CIT based on the PPT. Finally, we emphasize that the CIT should be separated from controversies surrounding the CQT. Scientists and practitioners have debated the scientific validity of the CQT for decades; but consensus has yet to be reached. The CIT is designed and used for different purposes from the CQT in the forensic context. This is independent of arguments about similarity or dissimilarity of underlying psychological and physiological mechanisms between the methods. For this reason, caution is needed in interpreting the topic addressed by Palmatier and Rovner (2015). We believe that the authors aspired to clarify various issues related to polygraph testing, but, contrary to their aim, their proposition of abandoning essential differences between the CQT and CIT may bring further confusion to the area. Thus, we conclude that the aforementioned article by Palmatier and Rovner provides no solution to bridging the scientist–practitioner gaps in the scientific evaluation of the CQT. Furthermore, it has no relevance to the current practice of polygraph examination in Japan. References Barry, R.J., 1996. Preliminary process theory: towards an integrated account of the psychophysiology of cognitive processes. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 56, 469–484. Ben-Shakhar, G., Elaad, E., 2003. The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 131–151. Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., Filion, D.L., 2007. The Electrodermal System. Handbook of Psychophysiology, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, US, pp. 159–181. Gamer, M., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Vossel, G., 2008. Combining physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. Physiol. Behav. 95, 333–340. Kai, S., 2013. Lie Detector. Asahi Shimbun. ,p. e6, (December 14). Kobayashi, T., Yoshimoto, K., Fujihara, S., 2009. The contemporary situation of field polygraph tests. Jpn. J. Physiol. Psychol. Psychophysiol. 27, 5–15. Palmatier, J.J., Rovner, L., 2015. Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 95, 3–13 (in this issue). Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., De Clercq, A., Koster, E.H., 2004. Autonomic and behavioral responding to concealed information: differentiating orienting and defensive responses. Psychophysiology 41, 461–466.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Psychophysiology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpsycho
Invited Commentary
The Comparison Question Test versus the Concealed Information Test? That was the question in Japan: A comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015) Tokihiro Ogawa ⁎, Izumi Matsuda, Michiko Tsuneoka National Research Institute of Police Science, 6-3-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-0882, Japan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 July 2014 Received in revised form 8 September 2014 Accepted 11 September 2014 Available online 18 September 2014 Keywords: Comparison Question Test Concealed Information Test Polygraph Physiological responses
a b s t r a c t Palmatier and Rovner (2015) discussed the possible interplay of two major methods of polygraph examination, the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). In this comment, we argue that such an attempt overlooks fundamental differences between the two methods. Specifically, both methods differ in their criterion variables; detecting deception versus detecting memory traces. This difference can lead to a different evaluation concerning their outcomes within a forensic context. However, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) attempt may blur the distinction between the two methods. Furthermore, at least for the present, it is difficult to give a unified explanation of physiological responses in the CQT and CIT based on the preliminary process theory of the orienting response. In sum, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) paper may add further confusion to the research and practice of polygraph testing. Additionally, their paper has no relevance to the current practice of Japanese polygraph examination, because Japanese law enforcement uses only the CIT for memory detection in real-life criminal investigations. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Palmatier and Rovner (2015) discussed the possible interplay of two major polygraph techniques, the Comparison Question Test (CQT) and the Concealed Information Test (CIT). In the present comment we argue that, from the perspective of current Japanese practice of polygraph examinations, Palmatier and Rovner's attempt is questionable. This is because each technique should be used for different purposes in criminal investigations. Specifically, the CQT and CIT have different criterion variables. The CQT, aside from its scientific status, was designed as a technique for lie detection or, as Palmatier and Rovner (2015) specified, credibility assessment. In contrast, the CIT is more properly understood as a memory detection technique with a scientifically sound rationale. Currently, in Japan, the CIT is the only method used for polygraph examination and is used to examine whether one possesses knowledge about the crime under investigation. The CQT is not used in the field because it has been widely criticized, primarily concerning the lack of sufficient control, as discussed in Ben-Shakhar and Elaad (2003). In 2012, approximately 6800 polygraph tests were conducted all of which used the CIT (Kai, 2013). In the CIT, question items are chosen so that an examinee with no knowledge about the crime would not be able to discriminate between crime-relevant and irrelevant items. This methodological feature provides suitable control and leads to a specific prediction about what would occur depending on the examinee's ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 4 7135 8001. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Ogawa).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.09.006 0167-8760/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
knowledge about the crime. It should be stressed that it is not an essential part of the CIT to respond deceptively to questions (i.e., verbally respond “no” to a correct item). Evidently, the CIT can be used for credibility assessment of one's statement, in a sense that it uncovers the memory which one claims not to have. Additionally, we do not deny the possibility that deception has some role in the physiological response during the CIT (Ben-Shakhar and Elaad, 2003). However, whatever the underlying processes, differential responding cannot occur without knowledge about the details of the crime (Ben-Shakhar and Elaad, 2003). We believe that grouping the CIT and CQT into the same category, namely polygraph techniques, is misleading and may lead to further confusion, and critically, interfere with future developments in this area. As the two methods differ drastically in their goals, the CIT should never be substituted for the CQT, or vice versa, in their practical use in criminal investigations. The two techniques have different preconditions for their effective use. It makes no sense to advocate the use of the CQT over the CIT due to difficulties in preparing a sufficient number of CIT questions. In Japanese practice, if it is impossible to construct proper CIT questions, the examination should be postponed. In the context of criminal investigation, we think that memory detection techniques are more useful compared with deception detection techniques in demonstrating criminal facts. For example, consider a case where the suspect denies that he or she ever encountered the victim; showing the presence of memory about the victim's clothes, for example, could imply that the suspect did encounter the victim.
30
T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 95 (2015) 29–30
Conversely, deception detection techniques would conclude that the suspect dishonestly responded to questions. Both outcomes of the memory detection and deception detection techniques could discredit the suspect or his/her negation in the eyes of investigators, prosecutors, and jurors. Diminishing credibility of a suspect's statements may often be useful for decision making in criminal proceedings. However, the deception detection outcome, focusing on a suspect's dishonesty during an interrogation, is not easily interpreted as suggesting what occurred during the crime. Furthermore, deception detection outcomes may be interpreted in a similar way to suspicious behavior, such as averting eye contact during interrogations. Under such circumstances, it would be unlikely that the results of deception detection would be treated as evidence and cited in a verdict as indicating criminal facts. For these reasons, we strongly contend that the CIT should be treated as a memory detection technique. Our major concern with Palmatier and Rovner (2015) article is that it could blur the distinction between the two methods discussed above. Specifically, they proposed that physiological responses observed in the CQT and CIT can be explained by the preliminary process theory (PPT) of the orienting response (Barry, 1996). Such a statement may lead to the view that the CQT and CIT are interchangeable, because they are similar in physiological responses with the same underlying processes. It may also help to strengthen the view of the CIT as a deception detection technique. One may argue that scientific understanding gained by comparing psychophysiological responses between the CIT and CQT, in a potentially relevant theoretical framework, would greatly outweigh the risk of blurring the distinction between the two methods. We do not deny such a view. Within the context of psychological study, there may be common underlying mechanisms or processes shared by the two methods. However, we believe that the distinction between the CIT and CQT in forensic settings deserves to be stated explicitly. The risk of blurring the distinction between the two methods would be negligible if all researchers and practitioners shared a common view concerning how the CIT and CQT can be used and differences between the tests. The application of each technique in real-life criminal investigations is a separate matter, even if it was demonstrated that both techniques share underlying mechanisms. Additionally, as discussed below, Palmatier and Rovner (2015) have failed to successfully show that the PPT can account for physiological responses in the CIT or the CQT. The arguments of Palmatier and Rovner (2015) attempting to connect the PPT with the CQT are weak, though their point may have been an attempt to make a proposition for further scientific study. Specifically, Palmatier and Rovner (2015) did not describe, in our understanding, any link between the PPT and the CQT. It is clearly insufficient to validate their argument by merely citing the PPT. In general, peripheral autonomic responses are non-specific and reflect various physiological and psychological factors. The psychological meaning of a physiological response becomes interpretable by taking into account the stimulus condition or behavioral context in which it occurred (Dawson et al., 2007). The CQT procedure differs in many ways from the orienting response experiments that the PPT is based on. Therefore, even if a superficial resemblance in physiological responses is found between the CQT and PPT, differences in methodological and situational features cast doubt on the inference that common underlying process are operating. Thus, Palmatier and Rovner's (2015) discussion requires further detail to link observed physiological responses to processes postulated in the PPT. Additionally, Palmatier and Rovner (2015) say little about how the PPT explains the physiological responses observed during the CIT. This is rather surprising because their aim, in our
understanding, was to propose a possible link between the CQT and CIT through the PPT. Therefore, we do not think they were successful in linking the CQT and CIT via the PPT. Additionally, differential heart rate (HR) responses typically observed in the CIT suggest that the PPT cannot account for outcomes of the CIT. Specifically, in the CIT, differentiation between relevant and irrelevant items based on HR is evident more than 5 s after stimulus onset. Typically, a lower HR is observed after relevant item presentation compared with irrelevant item presentations both in field (Kobayashi et al., 2009) and laboratory settings (Gamer et al., 2008; Verschuere et al., 2004). However, the PPT focuses on HR changes within approximately 5 s after stimulus onset. It does not mention changes in later periods, as examined in the CIT. Palmatier and Rovner (2015) posited that HR is a promising measure for the assessment of differential responding, but this has not yet been established in the field, except in Japan and China. Certainly, HR is an efficient measure that can be used with the CIT in Japan (Kobayashi et al., 2009). However, differential HR responses in the CIT cannot be accounted for completely by the scope of the PPT, though it does not mean that the PPT is unrelated to the CIT. Moreover, the PPT has difficulty in explaining even earlier HR changes in the CIT. The PPT posits that initial HR deceleration reflects a stimulus registration process that is the same for crime-relevant and irrelevant items. However, initial HR deceleration is evident only after relevant item presentation as shown, for example, by Verschuere et al. (2004). Thus, it is premature to posit a unified view of the CQT and CIT based on the PPT. Finally, we emphasize that the CIT should be separated from controversies surrounding the CQT. Scientists and practitioners have debated the scientific validity of the CQT for decades; but consensus has yet to be reached. The CIT is designed and used for different purposes from the CQT in the forensic context. This is independent of arguments about similarity or dissimilarity of underlying psychological and physiological mechanisms between the methods. For this reason, caution is needed in interpreting the topic addressed by Palmatier and Rovner (2015). We believe that the authors aspired to clarify various issues related to polygraph testing, but, contrary to their aim, their proposition of abandoning essential differences between the CQT and CIT may bring further confusion to the area. Thus, we conclude that the aforementioned article by Palmatier and Rovner provides no solution to bridging the scientist–practitioner gaps in the scientific evaluation of the CQT. Furthermore, it has no relevance to the current practice of polygraph examination in Japan. References Barry, R.J., 1996. Preliminary process theory: towards an integrated account of the psychophysiology of cognitive processes. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 56, 469–484. Ben-Shakhar, G., Elaad, E., 2003. The validity of psychophysiological detection of information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 131–151. Dawson, M.E., Schell, A.M., Filion, D.L., 2007. The Electrodermal System. Handbook of Psychophysiology, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, US, pp. 159–181. Gamer, M., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Vossel, G., 2008. Combining physiological measures in the detection of concealed information. Physiol. Behav. 95, 333–340. Kai, S., 2013. Lie Detector. Asahi Shimbun. ,p. e6, (December 14). Kobayashi, T., Yoshimoto, K., Fujihara, S., 2009. The contemporary situation of field polygraph tests. Jpn. J. Physiol. Psychol. Psychophysiol. 27, 5–15. Palmatier, J.J., Rovner, L., 2015. Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 95, 3–13 (in this issue). Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., De Clercq, A., Koster, E.H., 2004. Autonomic and behavioral responding to concealed information: differentiating orienting and defensive responses. Psychophysiology 41, 461–466.
