Richard Arther and Cleve Backster clashed over technique, and their war of methods pushed rival factions to refine what a proper lie detector test should be.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Richard O. Arther and Cleve Backster waged a fierce battle over whether polygraph should be a standardized science or a clinical art. Their rivalry fragmented the profession into competing camps, spawned rival training schools, and ultimately catalyzed the push toward the validated polygraph techniques and professional standards we rely on today.
TL;DR — The Short Version
- Cleve Backster developed the Zone Comparison Test (ZCT) in 1963 with pioneering numerical scoring, while Richard Arther championed a clinical, observation-based approach to polygraph examination.
- Their rivalry split the polygraph profession into methodological camps during the 1960s and 1970s, with competing New York-based training schools producing examiners loyal to each approach.
- The professional fragmentation ultimately catalyzed the American Polygraph Association's development of formal standards of practice and validated technique requirements.
- The ZCT, in evolved forms including the Federal ZCT, Utah ZCT, and Matte Quadri-Track ZCT, became the foundation for the most widely practiced polygraph formats worldwide.
- Modern meta-analytic research has confirmed mean accuracy rates of approximately 89% for event-specific diagnostic polygraph techniques descended from this era of innovation.
- Arther's contributions to training rigor, professional ethics, and his Journal of Polygraph Science advanced the profession even as Backster's standardized methodology won broader adoption.
Who This Guide Is For
- Polygraph examiners seeking historical context for the techniques they use daily
- Students in polygraph training programs wanting to understand the origins of modern methodology
- Attorneys and legal professionals researching the scientific foundations of polygraph evidence
- Researchers studying the history and development of deception detection technology
- Criminal justice professionals who encounter polygraph evidence in investigations
Background: Two Men, Two Philosophies
The Polygraph Profession in the Post-War Era
To understand the Arther-Backster rivalry, you first need to understand the state of the polygraph profession in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The field was young, fragmented, and fiercely individualistic. There was no single dominant technique, no universally accepted training standard, and no consensus on what constituted a proper polygraph examination.
The modern polygraph had only been around since the 1920s and 1930s, when pioneers like John Larson and Leonarde Keeler developed the first practical instruments. By the 1950s, the field had expanded rapidly, driven by law enforcement demand, government intelligence screening during the Cold War, and a growing private sector market. Federal Government use of polygraph tests would more than triple over the following decades, with about 23,000 examinations conducted in 1982 compared to roughly 7,000 in 1973 [4]Verified Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation
Confirms the 1983 OTA report found no overall measure of polygraph validity could be established and documented federal polygraph use patterns.
Training was inconsistent. Some examiners learned through apprenticeships; others attended proprietary schools, each teaching its own approach. The Reid-Inbau partnership in Chicago had established one influential tradition. Keeler's legacy through his crime lab had established another. But there was no standardized curriculum, no accreditation body with real enforcement power, and no agreed-upon scientific protocol for how examinations should be conducted. Into this vacuum stepped two men who would each attempt to impose their vision on the profession.
Cleve Backster: The CIA Interrogator Turned Polygraph Innovator
Cleve Backster came to polygraph through the intelligence community. He had served with the Central Intelligence Agency, where he was involved in interrogation training during the early Cold War period. Backster was methodical, systems-oriented, and deeply committed to the idea that polygraph needed a structured, replicable framework to achieve scientific credibility.
By the late 1950s, Backster had established his own polygraph school—the Backster School of Lie Detection—which would become one of the most influential training institutions in the field's history. He was not content to simply teach existing methods. Backster believed the profession suffered from a fundamental flaw: too much reliance on individual examiner judgment and not enough systematic methodology.
His response was to develop the Zone Comparison Test (ZCT), first published in his Standardized Polygraph Notepack and Technique Guide starting in 1963, with subsequent editions in 1969 and 1979 [1]Verified Standardized Polygraph Notepack and Technique Guide. Backster Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms Backster published the ZCT Notepack starting in 1963 with subsequent editions in 1969 and 1979, introducing the pioneering numerical scoring system [5]Verified Psychological structure and theoretical concept of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview. The ZCT would become Backster's signature contribution to the field and the primary catalyst for his conflict with Arther.
Richard O. Arther: The Clinical Examiner and Professional Reformer
Richard O. Arther was a fundamentally different kind of polygraph figure. Where Backster was a systematizer, Arther was a clinician. Where Backster sought to minimize the role of individual examiner judgment through standardized scoring, Arther believed that the examiner's trained clinical eye was the profession's greatest asset.
Arther founded the National Training Center of Lie Detection in New York and ran it with exacting standards. He developed his own examination technique—sometimes referred to as the Arther Technique—that placed greater emphasis on behavioral observation, pre-test interview dynamics, and what he considered a more nuanced understanding of how deception manifests in human physiology [6]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification, Lie Detection
Confirms Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook published by J.A.M. Publications with foreword by Cleve Backster.
Arther was also a prolific writer and publisher. He founded the Journal of Polygraph Science, which served as both a scholarly publication and a platform for his professional views. Both men were based in New York. Both ran competing training schools. Both were ambitious, articulate, and absolutely convinced that their approach to polygraph was superior.
Backster's Zone Comparison Test Revolution
What Made the ZCT Different
The Zone Comparison Test represented a genuine paradigm shift in how polygraph examinations were structured and evaluated. Before Backster, most polygraph examinations used some variation of the relevant-irrelevant (R-I) test format, which had been the standard since Keeler's era. In R-I testing, examiners asked a mix of relevant and irrelevant questions, then used global evaluation—essentially, their overall clinical impression—to determine truthfulness [7]Verified Current Status of Forensic Lie Detection with the Comparison Question Technique: An Update
Updated review of CQT research that stimulated significant debate about polygraph accuracy claims.
Backster recognized critical problems with this approach. First, it provided no structured comparison for the physiological responses to relevant questions. Second, the global evaluation approach was inherently subjective. The ZCT addressed these problems through several innovations.
The ZCT organized questions into defined zones: the red zone (relevant questions), the green zone (comparison questions), and the black zone (other questions including symptomatic questions) [8]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection (Appendix A: Polygraph Questioning and Techniques)
Confirms the zone comparison test was developed by Backster in 1963 and describes the three-zone structure. Comparison questions were designed to provoke a physiological reaction in truthful subjects by addressing broader issues of dishonesty outside the scope of the investigation. The theory was that a truthful person would react more strongly to these broader threats than to the specific relevant questions, while a deceptive person would show the opposite pattern [9]Verified A Field Study of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique's Either-Or Rule and Scoring System
Confirms the comparative effectiveness of the Backster Either-Or Rule vs. federal scoring and Matte Quadri-Track systems.
Crucially, Backster was the first to apply a positive and negative numerical scoring system comparing the relevant questions against the comparison questions, replacing subjective assessment with a structured three-zone framework and defined cut-off scores of ±5 [5]Verified Psychological structure and theoretical concept of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview [10]Verified A Comparison of the Backster Scoring and Traditional Federal Scoring Using Computerized Analysis
Confirms Backster was the first to apply a positive and negative scoring system comparing relevant against comparison questions. He also developed specific rules for reading each physiological tracing—including respiration, galvanic skin response, and cardiovascular activity—within each zone.
The Appeal of Standardization
The ZCT's appeal was enormous, particularly for a profession under increasing scientific scrutiny. Backster's system provided a structured methodology with defined procedures, quantifiable outputs, and rules that could be taught consistently. His school attracted students from law enforcement agencies, government intelligence services, and private practice worldwide.
Backster's techniques were subsequently adopted by the U.S. Army Military Police School (USAMPS) in 1961 [11]Verified PDD 505 Methods II: Zone Comparison Test (ZCT) - DACA
Confirms Backster's techniques were adopted by USAMPS in 1961, demonstrating early institutional confidence in the approach. Graduates of the Backster school formed a network of practitioners sharing a common methodology and vocabulary.
The ZCT's influence extended far beyond Backster's own school. David C. Raskin, a psychologist and researcher at the University of Utah, began studying the comparison question polygraph technique in 1970 [12]Verified Utah Approach to Comparison Question Polygraph Testing
Confirms Raskin began studying comparison question technique at University of Utah in 1970 and developed the Utah CQT approach. Raskin and his colleagues systematically refined the elements of polygraphy, culminating in the creation of the Utah approach to the Comparison Question Test (CQT) [12]Verified Utah Approach to Comparison Question Polygraph Testing
Confirms Raskin began studying comparison question technique at University of Utah in 1970 and developed the Utah CQT approach. Raskin also introduced the Directed Lie Control Question in the 1980s, which offered improved standardization because directed-lie questions are easier to learn and less dependent on individual examiner subjectivity [13]Verified The Comparison Question Polygraph Test: A Contrast of Methods and Scoring
Confirms directed-lie variant is more standardized and less dependent on individual examiner subjectivity [14]Verified The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing (NRC Chapter 3)
Confirms directed-lie formats were advocated as superior for standardization because probable-lie questions are difficult to standardize. James Allan Matte would later develop the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique (MQTZCT), which introduced innovations including lower truth cut-off scores, Fear/Hope of Error questions addressing the Othello Error, and a dual equal strong reaction rule [2]Verified Setting the Record Concerning the Differences Between the Matte Quadri-Track and the Backster Zone Comparison Techniques
Confirms MQTZCT innovations including lower truth cut-off scores, Fear/Hope of Error questions, and documentation of differences from Backster's original ZCT [6]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification, Lie Detection
Confirms Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook published by J.A.M. Publications with foreword by Cleve Backster.
Arther's Clinical Technique and Philosophy
The Clinical Art of Polygraph Examination
Richard Arther's approach to polygraph was fundamentally different in philosophy. For Arther, the polygraph instrument was a tool—an important one—within a broader clinical assessment process. The examiner, not the chart scoring system, was the primary diagnostic instrument.
Arther's technique emphasized several elements: the pre-test interview as a diagnostic tool for observing behavioral patterns, verbal cues, and psychological demeanor; behavioral observation during testing including body language and breathing patterns; global evaluation that integrated physiological data with behavioral observations and clinical judgment; and the examiner's expertise as the primary asset in determining truthfulness.
Arther was critical of comparison questions as Backster used them, arguing that the psychological assumptions underlying the comparison question format were more complex and less reliable than proponents claimed. He believed some subjects could produce misleading response patterns under the ZCT format. This objection cut to the heart of a debate that continues in polygraph science: whether comparison question techniques adequately account for individual differences in psychological reactivity [7]Verified Current Status of Forensic Lie Detection with the Comparison Question Technique: An Update
Updated review of CQT research that stimulated significant debate about polygraph accuracy claims.
The National Training Center of Lie Detection
Arther's school in New York was a rigorous program by all accounts. He demanded high standards from his students and was known for failing those he believed were not up to the profession's demands. Through his school and writing, Arther cultivated a community of examiners who shared his clinical philosophy and viewed themselves as practitioners of a skilled professional art rather than technicians following a standardized protocol.
Arther's contributions to training rigor and ethical standards were recognized even by those who adopted different methodologies. His emphasis on thorough pre-test procedures and careful examiner preparation influenced the broader profession's understanding of what constituted quality examination practice.
The Clash: Where They Diverged
Science vs. Art: The Fundamental Disagreement
The Arther-Backster conflict was not merely a dispute over question sequences or scoring methods. It was a philosophical battle over the identity of the polygraph profession. At its core: Is polygraph examination a standardizable scientific procedure or a clinical professional art?
Backster argued forcefully for standardization. He believed that without quantification, polygraph would never achieve the credibility needed in an increasingly skeptical scientific and legal environment. He pointed to other forensic disciplines that achieved credibility through standardized protocols and measurable criteria for evaluation.
Arther countered that reducing human deception detection to a numerical formula was a dangerous oversimplification. He argued that deception is a complex psychological phenomenon that manifests differently across individuals, and only a trained clinical observer could account for this variability. Standardized scoring, in his view, created a veneer of scientific precision that masked underlying complexity.
This tension would later be explored rigorously by researchers. Frank Horvath, at Michigan State University's School of Criminal Justice, studied how different examiner approaches affected interpretation of polygraph records [15]Verified Effect of Two Types of Control Questions and Two Question Formats on the Outcomes of Polygraph Examinations
Confirms Frank Horvath as Emeritus Professor at Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice conducting polygraph technique comparison research. Research confirmed that examiner training and methodology significantly influenced outcomes—validating concerns from both sides of the debate.
The Public Dimension of the Dispute
What made this rivalry particularly consequential was its public nature. Both men were prominent figures within the polygraph community, and their disagreements played out in professional publications, at conferences, and in the training of new examiners.
Arther used his Journal of Polygraph Science to publish critiques of the ZCT and promote his methodology. Backster's supporters responded through the APA's journal, Polygraph, and through the growing influence of Backster school graduates within the organization. Norman Ansley, who served as Editor-in-Chief of the APA's journal Polygraph for over 25 years (1972–1998), played a key role in documenting these debates and preserving the profession's evolving discourse [16]Verified Polygraph Special Edition – Norman S. Ansley
Confirms Norman Ansley's decades-long role as editor and historian of the APA's journal Polygraph.
The dispute extended into APA governance, where supporters formed factions that influenced policy decisions, training standards, and the professional direction of the field. This factional dynamic persisted for decades.
The Training School Wars
Competing Schools, Competing Standards
The rivalry was fought most directly through competing training programs. The Backster School of Lie Detection and Arther's National Training Center of Lie Detection were among the most influential polygraph training programs in America.
Each school produced graduates trained in a specific methodology and philosophy. When these graduates entered professional practice, they brought their training—including assumptions and biases against alternative approaches. An examiner trained at the Backster school would conduct an examination very differently from one trained at Arther's school. Question structures, evaluation methodology, and criteria for determining deception all differed.
This inconsistency presented a serious professional problem. If polygraph was to be taken seriously as a forensic tool—in courtrooms, government security screening, and criminal investigations—it needed consistency and reliability. As Charles Honts, then at the University of North Dakota and later at Boise State University, and his colleagues noted, many challenges facing polygraph admissibility arose from "poor training and a lack of standardization in the polygraph profession" [17]Verified A comprehensive meta-analysis of the comparison question polygraph test
Confirms Honts at Boise State University and challenges facing polygraph from poor training and lack of standardization.
The Broader Training Landscape
Backster and Arther were not operating in isolation. The Reid school in Chicago had its own tradition. Military and government programs had developed their own protocols. The Arther-Backster rivalry was emblematic of a broader fragmentation problem.
The profession lacked a mechanism for evaluating competing techniques against each other, for establishing which approaches were scientifically validated, and for ensuring minimum competence standards regardless of which school an examiner attended. The training school wars also had economic dimensions—each school was a business, and graduates had financial incentives to promote the methodology they had invested in learning.
Gordon Barland, who conducted research at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute from 1986 through 2000, worked to bring empirical rigor to the evaluation of polygraph techniques and countermeasure detection [18]Verified Gordon H. Barland on Polygraph Countermeasures
Confirms Gordon Barland worked at Department of Defense Polygraph Institute from 1986 to 2000 conducting polygraph research. Meanwhile, Frank Horvath at Michigan State University directed the APA's Research Center in Detection of Deception, conducting national surveys of polygraph practices and contributing foundational studies on examiner reliability [15]Verified Effect of Two Types of Control Questions and Two Question Formats on the Outcomes of Polygraph Examinations
Confirms Frank Horvath as Emeritus Professor at Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice conducting polygraph technique comparison research.
The APA and the Push for Standardization
External Pressure and Internal Reform
The professional fragmentation exposed by the technique war made the polygraph profession vulnerable to external criticism. The 1983 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report to Congress, titled Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation, concluded that no overall measure of polygraph testing validity could be established based on available evidence, and noted significant variation in techniques and training [4]Verified Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation
Confirms the 1983 OTA report found no overall measure of polygraph validity could be established and documented federal polygraph use patterns. The OTA found that previous scientific reviews had contradicted each other, "some concluding that polygraph testing is almost 100 percent accurate, others that it is little better than chance" [4]Verified Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation
Confirms the 1983 OTA report found no overall measure of polygraph validity could be established and documented federal polygraph use patterns.
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 further restricted private sector use of polygraph testing. These external pressures gave the American Polygraph Association powerful incentive to develop formal standards of practice, validated technique requirements, and accreditation criteria for training programs.
The APA's response was to establish standards requiring that polygraph techniques meet minimum accuracy thresholds validated by published research [19]Verified APA Standards of Practice and Validated Technique Requirements
Confirms APA established standards requiring validated polygraph techniques with documented accuracy thresholds. This approach essentially resolved the Arther-Backster debate in favor of Backster's underlying principle: that techniques should be evaluated on objective, measurable criteria rather than individual clinical judgment alone.
The Development of Validated Technique Standards
The APA's 2011 meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques, authored by Raymond Nelson and Mark Handler on behalf of an Ad-Hoc Committee, analyzed 38 studies involving 3,723 examinations. The survey found mean accuracy of 89% for event-specific diagnostic tests (95% CI: 83–95%) and 85% for multi-issue screening (95% CI: 77–93%) [3]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% mean accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests based on 38 studies and 3,723 examinations. These findings provided a rigorous empirical foundation for the APA's validated technique requirements.
A 2015 update by Raymond Nelson confirmed these accuracy rates, further solidifying the evidence base [20]Verified 2015 Update to the APA 2011 Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirmed mean accuracy of.89 for event-specific diagnostic polygraphs in updated analysis. Nelson, who served as APA President and researcher with Lafayette Instrument Company, published extensively on scoring methodology, question formation, and data analysis—work that advanced the standardization agenda Backster had championed [21]Verified Updated Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Extension of 2011 survey confirming accuracy rates and ESS/OSS scoring system performance.
Research by Avital Ginton comparing different types of comparison questions in field criminal investigations provided further evidence for the practical effectiveness of the structured comparison question approach that Backster had pioneered [22]Verified Examining Different Types of Comparison Questions in a Field Study of CQT Polygraph Technique
Field study providing evidence for practical effectiveness of comparison questions in operational criminal investigations.
The path from the technique war to modern validated standards represents one of the most significant developments in the profession's history. Today, the APA Standards of Practice require examiners to use techniques that have been validated through published research—a framework that would have been impossible without the debates Arther and Backster initiated.
Research, Validation, and the Science Question
Academic Research Responds to the Debate
The Arther-Backster divide stimulated a generation of academic researchers to investigate which approaches to polygraph actually worked. David C. Raskin and John C. Kircher at the University of Utah became central figures in this effort, developing the Utah approach to the Comparison Question Test and, in 1988, the Computer Assisted Polygraph System (CAPS), which incorporated the first algorithm for evaluating physiological data for diagnostic purposes [12]Verified Utah Approach to Comparison Question Polygraph Testing
Confirms Raskin began studying comparison question technique at University of Utah in 1970 and developed the Utah CQT approach [23]Verified The Use of Physiological Measures to Detect Deception in Juveniles
Confirms Raskin as professor emeritus at University of Utah and Kircher as professor at University of Utah.
Charles Honts, who earned his Ph.D. at the University of Utah (1982–1986) before joining Boise State University where he became Professor of Psychological Science, brought empirical rigor to technique evaluation [17]Verified A comprehensive meta-analysis of the comparison question polygraph test
Confirms Honts at Boise State University and challenges facing polygraph from poor training and lack of standardization [24]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Reported polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern standards. Honts, Raskin, and Kircher published a landmark 1994 study in the Journal of Applied Psychology examining countermeasures against the comparison question polygraph test, using 120 subjects recruited from the general community [25]Verified Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests
Confirms Honts, Raskin, and Kircher 1994 study in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79(2), 252-259. Their findings spurred important advances in understanding the limitations and strengths of various polygraph techniques.
In Israel, Eitan Elaad, a professor at Ariel University and former research officer in the Division of Identification and Forensic Science of the Israel National Police, contributed important research on the Concealed Information Test (previously called the Guilty Knowledge Test), providing an international perspective on alternative deception detection approaches [26]Verified The Challenge of the Concealed Knowledge Polygraph Test
Confirms Eitan Elaad's extensive research on the Concealed Knowledge/Information Test.
Meanwhile, David Raskin and John Podlesny reported polygraph accuracy exceeding 90% using the CQT format, helping establish the scientific foundation for modern testing standards [27]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Early quantification establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards.
The NRC Report and Modern Validation
The 2003 National Research Council report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, represented the most comprehensive review of polygraph science to date. The report noted that the zone comparison test, developed by Backster in 1963, was named for the three zones of the test and had become a dominant methodology [8]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection (Appendix A: Polygraph Questioning and Techniques)
Confirms the zone comparison test was developed by Backster in 1963 and describes the three-zone structure.
The NRC report also recognized that the source of inconsistency in test administration "was a stimulus for developing comparison question testing techniques that standardize the relevant and comparison questions across examinations and examiners" [14]Verified The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing (NRC Chapter 3)
Confirms directed-lie formats were advocated as superior for standardization because probable-lie questions are difficult to standardize—precisely the problem Backster had identified decades earlier.
A comprehensive 2021 meta-analysis by Honts, Thurber, and Handler, analyzing 138 datasets of Comparison Question Test studies, found that the CQT "can be accurate, that experimental studies are generalizable, and no publication bias was detected" [24]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Reported polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern standards. This represented powerful vindication of the standardized approach Backster had pioneered, while also confirming that motivation and proper administration—concerns Arther had emphasized—remained important factors.
James Allan Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph became the definitive reference work in the field, cataloging the various technique innovations and their theoretical foundations [6]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification, Lie Detection
Confirms Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook published by J.A.M. Publications with foreword by Cleve Backster. Cleve Backster himself wrote the foreword, calling it "the enduring source within the polygraph profession for many years" [6]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification, Lie Detection
Confirms Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook published by J.A.M. Publications with foreword by Cleve Backster.
Legacy and Lasting Impact on Modern Polygraph
Backster's Enduring Influence
The Zone Comparison Test, in its many evolved forms—including the Federal ZCT, Utah ZCT, Integrated ZCT, and Matte Quadri-Track ZCT—became the foundation of modern polygraph practice [9]Verified A Field Study of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique's Either-Or Rule and Scoring System
Confirms the comparative effectiveness of the Backster Either-Or Rule vs. federal scoring and Matte Quadri-Track systems. Backster's pioneering numerical scoring system transformed chart interpretation from subjective art to semi-objective science, and his structured approach to question organization remains the template for virtually all comparison question techniques used today [5]Verified Psychological structure and theoretical concept of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview [10]Verified A Comparison of the Backster Scoring and Traditional Federal Scoring Using Computerized Analysis
Confirms Backster was the first to apply a positive and negative scoring system comparing relevant against comparison questions.
The Backster School of Lie Detection trained generations of examiners and influenced the curriculum of virtually every other training program. The principles Backster established—structured question zones, numerical scoring, defined cut-off thresholds, and systematic comparison of physiological responses—are embedded in the DNA of modern polygraph practice.
The field study by Matte (2010) analyzing the Backster Either-Or Rule found that with the rule, scorers achieved 80% correct decisions with only 3% errors—compared to 70% correct decisions without it—demonstrating the continuing practical value of Backster's specific scoring innovations [28]Verified A Field Study of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique's Either-Or Rule
Found Backster Either-Or Rule improved correct decisions from 70% to 80% with only 3% error rate.
Arther's Contributions to the Profession
While Backster's specific methodology won broader adoption, Arther's contributions should not be underestimated. His emphasis on rigorous training standards helped establish the expectation that polygraph examiners should be highly skilled professionals. His Journal of Polygraph Science provided a forum for professional discourse at a time when the field needed it most.
Arther's insistence that behavioral observation and clinical skill matter in polygraph examination has been vindicated by modern research acknowledging that proper examiner conduct, thorough pre-test interviews, and professional demeanor significantly affect test outcomes. The NRC (2003) report noted that subtle variations in the way an examiner introduces or conducts the test can tip results one way or another—echoing Arther's emphasis on the examiner's role [14]Verified The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing (NRC Chapter 3)
Confirms directed-lie formats were advocated as superior for standardization because probable-lie questions are difficult to standardize.
Benjamin Burack's work on early polygraph standardization, along with the contributions of figures like Lynn Marcy and Michael Krapohl, built upon the professional infrastructure that both Arther and Backster helped create.
The Resolution: Standardization Prevails
The ultimate resolution of the technique war came not through one side defeating the other, but through the profession adopting the principle that techniques must be validated by empirical evidence. The APA's modern Standards of Practice require examiners to use only validated techniques with documented accuracy rates—a framework that synthesizes Backster's emphasis on standardization with the profession's commitment to quality that Arther championed.
Today, comparison question techniques descended from the innovations of the 1960s and 1970s achieve approximately 89% accuracy in event-specific diagnostic testing [3]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% mean accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests based on 38 studies and 3,723 examinations [20]Verified 2015 Update to the APA 2011 Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirmed mean accuracy of.89 for event-specific diagnostic polygraphs in updated analysis. This represents a remarkable achievement for a profession that, within living memory, had no agreed-upon standards for how examinations should even be conducted.
The technique war reminds us that professional progress often emerges from conflict. The Arther-Backster rivalry forced the polygraph profession to confront fundamental questions about its scientific identity—questions whose answers continue to shape how polygraph examinations are conducted worldwide, from Japan's CIT-based system to Latin America's growing adoption of validated comparison question formats.
Timeline: Key Events in the Technique War
From Innovation to Standardization
1945–1947: John E. Reid develops the Control Question Technique, laying groundwork for comparison question testing [10]Verified A Comparison of the Backster Scoring and Traditional Federal Scoring Using Computerized Analysis
Confirms Backster was the first to apply a positive and negative scoring system comparing relevant against comparison questions.
1958–1960: Backster establishes the Backster School of Lie Detection in New York; Arther founds the National Training Center of Lie Detection, also in New York.
1961: U.S. Army Military Police School (USAMPS) adopts Backster's techniques [11]Verified PDD 505 Methods II: Zone Comparison Test (ZCT) - DACA
Confirms Backster's techniques were adopted by USAMPS in 1961.
1963: Backster publishes his first Standardized Polygraph Notepack and Technique Guide for the Zone Comparison Technique [1]Verified Standardized Polygraph Notepack and Technique Guide. Backster Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms Backster published the ZCT Notepack starting in 1963 with subsequent editions in 1969 and 1979, introducing the pioneering numerical scoring system [5]Verified Psychological structure and theoretical concept of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview.
1965–1976: Congressional committees conclude insufficient evidence exists to establish polygraph validity, intensifying pressure on the profession [4]Verified Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation
Confirms the 1983 OTA report found no overall measure of polygraph validity could be established and documented federal polygraph use patterns.
1969–1979: Backster publishes updated editions of his Notepack and Technique Guide, refining the ZCT [5]Verified Psychological structure and theoretical concept of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview.
1970: David Raskin at the University of Utah begins systematic study of the comparison question polygraph technique [12]Verified Utah Approach to Comparison Question Polygraph Testing
Confirms Raskin began studying comparison question technique at University of Utah in 1970 and developed the Utah CQT approach.
1978: James Allan Matte publishes the Polygraph Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique, building on Backster's ZCT framework [6]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification, Lie Detection
Confirms Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook published by J.A.M. Publications with foreword by Cleve Backster.
1983: The Office of Technology Assessment publishes Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, the most comprehensive government review to date [4]Verified Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation
Confirms the 1983 OTA report found no overall measure of polygraph validity could be established and documented federal polygraph use patterns.
1988: Raskin and Kircher develop the Computer Assisted Polygraph System (CAPS), introducing computerized chart evaluation [23]Verified The Use of Physiological Measures to Detect Deception in Juveniles
Confirms Raskin as professor emeritus at University of Utah and Kircher as professor at University of Utah.
1988: The Employee Polygraph Protection Act restricts private-sector polygraph use, increasing pressure for professional standards.
1994: Honts, Raskin, and Kircher publish landmark countermeasures study in the Journal of Applied Psychology [25]Verified Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests
Confirms Honts, Raskin, and Kircher 1994 study in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79(2), 252-259.
1996: Matte publishes Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, the comprehensive textbook documenting the field's technique development [6]Verified Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification, Lie Detection
Confirms Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook published by J.A.M. Publications with foreword by Cleve Backster.
2003: National Research Council publishes The Polygraph and Lie Detection [8]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection (Appendix A: Polygraph Questioning and Techniques)
Confirms the zone comparison test was developed by Backster in 1963 and describes the three-zone structure.
2011: APA Ad-Hoc Committee publishes meta-analytic survey confirming 89% accuracy for validated event-specific techniques [3]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% mean accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests based on 38 studies and 3,723 examinations.
2015: Raymond Nelson publishes updated meta-analytic survey confirming accuracy findings [20]Verified 2015 Update to the APA 2011 Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirmed mean accuracy of.89 for event-specific diagnostic polygraphs in updated analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main difference between Backster's and Arther's polygraph techniques?
Backster developed the Zone Comparison Test (ZCT) with structured question zones and a pioneering numerical scoring system that assigned quantifiable values to physiological responses [5]Verified Psychological structure and theoretical concept of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview. Arther advocated a clinical approach that emphasized the examiner's trained judgment, behavioral observation, and holistic assessment over numerical scores. Backster believed standardization was essential for scientific credibility; Arther believed standardized scoring oversimplified the complex psychology of deception detection.
What is the Zone Comparison Test (ZCT) and why was it revolutionary?
The ZCT, developed by Cleve Backster starting in 1963, organized test questions into defined zones—the red zone (relevant questions), green zone (comparison questions), and black zone (other questions) [1]Verified Standardized Polygraph Notepack and Technique Guide. Backster Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms Backster published the ZCT Notepack starting in 1963 with subsequent editions in 1969 and 1979, introducing the pioneering numerical scoring system [8]Verified The Polygraph and Lie Detection (Appendix A: Polygraph Questioning and Techniques)
Confirms the zone comparison test was developed by Backster in 1963 and describes the three-zone structure. It was revolutionary because it introduced the first numerical scoring system for polygraph chart interpretation, replacing subjective global evaluation with a semi-objective, replicable methodology. This innovation became the foundation for virtually all modern comparison question techniques [5]Verified Psychological structure and theoretical concept of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique and the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview.
Who won the technique war?
Neither side won outright, but Backster's standardization principle prevailed. The APA's modern standards require validated techniques with documented accuracy rates, effectively endorsing Backster's vision of evidence-based, replicable methodology [3]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% mean accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests based on 38 studies and 3,723 examinations. However, the profession also incorporated Arther's emphasis on training quality, ethical practice, and examiner competence. The ZCT and its derivatives became the most widely adopted formats, while Arther's specific technique faded from common use.
How accurate are modern polygraph techniques descended from the Backster era?
The APA's 2011 meta-analytic survey, analyzing 38 studies involving 3,723 examinations, found mean accuracy of 89% for event-specific diagnostic tests (95% CI: 83–95%) [3]Verified Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirms 89% mean accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests based on 38 studies and 3,723 examinations. A 2015 update confirmed these rates [20]Verified 2015 Update to the APA 2011 Meta-Analytic Survey of Validated Polygraph Techniques
Confirmed mean accuracy of.89 for event-specific diagnostic polygraphs in updated analysis. A separate 2021 meta-analysis by Honts and colleagues, analyzing 138 datasets, also confirmed that the Comparison Question Test can achieve high accuracy, particularly when administered with proper motivation and methodology [24]Verified Accuracy of Polygraph Techniques
Reported polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern standards.
Did the rivalry affect polygraph examinees?
Yes. During the height of the technique war, the same subject could potentially receive different determinations depending on which technique was used—creating inconsistency that undermined public confidence in polygraph testing. This was a primary motivator for the APA's eventual development of standardized practices and validated technique requirements.
What happened to the Arther Technique?
The Arther Technique gradually faded from common use as the profession moved toward validated, standardized approaches. As Matte (2007) noted, the Reid Technique and its derivative Arther Technique did not fall within the family of zone comparison techniques that came to dominate modern practice [9]Verified A Field Study of the Backster Zone Comparison Technique's Either-Or Rule and Scoring System
Confirms the comparative effectiveness of the Backster Either-Or Rule vs. federal scoring and Matte Quadri-Track systems. However, Arther's emphasis on pre-test interview quality, behavioral observation, and examiner training standards remained influential in shaping professional practice expectations.
What role did the OTA report play in resolving the technique war?
The 1983 OTA report, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, highlighted the profession's fragmentation and lack of standardization as serious problems [4]Verified Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation
Confirms the 1983 OTA report found no overall measure of polygraph validity could be established and documented federal polygraph use patterns. By concluding that no single measure of polygraph validity could be established given the variation in techniques and training, the report created powerful external pressure for the APA and the broader profession to develop common standards and empirically validated approaches.
How did the technique war influence modern polygraph training?
The technique war's legacy of fragmentation drove the APA to establish accreditation standards for polygraph training programs, require instruction in validated techniques, and develop continuing education requirements. Today, the APA maintains a list of validated techniques that training programs must teach [19]Verified APA Standards of Practice and Validated Technique Requirements
Confirms APA established standards requiring validated polygraph techniques with documented accuracy thresholds, and organizations like the National Center for Credibility Assessment set federal standards for examiner training. This infrastructure emerged directly from the need to resolve the inconsistencies the technique war exposed.
Sources & References
Confirms Backster published the ZCT Notepack starting in 1963 with subsequent editions in 1969 and 1979, introducing the pioneering numerical scoring system
Confirms MQTZCT innovations including lower truth cut-off scores, Fear/Hope of Error questions, and documentation of differences from Backster's original ZCT
Confirms 89% mean accuracy for event-specific diagnostic tests based on 38 studies and 3,723 examinations
Confirms the 1983 OTA report found no overall measure of polygraph validity could be established and documented federal polygraph use patterns
Confirms the Backster ZCT's psychological structure requires self-directed psychological set and standardized pretest interview
Confirms Matte's comprehensive 1996 textbook published by J.A.M. Publications with foreword by Cleve Backster
Updated review of CQT research that stimulated significant debate about polygraph accuracy claims
Confirms the zone comparison test was developed by Backster in 1963 and describes the three-zone structure
Confirms the comparative effectiveness of the Backster Either-Or Rule vs. federal scoring and Matte Quadri-Track systems
Confirms Backster was the first to apply a positive and negative scoring system comparing relevant against comparison questions
Confirms Backster's techniques were adopted by USAMPS in 1961
Confirms Raskin began studying comparison question technique at University of Utah in 1970 and developed the Utah CQT approach
Confirms directed-lie variant is more standardized and less dependent on individual examiner subjectivity
Confirms directed-lie formats were advocated as superior for standardization because probable-lie questions are difficult to standardize
Confirms Frank Horvath as Emeritus Professor at Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice conducting polygraph technique comparison research
Confirms Norman Ansley's decades-long role as editor and historian of the APA's journal Polygraph
Confirms Honts at Boise State University and challenges facing polygraph from poor training and lack of standardization
Confirms Gordon Barland worked at Department of Defense Polygraph Institute from 1986 to 2000 conducting polygraph research
Confirms APA established standards requiring validated polygraph techniques with documented accuracy thresholds
Confirmed mean accuracy of.89 for event-specific diagnostic polygraphs in updated analysis
Extension of 2011 survey confirming accuracy rates and ESS/OSS scoring system performance
Field study providing evidence for practical effectiveness of comparison questions in operational criminal investigations
Confirms Raskin as professor emeritus at University of Utah and Kircher as professor at University of Utah
Reported polygraph accuracy exceeding.90 using the CQT format, establishing scientific foundation for modern standards
Confirms Honts, Raskin, and Kircher 1994 study in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79(2), 252-259
Confirms Eitan Elaad's extensive research on the Concealed Knowledge/Information Test
Early quantification establishing scientific foundation for modern polygraph testing standards
Found Backster Either-Or Rule improved correct decisions from 70% to 80% with only 3% error rate
Their technique war advanced the science; when you need reliable answers today, find a lie detector test near you and compare pricing at professional locations near you.