Directed Lie – The Correct or the Easy Way?

This field study by Shurany and Gordon examined whether directed lie comparison questions produce reliable physiological responses during polygraph stimulation tests. Analyzing 57 examinees tested by experienced private examiners, the research investigated whether the growing adoption of directed lie techniques represents sound scientific practice or an easier but less valid alternative to traditional probable lie comparison questions.

Field research involving 57 examinees tested by two experienced private examiners, with analysis of physiological chart data from stimulation tests to assess reaction rates to directed lie questions in both pre-employment and specific case examinations.

The study addressed the controversy over Directed Lie Comparison questions versus traditional Probable Lie Comparison questions by empirically testing whether directed lies produce reliable physiological responses. Two experienced examiners tested 57 examinees using directed lie questions during stimulation phases of real examinations. Results showed that three examinees refused to lie as instructed, and 28.6% of directed lies failed to produce physiological reactions. Analysis of additional charts revealed anticipatory reactions and possible countermeasures, with an overall failure rate suggesting nearly one in three directed lies may not function as intended.

The findings challenge fundamental assumptions about directed lie comparison questions and suggest the technique may compromise examination effectiveness, raising concerns about professional standards and the push toward easier but potentially less valid polygraph methods.

Background & Context

The polygraph profession has experienced significant debate over the adoption of Directed Lie Comparison questions (DLC) as an alternative to traditional Probable Lie Comparison questions (PLC). This controversy has divided the truth verification field into "pro and con" camps, with proponents arguing that DLCs offer greater standardization and ease of administration, while critics worry about implications for professional standards and test validity.

DLCs are promoted as easier to standardize, less intrusive, and less dependent on examiner skill, but this very accessibility raises concerns about whether the technique represents progress or a path toward mediocrity in the profession. The Shurany and Gordon study addresses a fundamental question that had not been empirically examined: whether directed lies actually produce reliable physiological responses during stimulation testing, which is critical to the underlying validity of the DLC approach.

This research fills a significant gap by empirically testing assumptions about the DLC's effectiveness that had largely been accepted on theoretical grounds. The study specifically challenges whether instructing examinees to lie produces the robust reactions necessary for effective comparison questions, or whether this "new fashion" simply offers an easier alternative that may compromise accuracy.

Research Design & Methodology

The study involved two private examiners trained by Shurany, with 17 and 12 years of experience respectively, who conducted stimulation tests in both pre-employment and specific case examinations. The research design focused on observing real-world examinees' responses to directed lie questions during the stimulation phase, which typically serves to demonstrate the instrument's sensitivity and establish rapport.

The study included 57 examinees, with researchers analyzing physiological chart data to determine whether directed lie questions produced measurable reactions. The examiners collected data on both compliance (whether examinees agreed to lie as directed) and physiological responsiveness (whether charts showed reactions to the directed lies). Additional chart analysis was conducted on 12 stimulation test charts from a fellow examiner, examining for anticipatory reactions and comparing different response patterns.

The methodology allowed for observation of a critical but often overlooked aspect of DLC testing: whether the fundamental assumption that directed lies produce strong, curiosity-driven reactions holds true in field conditions. The researchers compared their findings to expectations based on DLC theory and to patterns observed with other stimulation test methods like the hidden card test.

Results & Key Findings

The study revealed significant problems with the directed lie approach during stimulation testing. Three examinees refused to lie as directed, giving explanations including "My values prohibit me to lie," "I came here to tell the truth," and concerns about test manipulation. This immediate finding challenges a core assumption of DLC methodology—that all examinees will comply with instructions to lie.

After excluding the three non-compliant examinees, 28.6% of directed lies failed to provoke any physiological reaction, which was lower than expected given that stimulation tests should produce higher reaction rates due to curiosity factors. This represents a critical failure rate for a technique that relies on comparison questions producing consistent, robust responses.

• Analysis of 12 additional charts revealed seven with anticipatory reactions, four showing no reaction to the selected number, and one indicating possible countermeasures
• The overall failure rate suggests that nearly one in three directed lies may not function as intended during actual examinations
• Researchers noted that hidden card tests (where examinees pick a card without showing the examiner) produced stronger reactions than known number tests, suggesting curiosity is a crucial factor often absent in directed lie questions

Discussion & Significance

The findings challenge fundamental assumptions underlying the widespread adoption of DLC techniques. While proponents like Charles Honts argue that probable lie questions require psychological sensitivity and skill that many examiners lack, the authors conclude that "employing the DLC, instead of requiring higher skills from professionals, requires less skill and allows better outcomes for less skilled examiners and leads our profession down a path toward mediocracy".

The 28.6% non-reaction rate has profound implications for test validity. If comparison questions fail to produce physiological responses in nearly one-third of cases, the psychological set theory—which assumes innocent examinees focus attention on comparison questions—breaks down. The study also raises concerns about countermeasure vulnerability, noting that directing examinees to lie explicitly shows them when and where to apply countermeasures if they choose to do so.

These findings align with broader concerns in the polygraph literature about the tradeoff between standardization and effectiveness. While DLCs may be easier to teach and implement, this research suggests that ease of administration comes at a cost to fundamental test validity. The authors argue that the profession should prioritize examiner skill development rather than adopting techniques that accommodate lower skill levels.

Limitations & Considerations

The study's sample size of 57 examinees provides useful preliminary data but represents a relatively small sample for drawing definitive conclusions about field practice. The research was conducted by examiners trained by one of the study authors, which could introduce consistency in approach but may limit generalizability to examiners trained in different traditions or schools.

The study focused specifically on stimulation tests rather than actual examination charts, which means the findings about non-responsiveness may not fully translate to the in-test DLC questions where psychological dynamics differ. Additionally, the research did not include a direct comparison group using probable lie questions in stimulation tests, making it difficult to assess relative effectiveness. The authors' strong position against DLCs, evident in their characterization of the technique as potentially "lazy," suggests a perspective that may influence interpretation of ambiguous data.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners, this research suggests serious caution about relying solely on DLC techniques, particularly in high-stakes examinations. The 28.6% failure rate indicates that examiners using DLCs should carefully monitor whether comparison questions are actually producing physiological responses and be prepared to modify their approach when they are not. The finding that three examinees refused to lie as directed highlights the importance of thorough pre-test interviews to assess examinee attitudes and potential compliance issues.

For consumers and legal professionals evaluating polygraph evidence, these findings raise important questions about test validity when DLC methods are used. The research supports scrutinizing whether examiners possess the psychological sophistication to recognize when directed lies are failing to function as intended, rather than assuming that standardized questions automatically produce valid results. Organizations employing polygraph screening should consider whether examiner training emphasizes skill development in psychological assessment or simply focuses on standardized administration procedures that may mask fundamental validity problems.