Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) strength – a new concept in PDD that reframes the notion of psychological set and the role of attention in CQT polygraph

The ideas presented in the article are based on the notion that the best way to detect people who lie to the relevant issue on the test, and differentiate them from those who are truthful in this regard, is to look for certain characteristics that are distributed differently in the populations of the “liars” and the “truth-tellers,” and measure their specific values in the examinees. According to the specific value found in the examinee, it is possible to deduce probabilistically whether the examinee belongs to the population of “liars” or “truth-tellers.” There are reasons to believe that as a whole, those examinees who lie on the test in the relevant questions are attached psychologically to the relevant issue in a different way than the truth-tellers. An essential difference is the strength by which the suspect’s attention is directed, focused and bound to the relevant issue. These aspects of attention in the context of polygraph examination are coined, Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Strength, and it is not dependent on the presented stimuli per-se, but rather on the internal state of mind that the examinee holds when arriving at the test and during its conductance. It is assumed to distribute differently among the liars in comparison to the truthtellers and eventually affects the differential reactivity to the relevant vs. comparison questions. According to the Psychological Set theory, the differential reactivity is based on the notion that the examinee focuses on the particular issue or situation that presents the greatest threat to the legitimate security of him while filtering out lesser threats. However, in a regular specific case CQT examination, both the guilty and the innocent examinees start their journey in the relevant domain, and in order for the innocents to shift their attention and concerns to the domain of the comparison questions, they first have to detach themselves from the relevant domain. The easiness by which this diversion of attention occurs is heavily dependent on the RIG strength that the examinees carry and the differential reactivity to the relevant vs. the comparison questions, in a way, signifies the value that they have on the RIG strength variable. Some supporting data and a few implications of this approach are presented and discussed.

Theoretical framework development using logical argumentation, clinical experience, field observations from 300+ arson investigation polygraphs (including 21 with unique test formats), and integration of existing polygraph research and psychological principles rather than traditional empirical experimentation.

Ginton's 2009 paper presents RIG strength as a novel theoretical construct that reframes psychological set theory in CQT polygraph testing. Rather than examining external stimulus presentation, RIG strength captures the internal intensity of an examinee's cognitive and emotional attachment to the relevant issue—encompassing memories, associations, and motivations that vary between guilty and innocent examinees. The author draws on decades of Israel National Police field experience and existing research to explain a critical gap in CQT theory: why innocent examinees, especially crime victims with genuine event memories, show higher false positive rates. The theoretical framework proposes that innocent truth-tellers struggle to divert attention from the relevant domain to comparison questions when they possess strong genuine memories, creating a positive feedback loop of preoccupation that mimics guilty-like physiological responses.

The RIG strength framework provides a theoretical explanation for documented disparities in false positive rates during victim examinations and suggests that CQT interpretation should account for differential attention binding based on genuine memory and psychological attachment rather than assumed threat perception alone. This reconceptualization has implications for improving CQT validity in victim and witness cases and informing examiner training on how to manage cases with elevated innocent RIG strength.

Background & Context

The Comparison Question Test (CQT) has traditionally been explained through Psychological Set theory, which holds that examinees focus on the issue presenting the greatest threat to their security while filtering out lesser threats. However, this framework has faced theoretical challenges and criticism regarding its explanatory power.

Ginton's 2009 paper introduces Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) strength as a reconceptualization of how attention operates in polygraph testing, proposing that detecting deception requires identifying characteristics distributed differently between liars and truth-tellers. The concept emerged from decades of field experience with the Israel National Police and addresses a critical gap: explaining why innocent examinees sometimes fail CQT examinations, particularly when they are crime victims or witnesses with genuine memories of the investigated event.

Research had documented higher false positive rates when examining victims compared to typical examinees, creating both professional and ethical challenges that existing theory struggled to address adequately.

Research Design & Methodology

This paper is primarily a theoretical framework presentation rather than a traditional empirical study. Ginton develops the RIG concept through logical argumentation, introspection, and integration of existing polygraph research and psychological principles.

The author draws upon several sources of supporting evidence:

• An unpublished 1986 study (Ginton, Levi & Gelkopf) on selective attention induced by relevant items modeling CQT effects
• Memory recall data showing differential retention of relevant versus irrelevant items presented in a table format
• Field observations from over 300 polygraph examinations conducted during arson investigations at an Air Force base, including 21 examinees given a unique test format
• Clinical experience with unusual comparison questions, such as asking "Do you like the blue color in particular?" after emphasizing its importance

The analysis applies specifically to event-specific CQT examinations where examinees know the issues beforehand, not to pre-employment or screening tests where questions are first presented during the pre-test interview.

Results & Key Findings

Core theoretical proposition: RIG strength represents the intensity by which an examinee's attention is directed, focused, and bound to the relevant issue—not dependent on presented stimuli per se, but on the internal state of mind held when arriving at and during the test. This variable distributes differently among liars versus truth-tellers and affects differential reactivity to relevant versus comparison questions.

Key mechanisms identified:

• Psychological attachment to the relevant issue involves more than fear of consequences—it encompasses memories, images, streams of associations, and elevated motivations
• Higher intensity of cognitive and emotional preoccupation creates a positive feedback loop: the more one thinks about the relevant issue, the more attention becomes stuck, further increasing preoccupation
• Both guilty and innocent examinees begin their psychological journey in the relevant domain; innocents must detach from this domain to shift attention to comparison questions
• RIG strength is assumed to be higher for the population of liars compared to truth-tellers

In victim examinations, the real victim who tells the truth has genuine memories from the investigated event, resulting in higher RIG strength compared to a fake victim. This higher RIG strength causes difficulty diverting attention from the relevant issue to the comparison questions' domain—explaining the documented elevation in false positive rates.

Discussion & Significance

The RIG framework positions the examiner's most important task as managing the diversion of the truthful examinee's attention from the relevant sphere to comparison questions with minimum effect on deceptive examinees—a process impossible to standardize without accommodating variability among cases. This represents a fundamental shift from rigid standardization toward adaptive testing.

The concept has influenced subsequent polygraph research and practice. Recent theoretical work has cited Ginton's RIG model as among relatively recent offerings consistent with existing CQT research literature. The framework provides theoretical justification for examiner flexibility in comparison question construction and pre-test procedures.

The distribution of observed CQT phenomena—deceptive subjects responding more strongly to relevant questions and truthful subjects showing reversed patterns—resembles the expected hypothetical distributions of RIG strength, offering empirical compatibility even without direct measurement.

Limitations & Considerations

Ginton acknowledges that some claims are based on examiner experience and introspection, noting aspects have never been tested scientifically in the polygraph area despite being considered reliable phenomena. The paper lacks controlled experimental validation of the RIG construct itself.

The theoretical model does not provide quantitative methods for measuring RIG strength directly in individual examinees. While the "Goldilocks principle" is invoked—finding the "just right" level of attention-attracting comparison questions—actual values must be individually tailored, making standardization challenging.

Much of the supporting data cited comes from unpublished research or internal police documents in Hebrew, limiting independent verification. The framework requires skilled examiners capable of assessing and adapting to individual case characteristics, potentially introducing examiner variance.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners, RIG theory justifies investing substantial effort in pre-test interviews to assess the examinee's psychological attachment to the relevant issue. Comparison questions serve as "baits" introduced through the pre-test interview. Since RIG strength is high for deceptive subjects, detaching their attention is difficult, while it is much easier with truthful examinees whose RIG strength is weaker.

The framework supports using creative comparison question strategies—including bizarre or unconventional questions elevated through examiner emphasis—when standard approaches may be inadequate for truthful examinees with strong relevant-issue memories. For consumers and legal stakeholders, RIG theory explains why polygraph accuracy cannot be evaluated through simple pass/fail statistics without considering the psychological characteristics of different examinee populations, particularly victims, witnesses, and suspects with varying levels of involvement in investigated events.