Polygraph Testing and Social Intolerance: A Warning to Examiners Outside of the United States

This 2022 policy analysis by two experienced polygraph professionals warns against expanding polygraph screening to test for 'social intolerance' in law enforcement applicants. The authors argue that moving beyond testing past behaviors to probing thoughts and beliefs could trigger legislative backlash similar to the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act, particularly outside the United States.

Policy analysis and professional commentary responding to previously published advocacy, using critical evaluation through historical precedent, professional ethics, and political risk assessment.

Two veteran polygraph professionals with over 50 years of experience each respond to a controversial 2020 proposal advocating polygraph screening for 'social intolerance' in law enforcement hiring. They argue this represents a dangerous expansion from testing past behaviors to probing thoughts and beliefs, drawing parallels to the political opposition that led to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. The authors warn that such invasive questioning could trigger similar legislative backlash internationally, where polygraph practice may be less legally protected than in the United States. Their analysis emphasizes how the nature of thought-based questioning provides ammunition to opponents who characterize polygraph testing as invasive pseudoscience.

The analysis serves as a strategic warning to the polygraph profession about expanding testing applications beyond behavioral screening, particularly for international practitioners who may face greater political vulnerability to legislative restrictions.

Background & Context

This 2022 paper represents a cautionary response from two seasoned professionals, each with over 50 years of experience who witnessed the 1970s-1980s efforts by organized labor, the ACLU, and similar groups that led to the passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). The authors address a controversial 2020 proposal by Nelson and Handler advocating for polygraph screening questions targeting "social intolerance" in law enforcement applicants.

Social intolerance was defined by Nelson and Handler as "an unwillingness or refusal to accept or respect the beliefs or opinions that are different than one's own". Horvath and Peters argue this represents a dangerous expansion of polygraph screening from past behaviors (criminal activity, drug use, employment misconduct) to probing applicants' thoughts and beliefs. Their central thesis: testing for such 'intolerance' is highly objectionable and is likely to encourage efforts to prohibit polygraph testing, especially so outside of the United States.

The historical context is critical. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 eliminated 85 percent of polygraph tests then being conducted, severely restricting private-sector use while exempting government agencies and law enforcement. The authors warn that expanding polygraph applications to thought-screening could trigger similar legislative backlash internationally, particularly in jurisdictions where polygraph practice is less legally entrenched than in the United States.

Research Design & Methodology

This is not an empirical research study but rather a policy analysis and professional commentary responding to previously published advocacy for social intolerance testing. The methodology consists of critical evaluation of proposed testing practices through the lens of historical precedent, professional ethics, and political risk assessment.

The authors draw on their direct experience from the EPPA legislative battles. Both were involved in trying to defeat the passage of EPPA legislation and saw firsthand how opponents of polygraph testing lied about evidence and distorted what was known about testing. This historical analysis serves as the foundation for their risk assessment regarding social intolerance testing.

Their analytical framework examines:

• The distinction between testing past behaviors versus current thoughts and beliefs
• How invasive questioning appears to external observers and potential legislative opponents
• How opponents argue against polygraph testing on subjective levels beyond validity disputes
• Differential political vulnerabilities between U.S. and international polygraph practitioners

Results & Key Findings

The paper's central finding is a strategic warning rather than empirical data: testing for social intolerance would be so invasive of applicants' personal thoughts and beliefs, as opposed to their behavior, that it would frighten those inclined to want polygraph testing legally prohibited as well as those who might take a more moderate view.

Key concerns identified include:

• EPPA seriously affected the APA and the polygraph examiner community in the U.S., demonstrating how political backlash can devastate the profession
• While EPPA reduced abuses by unethical examiners, it also hurt legitimate and ethical practitioners
• International practitioners face particular risk given an article advocating social intolerance testing was authored by two persons serving on the APA's Board of Directors
• The nature of thought-based questioning provides ammunition to those who characterize polygraph as invasive pseudoscience

Traditional polygraph screening includes questions about past behaviors such as criminal activity, drug use, falsified background information, and employment misconduct—concrete actions rather than abstract beliefs. The authors argue this distinction is politically and professionally critical.

Discussion & Significance

The significance of this paper lies in its professional risk assessment rather than scientific contribution. Horvath and Peters position social intolerance testing as an existential threat to international polygraph practice, particularly given recent growth in APA membership from outside the United States reflects dramatic expansion of the examiner community internationally.

The authors' historical perspective is crucial. They lived through EPPA's passage and understand how opponents distorted limited scientific evidence while exploiting public concerns about privacy and invasiveness. Testing for thoughts and beliefs—however well-intentioned—provides precisely the kind of emotionally compelling argument that regulators and lawmakers find persuasive regardless of technical validity arguments.

This represents a rare instance where senior professionals publicly challenge leadership advocacy within their own field. The authors emphasize that growth of international membership makes this warning particularly urgent, as practitioners outside the U.S. may be more vulnerable to legislative restrictions triggered by controversial applications promoted by American authorities.

Limitations & Considerations

This paper has inherent limitations as policy commentary rather than research. It presents no empirical data on whether social intolerance testing would actually trigger legislative backlash, relying instead on historical analogy and professional judgment. The authors' personal involvement in EPPA-era advocacy provides valuable perspective but may also introduce bias toward risk aversion.

The paper does not engage substantively with arguments for why screening for social intolerance might be necessary or beneficial in law enforcement contexts. It focuses exclusively on political and professional risks while setting aside questions about whether identifying biased applicants serves legitimate public safety goals. This strategic focus strengthens their warning but leaves the underlying policy debate unresolved.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners, this paper serves as professional guidance to avoid expanding screening into thought-based questioning, particularly regarding politically sensitive topics. The message is clear: traditional behavioral screening (past actions) is defensible; probing beliefs and attitudes invites regulatory intervention. International practitioners should be especially cautious about adopting controversial practices promoted in American professional literature.

For policymakers and polygraph consumers, the paper highlights how expansion of testing applications can undermine the entire field's legitimacy. Even if social intolerance testing were valid technically, its political optics could trigger restrictions affecting all polygraph applications. This illustrates the delicate balance between innovation and professional self-preservation in forensic practices that depend on legal authorization and public acceptance.