Setting the Record Concerning the Differences Between the Matte Quadri-Track and the Backster Zone Comparison Techniques

This 2018 paper documents the historical development and substantive differences between the Matte Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique (MQTZCT) and the Backster Zone Comparison Technique using primary source materials. Matte provides chronological evidence that the MQTZCT introduced multiple original innovations including modified truth cut-off scores, Fear/Hope of Error questions to address the Othello Error, the Dual Equal Strong Reaction Rule for countermeasure resistance, and integration of stimulation testing, with some modifications later adopted by Backster.

Documentary historical analysis comparing primary source materials including Backster's Standardized Polygraph Notepacks from 1963, 1969, and 1979 with Matte's published MQTZCT materials from 1977-1978, establishing chronological priority and documenting technical differences in scoring thresholds, question structures, and procedural rules.

This study addresses controversy within the polygraph community regarding whether MQTZCT represents original innovation or merely copies Backster's Zone Comparison Technique. Using documentary analysis of primary sources spanning 1963-1979, Matte systematically compared technical elements including scoring thresholds, question structures, and scoring rules between the two approaches. The research establishes that MQTZCT, first published in 1977-1978, introduced multiple substantive innovations including modified truth cut-off scores, the Dual Equal Strong Reaction Rule to counter the Either-Or Rule, and Fear/Hope of Error questions. Evidence shows Backster later adopted some MQTZCT modifications, including reducing truth cut-off scores in 1984, at least six years after MQTZCT implementation.

This clarification of technical innovations and chronological priority provides important historical documentation for polygraph education and helps practitioners better understand the theoretical foundations underlying different Zone Comparison Technique variants.

Background & Context

This 2018 paper addresses a fundamental controversy within the polygraph community regarding whether the Matte Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique (MQTZCT) represents original innovation or merely a copy of Cleve Backster's Zone Comparison Technique. The historical record needed clarification after a 2015 incident in which a director of an APA-accredited polygraph school claimed the MQTZCT was only a copy with nothing original about it.

Understanding the evolutionary development of Zone Comparison Techniques is crucial for polygraph practice and forensic psychophysiology. During three and a half decades of conducting examinations and quality control reviews, it became apparent that the theoretical concept and psychological structure of the Backster ZCT were not fully understood by many polygraphists who administered the technique or its derivatives. This misunderstanding led to modifications that failed to consider important theoretical consequences.

The paper provides essential documentation for historical purposes and examiner education, using primary source materials including Backster's Standardized Polygraph Notepack and Technique Guide from 1963, 1969, and 1979 to establish a timeline of innovations and demonstrate the MQTZCT's substantial departures from its predecessor.

Research Design & Methodology

This study employs a documentary historical analysis methodology, systematically examining primary source materials to establish chronological priority and substantive differences between techniques. Matte analyzed Backster's published Standardized Polygraph Notepacks from 1963, 1969, and 1979, which contained all elements required for administering the You Phase, Exploratory, and SKY series examinations.

The comparative analysis focused on specific technical elements that distinguish the two approaches:

• Scoring thresholds — Cut-off score comparisons between Backster's original system and MQTZCT modifications
• Question structures — Analysis of question sequences, including Fear/Hope of Error questions
• Scoring rules — Documentation of the Either-Or Rule versus Dual Equal Strong Reaction Rule
• Publication timeline — Establishing dates when specific innovations appeared in each technique

The MQTZCT was first published in 1977 in the Newsletter of the Empire State Polygraph Society in New York State, and subsequently published in greater detail in December 1978 in Polygraph, the Journal of the American Polygraph Association. The research traces how Backster later adopted some of these modifications, including a 1984 revision to truth cut-off scores.

Results & Key Findings

The MQTZCT introduced multiple substantive innovations that fundamentally distinguished it from Backster's original technique, with documented chronological priority for several key modifications. The evidence demonstrates this was not merely a replication but a significant evolution of polygraph methodology.

Major technical innovations identified include:

• Modified truth cut-off scores — Backster's cut-off scores were the same for both Truthful and Deceptive (±5 and -5), whereas the MQTZCT scores were lower for Truthful (+4 and -5), with Backster reducing truth cut-offs at least six years after the MQTZCT implemented this change in 1984
• Dual Equal Strong Reaction Rule — The MQTZCT ameliorated Backster's "Either-Or" Rule with the Matte "Dual Equal Strong Reaction" Rule, effectively inhibiting the successful use of countermeasures
• Fear/Hope of Error questions — The MQTZCT introduced the Fear of Error Control Question for comparison with the Hope of Error Relevant Question as a means of addressing the Othello Error
• Stimulation test integration — The MQTZCT used the Stimulation Test in conjunction with the technique, contrary to Backster's rejection and non-use
• Question streamlining — The MQTZCT eliminated Backster's superfluous question regarding prior polygraph tests, and subsequently also eliminated Backster's drug question

The Othello Error innovations were theoretically grounded in Dr. Ekman's 1986 observation that "the severity of the punishment will influence the truthful person's fear of being misjudged just as much as the lying person's fear of being spotted – both suffer the same consequence". This psychological insight drove the development of specialized questions to address innocent examinees' fears.

Discussion & Significance

This documentation establishes that the MQTZCT represents a substantive evolution of polygraph technique rather than mere replication. The chronological evidence demonstrates that several innovations attributed to Backster's later versions actually appeared first in Matte's published work, with Backster subsequently adopting some of these modifications years later. This historical clarification has important implications for technique attribution, training standards, and understanding the theoretical development of modern polygraph methods.

The paper's significance extends beyond historical record-keeping to practical examiner education. This issue requires correction for historical purposes as well as edification for polygraph examiners. Understanding the theoretical basis for each modification—particularly the Fear/Hope of Error questions designed to address the Othello Error—helps examiners appreciate why specific question structures and scoring approaches were developed and how they function psychologically.

The documentation also addresses broader issues in polygraph technique evolution. The MQTZCT retained the value of cut-off scores in each chart, rather than diminishing their value with each chart as in the Backster ZCT, reflecting different theoretical perspectives on physiological habituation and response consistency across multiple charts.

Limitations & Considerations

As a historical documentation study rather than an empirical validation study, this paper does not provide new accuracy data comparing the two techniques under controlled conditions. The analysis relies on published materials and documentation rather than experimental comparison of technique effectiveness. While the paper establishes chronological priority and documents technical differences, it does not independently verify the theoretical claims underlying each innovation or demonstrate their relative contributions to accuracy.

The paper represents the perspective of the MQTZCT's developer, which may influence interpretation of historical events and the significance attributed to specific modifications. Independent verification of technique effectiveness requires reference to separate validation studies conducted by other researchers. Additionally, the documentary approach cannot definitively establish whether later adopters of modifications did so independently or were influenced by earlier publications.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners, this paper provides essential historical context for understanding Zone Comparison Technique variants and the theoretical rationale underlying specific procedural elements. Examiners using either technique benefit from understanding that the Fear/Hope of Error questions were specifically designed to address false positive concerns in innocent examinees—a critical consideration when interpreting inconclusive results or strong reactions to relevant questions in truthful subjects.

For consumers and legal professionals, the documentation clarifies that the MQTZCT is not simply a renamed version of Backster's technique but incorporates substantive modifications with theoretical justifications. Understanding these differences matters when evaluating examiner qualifications, technique selection, and the basis for expert testimony about polygraph results. The emphasis on countermeasure resistance through the Dual Equal Strong Reaction Rule has particular relevance in high-stakes examinations where subjects may attempt to manipulate results.