An Investigation into the Dependability and Trustworthiness of the Polygraph in Assessing Relationship Infidelity

Would you fly in a plane that only lands safely 65% of the time? I would argue that polygraph tests, or lie detector tests, when used to determine if a partner is cheating, having affairs or otherwise engaged in secretive sexual behaviors, polygraph tests have a 35% false-positive rate according to research (W. G. Iacono, 2008), and even the American Polygraph Association themselves state that there is a 10% error rate. An inaccurate polygraph test used to determine whether one has a cheating partner carries similar life-altering consequences to that of a plane crash - destroying many lives - so allow me to begin by stating clearly that I am against the use of polygraph tests in determining relationship fidelity as the considerable damage of false-positives far outweigh any potential benefit. Below, I will provide helpful steps that a concerned partner can take, a lie-detector test not being listed.

Facts are stubborn things…

Polygraph tests, often referred to as lie detector tests, possess a substantial margin of error that must not be disregarded when addressing delicate subjects like infidelity within romantic partnerships. Despite this, polygraph tests maintain an evident 10% margin of error, as stated by the American Polygraph Association, which indicates an approximate 90% accuracy rate - great if this were baseball, but terrible if everything you love and care about is in the balance. This statistic indicates that a false accusation of infidelity, or relapse, will affect one in ten people, potentially resulting in heartbreaking separations, financial devastation, and loss of custody of children, all while jeopardizing relationships and eroding trust. Certain scholarly investigations present a more pessimistic perspective, proposing that the reliability of polygraph examinations may be as low as 65% (Iacono, 2008), a figure that is merely marginally better than a coin flip. The aforementioned statistics highlight the considerable hazards associated with placing undue reliance on polygraph examinations to determine the veracity of allegations of infidelity in romantic partnerships.

How Easy is it to Beat a Polygraph Test?

You can beat a polygraph roughly 40% of the time with a diligent subject and an average administrator because of the wide range of situations, subjects, and methods used (Honts, Raskin, & Kircher, 2014). The possibility of getting a false negative could, however, theoretically rise in such circumstances if the participant is very well-prepared and aware of countermeasures and the administrator lacks the required knowledge or diligence. This estimate considers the motivated and knowledgeable participant's capacity to use countermeasures successfully against an administrator whose abilities might not be sufficient to identify dishonesty or administer the polygraph test with skill.

The capacity to create false negatives, or genuine physiological responses, in order to beat a polygraph test, has been a major topic of investigation in polygraph studies. The process of manipulating a polygraph is complex and entails using a variety of countermeasures to skew the test results, including regulated breathing, tense muscles, and altered mental states (Honts, Raskin, & Kircher, 2014). Research suggests that the effectiveness of these countermeasures varies. According to a study by Honts and colleagues (1994), knowledgeable people using particular physical countermeasures could result in false negative results quite frequently. In order to reduce the effectiveness of countermeasures and improve the test's validity and reliability, research also emphasizes the crucial role that the experience of the polygraph examiner and the ongoing advancement of polygraph technology and techniques play (National Research Council, 2003).

Data Tying False Positives to Suicide

Taking all of this information to its logical conclusion, I believe the greatest risk of a false-positive polygraph test would be the potential for self-harm in the falsely accused partner who - despite being faithful and truthful - has now hypothetically lost everything due to a false-positive polygraph result. Suicide frequently emerges as a somber presence during the turbulent period following a divorce, where factors such as restricted access to children or the loss of custody substantially contribute to feelings of despair. An in-depth analysis of the research indicates that men who are confronted with such catastrophic challenges exhibit a profound susceptibility. A study conducted by Kposowa (2000) unveiled that there was a significantly elevated risk of suicide among divorced and separated men in comparison to their married counterparts. The distress caused by divorce, in conjunction with the agony of losing custody or having restricted access to their children, creates a hazardous environment of psychological anguish. An additional lamentable reflection is found in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which clarifies that the probability of suicide is approximately 9.7 times greater for divorced men compared to divorced women (Kposowa, 2003). This highlights the critical need for mental health resources and empathetic support systems specifically designed to assist men as they navigate the turbulent waters of divorce and custody disputes. It also highlights the incredible travesty a false-positive is.

Literature Review

In an effort to dive deeper and answer the question of polygraph utility and veracity, one must also explore the complexities of the human psyche, the intricate regulation of emotions, and the fragile structure of romantic partnerships in order to evaluate the reliability of polygraph tests as a means of determining the truthfulness of infidelity allegations. Let us investigate with the intention of clarifying whether the polygraph, an instrument historically associated with security and justice, can be relied upon and considered trustworthy in the intimate realm of affairs and betrayal.

Romantic relationships, woven into the fabric of human connections, emanate affection, reliance, confidence, and occasionally, a tinge of uncertainty. In the realm of relational fidelity, where truth has often been sought after, society has frequently sought the polygraph as an arbiter of veracity. The polygraph, which is widely recognized as the "lie detector," examines turbulent physiological responses in an effort to reveal concealed islands of deceit. However, amidst controversy and skepticism, can this instrument continue to serve as a dependable and trustworthy indicator of infidelity and cheating in romantic relationships? This paper will be guided by the illuminating flames of academic research and scholarly insights in order to address this inquiry.

An examination of the archives unveils an extensive collection of research focused on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the polygraph. In their 1994 study, Horvath, McCloughan, and Weatherman investigated the accuracy of the polygraph and discovered that its sensitivity is approximately 90%. Nonetheless, their expedition predominantly traversed the realm of particular illicit occurrences, thereby sparing the ocean of infidelity a relatively unexplored expanse.

Within personal domains, characterized by turbulent currents of emotion, the polygraph's efficacy becomes even more enigmatic. The physiological characteristics that the polygraph is designed to assess could potentially be disrupted by the turbulent currents of love and jealousy, thereby creating an unruly storm of variables (Krapohl & McManus, 2019).

An exploration of polygraphic methodology reveals that the Controlled Question Test (CQT) is a widely used method. The methodology involves interweaving pertinent inquiries with control inquiries in an attempt to elicit varying physiological reactions that serve as indicators of veracity or falsity (National Research Council, 2003).Nevertheless, a thorough examination of the relationship between the polygraph and infidelity unveils several concerns about the accuracy of a polygraph result. Relationships, which are infused with intricate emotional dynamics, pose a formidable obstacle for the objective lenses of the polygraph. The instrument endeavors to decipher the physiological hieroglyphics—regimen, respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, and galvanic skin response—each of which reveals the truth about the body (Raskin, Honts, & Kircher, 2014). However, the theater of love is replete with formidable actors—anxiety, fear, and stress—each of which is capable of elevating the performance of truth. Thus, there is a potential for the polygraph examiner to erroneously interpret the script, conflating scenes of sentimental turmoil with schemes of deceit (Honts, 2011).

Furthermore, academic discourse has raised doubts regarding the fundamental premise of the polygraph. Critics have scrutinized the conflation of physiological responses and psychological truth. The discourse is also adorned with a nuanced ballet of ethics, wherein factors such as consent, coercion, and psychological impact are intricately interwoven (Saxe, Dougherty, & Cross, 1985).

In summary, exploring the domains of polygraphy within the context of relational infidelity reveals a terrain laden with ambiguity and complexity. The polygraph, an edifice of significant stature, evokes thoughts of scientific fascination; however, its bedrock of human sentiments seems somewhat tenuous. The symphony of academia reverberates with skeptical melodies, encouraging a prudent engagement with the polygraph's time signatures in the ballroom of affection and betrayal. It appears that the polygraph, despite being a highly intriguing instrument, might not completely illuminate the intricate pathways of deceit and the intricate workings of the human heart with unwavering dependability and credibility.

If a Polygraph Isn’t Reliable, Then What Can a Concerned Partner Do?

Amidst the turbulent waters of uncertainty that infidelity engenders, candid communication serves as a beacon that directs troubled companions toward comprehension and illumination. One way to reveal truths and dispel shadows of uncertainty is to cultivate an atmosphere in which every person feels valued and heard. Foster an environment that promotes openness and trust, wherein every partner feels qualified to disclose their weaknesses and apprehensions. It is imperative to engage in open and sensitive dialogue regarding emotions, taking care to prevent the exchange from devolving into a dispute based on blame and defensiveness.

As individuals traverse the complexities of unpredictability, relationship counseling serves as a beneficial compass. By facilitating communication and acting as a neutral mediator, professional support and guidance foster mutual understanding and facilitate the process of healing. By aiding in the unraveling of miscommunication, pain, and mistrust, they skillfully construct a tapestry of understanding and resolution. Couples can gain a more comprehensive understanding of one another's emotions and viewpoints by participating in guided sessions; this may reveal the existence or nonexistence of infidelity within the partnership.

Moreover, a nuanced observation of changes in your partner’s behavior may function as a nuanced indicator that directs attention toward the truth. Intimate alterations in affection patterns, communication approaches, and overall conduct frequently coincide with emotional distances within a romantic partnership. Nevertheless, it is imperative to navigate these realms with discernment and a level head in order to prevent the obfuscations that can be introduced by emotions such as jealousy and anxiety. It is essential to achieve a delicate equilibrium that permits trust to flourish while remaining cognizant of substantial developments that may necessitate deliberation and attention. Lastly, I will advocate for the assumption of value within your partner.

References

Kposowa, A. J. (2000). Regarding suicide and marital status in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study. 54(4), 254-261, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

A. J. Kposowa (2003). Risk of divorce and suicide. 1929–1929, American Journal of Psychiatry, 160 (10):49.

American Polygraph Association. FAQs for APA. "APA FAQs" (https://www.polygraph.org)

W. G. Iacono (2008). Comprehension of the Operation and Application of Polygraph Tests for Efficient Policing. Crime and Behavior, volume 35, number 10, pages 1295–1308. The corresponding doi: 10.1778/0093854808321529

Horvath, F., J. McCloughan, and D. Weatherman (1994). An examination of the reliability of auditors' lie detection assessments in light of biases and decision cues. 426, Journal of Applied Psychology, volume 79, number 3.

D. J. Krapohl and B. McManus (2019). The implications of polygraph countermeasures are investigated. (1). Polygraph and Forensic Credibility Evaluation.

National Research Council (2003). Pre-employment polygraph and lie detection. Pub. of the National Academies.

Raskin, D. C., C. R. Honts, and J. C. Kircher (2014). Evaluation of credibility: scientific investigations and practical implementations. Scholarly Press.

Saxe, L., T. Cross, & D. Dougherty (1985). Science and public controversy regarding the validity of polygraph examinations. 355, American Psychologist, volume 40, number 3.

C. R. Honts (2011). The establishment of criteria and the verification of the concealed information test's validity in authentic settings. 40(2), pp. 73-83, Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment.

Kircher, J. C., Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2014). Countermeasures, both physical and mental, lower the polygraph test's accuracy. 252-259 in Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2).

Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., Devitt, M. K., & Winbush, M. (1994). Countermeasures, both physical and mental, lessen the concealed knowledge test's accuracy. 31(4) Psychophysiology, 405–413.

The National Research Council (2003). Lie detection and the polygraph. The Press of the National Academies.