Privacy - Polygraphs - General Issues

A recent aspect in the history of polygraph testing is its use as an employment screening tool. In such situations, pre-test and post-test interviews between examinee and examiner are combined. The interviews measure the examinee's heart rate, perspiration, and blood pressure. Changes in these body functions, presumably caused by emotional stress provoked in the examinee, are noted in graphs. The examiner reads the graphs and interprets the results, which apparently measure the veracity of the examinee's statements.

The process of polygraph testing has caused much distress among legal professionals. The chief problem is the determination of the examinee's honesty - it involves a great deal of judgment by the examiner. Mistaken conclusions about the examinee's test can result if the examiner is unskilled or inexperienced, misreads the graphs, or misconstrues the examinee's behavior as indicative of guilt. False deductions can also occur if the examine is improperly influenced by his subjective assessment of the examinee before, during, or after the test.

Another problem is that polygraph results are unlike other kinds of physical proof, such as fingerprints or blood alcohol levels. For these latter kinds of proof, there are established scientific associations between the information sought and the physical evidence acquired that do not exist in polygraph testing.

A third-problem is even broader and questions the assumptions that are the basis for all truth verification tests. One assumption is that there is an obvious causal relationship between being dishonest and certain emotional states. A second assumption is that such a relationship also exists between these emotional states and physiological changes that can be measured by polygraph testing.

These assumptions are challenged by the query that the answers measured in a polygraph test could be influenced by concerns unrelated to truthfulness. In fact, the questions given to the examinee may be poorly phrased, or there may be issues with the test conditions or the machine used. Furthermore, it can be difficult to decide exactly what an honest answer to a particular question may be.

People in favor of polygraph testing argue that it is a fast, economical method to assist employers in obtaining necessary background information on employees and applicants, and in protecting their businesses by exposing job-related misconduct. In fact, polygraph testing has been successfully applied in a number of situations. It has been used in the investigation of employee crimes (such as theft). It has been used to screen applicants on topics such as drug use or prior criminal acts. It has been used to ask about work record and attitude, and to discourage wrongdoing through intermittent screening. It also has been used to discover mental or physical problems, accident experiences, and personal habits.

Those on the other side of the issue argue invoke many of the same arguments as are used against urinalysis. These opponents also refer to the lack of scientific support for the accuracy of polygraphs. Further, they maintain that the tests compromise employee privacy and distort the presumption of innocence. They remark that the examiners may ask questions that explore areas of the examinee's life into which they have no legitimate interest.

The arguments against polygraph testing have been treated well by the courts and the legislatures due to the long-held doubts about the tests' veracity. In fact, some states have barred the use of polygraphs on the job and other states have imposed restrictions of varying degrees of severity. The most significant action was taken by Congress in 1988 through the enactment of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.