Does the bank need a “Lie Detector”?.
Gamza V.A.,
candidate of legal and economic sciences,
Chairman of the Board of Directors of Agrokhimbank OJSC,
Kholodny Yu. I.,
Doctor of Law, Candidate of Psychological Sciences,
Head of Department of the Institute of Criminalistics of the FSB of Russia
Does the bank need » Lie detector»?
Source:
Due to the high rates of economic growth in Russia today, the demand for qualified personnel has sharply increased, who, in addition to having professional knowledge and successful work experience, must meet high loyalty requirements in relation to their employer. A reflection of this process has been the growth in recent years in Moscow, St. Petersburg and a number of other large cities in Russia of the number of private companies, trading firms, security and other enterprises that, in the interests of ensuring commercial security, use a special device, often colloquially referred to as a lie detector.
Interest in the use of «lie detectors» or, in the professional language of polygraph examiners, polygraph interrogations (PUI) is due to the fact that they are an effective means of revealing information that a person is hiding, especially in cases where it is impossible or difficult to use other, traditional methods of obtaining the necessary information.
For corporate security purposes, IIPs, or polygraph tests, can be used in three ways. The first is screening tests (from the English “screen” — to sift, to check for reliability) on a polygraph of personnel hired for service; the second is periodic and/or random polygraph tests of working personnel, and the third is IIPs in the course of official proceedings.
When hiring employees in the traditional way, human resources departments and security departments of commercial enterprises note that many facts from the life of a job candidate cannot be revealed either by questioning his former employers, or by checking records, or during an interview. At best, a former employer can only tell about an employee who worked for him what was noticed about him during his work, but he will not be able to say anything about the negative actions of his former employee if the latter was not caught in them. Law enforcement agencies cannot say that a particular person has not committed criminal offenses: their conclusion “does not meet the records” only means that he was not detained at the scene of the crime and was not brought to justice. No matter how long the face-to-face interview is, a security service representative will never be able to find out compromising facts about a candidate’s biography if the latter skillfully hides them. The only person who knows everything about a candidate is the candidate himself. That is why many private companies in the US, for example, consider the IPR one of the main methods of checking hired and working personnel.
According to American experts, a polygraph test is the best way to let job candidates know that the company is serious about any violations. The OIP of hired personnel and periodic checks of current employees are the most effective means of preventing and controlling various types of theft: foreign practice has long shown that the more ruthless the selection of personnel, the higher the level of enterprise security. The need to use the OIP is especially relevant in those sectors of business where the risk of theft, forgery and fraud is high (for example, in banks), there are large material assets (for example, in supermarkets), etc.
Polygraph users, both foreign and domestic, know well that the OIP significantly complements — and often greatly surpasses — other methods of finding out the truth and is also very cost-effective: polygraph tests take much less time and are ultimately much cheaper than lengthy routine personnel checks. In general, according to American experts, using a polygraph, an entrepreneur increases the likelihood that the employees hired will be honest people by at least 25%.
What practical benefits can the introduction of polygraph tests in my bank provide? It is obvious that any entrepreneur, when hiring personnel, strives to have qualified and reliable employees at his disposal. At the same time, every employer does not want to have people with a negative past or unacceptable (from his point of view) personal characteristics among those hired.
Such undesirable characteristics — they are called «risk factors» — can be, for example, connections with criminal groups, commission of criminal offenses, hidden contacts with competitors, the existence of large unpaid debts, passion for gambling, a tendency to alcoholism, drug use and much more.
Obviously, depending on the specifics of the profession or a particular field of activity, risk factors can be very diverse. For example, when checking personnel hired by a bank, the following questions can be used:
1. Have you received an order from someone to collect information about the bank?
2. Do you have hidden reasons for wanting to work at the bank?
3. Have you deliberately distorted any data in your biography?
4. Has alcohol consumption ever interfered with your work?
5. Have you ever committed crimes that remained unsolved?
When conducting an IPR of working personnel, the employer may be interested in questions such as:
1. Have you transferred confidential information of a commercial nature to competitors?
2. Have you ever received money for transferring confidential bank information?
3. Have criminal structures received official information from you?
It is generally believed that the polygraph examination procedure consists of three stages: a pre-test interview, polygraph testing (PT), and a post-test interview. In principle, such a three-tier structure of the IIP is correct if you look at it from the point of view of the person being questioned. And, from the point of view of the person being tested, there is no significant difference whether a screening IIP or an IIP is conducted during an official investigation.
If we look at the IIP from the polygraph examiner’s point of view, the technology of using the polygraph looks much more complicated. In its entirety, from the moment the initiative to use the polygraph in relation to a specific person is born to the preparation of the final document stating the results of the polygraph test for this person, the IIP structure consists of nine stages.
Since performing polygraph tests during official proceedings is, as a rule, much more complicated than conducting screening IIPs, we will first analyze the more complex and labor-intensive process.
IIP during official proceedings
The first independent stage of the IIP technology is familiarization with the case background(the unlawful act under investigation, official misconduct, incident, etc.), which necessitated the use of a polygraph. This stage is due to the fact that the applied and tactical capabilities of polygraph tests are not yet sufficiently known to security service employees engaged in official investigations, and there are many cases when seeking help from the OIP is untimely (usually belated).
A preliminary acquaintance with the plot of the case under investigation enables the polygraph examiner to routinely find out the reasons why the security service has become interested in conducting the IIP, as well as to determine the presence of legal, methodological or organizational factors that fundamentally exclude the possibility of using the polygraph. Such factors may include: lack of voluntary consent of a person to conduct the IIP; physical or mental exhaustion; the presence of respiratory or cardiovascular diseases in the acute stage; lack of time that excludes the possibility of conducting a methodically correct IIP, etc.
Having understood the reasons for which the desire to use the capabilities of the IIP arose, and having made sure that there are no obstacles to the use of this method, the polygraph examiner, together with the security service employee, determine the tasks to be solved during the test.
Knowing the practical capabilities of this method, the polygraph examiner determines a set of questions that need to be clarified during the upcoming test. Formulating clear and specific questions is important for the high-quality implementation of the IIP, since they determine the entire further process of preparation and implementation of the polygraph test — from studying the case materials to choosing the tactics for conducting the pre-test interview and the TnP itself. Next, the polygraph examiner, together with the security service employee, determines the optimal conditions and timing of the IIP.
Sometimes, after a preliminary review of the incident (the event under investigation), it turns out, for example, that in order to perform the IIP qualitatively, it is necessary to carry out some events or actions, obtain some additional information, or temporarily postpone the IIP to a later date. Sometimes, a polygraph examiner may come to the conclusion that it is useless or even inadmissible to use a polygraph, since such a procedure can negatively affect the work of the institution.
Thus, the introductory stage, which is decisive in the organization of the IIP, ends with one of three outcomes:
a) making a decision on the implementation of the IIP and the formation of its tasks (i.e., immediate implementation of the IIP)
b) making a decision on additional preparation for the IIP (i.e., postponing the IIP)
c) a reasoned refusal to use the polygraph.
By making one of the three decisions listed above based on the results of familiarization with the case file, the polygraph examiner, in fact, assumes full responsibility for the polygraph test and thereby eliminates the possibility of performing methodologically incorrect or ineffective IIP. In the event of a decision to immediately or delay the IIP, the polygraph examiner begins to prepare it.
The second stage of the IIP is study of the case materials, when the polygraph examiner carefully examines all the materials available to the security service. In doing so, the polygraph examiner solves several specific problems.
Firstly, the polygraph examiner is obliged to deeply delve into the essence of the search (or investigation) being conducted on a specific case, to study it in order to keep in mind the circumstances of the event being investigated, which will be needed later when conducting a pre-test interview.
Secondly, when studying the material, the specialist must select information from three categories: a) reliable data about the person subject to the IIP, or about the event that occurred; b) any facts or information that do not relate to the event under investigation, and which the person being checked during the IIP will hide for one reason or another; c) assumptions (versions) put forward by the search (investigation) about the possible involvement of the person being checked in the incident under investigation.
In this case, the polygraph examiner pays special attention to identifying in the case materials signs or circumstances of the incident under investigation that could only be known to the persons who committed the crime or were directly related to it (that is, the so-called private signs of the incident).
The final step in studying the materials is the selection of questions (arising from the security service data or from the statements of the employees interviewed during the investigation) submitted for testing: the polygraph examiner determines the list of facts or circumstances of the incident under investigation, which he intends to clarify in the outcome of the IIP.
The information selected as a result of studying the materials serves as the polygraph examiner's information base for the next — third — stage of the IIP, which is selection of methods and tests for TnP and formulation of questions for them.
Compilation of working material for TnP — that is, selection of a set of tests that is optimal in composition and quantity, as well as preparation of questions for these tests — is a very important stage.
World practice has accumulated vast experience in conducting polygraph tests and has formed certain algorithms for their implementation for specific classes of cases under investigation. At the same time, it should be emphasized that this stage is undoubtedly a creative part of preparation for the test and requires a good knowledge of the theory and technology of the OIP from the polygraph examiner, as well as a certain ingenuity.
During the fourth, organizational stage, along with the polygraph examiner, a security service employee is involved in the implementation of the IIP and the preparation of the TnP. In addition to resolving technical issues (choosing the optimal time and premises for conducting a polygraph test; determining the feasibility of audio or video recording of the IIP, etc.), they, based on the tasks of the IIP, predict the possible course and outcome of the verification procedure.
Since the polygraph examiner acts in the course of the IIP only as a recipient, a “procurer” of the information necessary for the initiator, but not as its owner (this is the institution that ordered the IIP, represented by a security service employee), it is important for him to determine the direction of the procedure and “calculate” its possible outcomes even before the start of the polygraph test. The polygraph examiner needs this to select the optimal tactics for the pre-test interview and subsequent TnP.
Thus, after completing the above-mentioned stages of the IIP, the results of preparation for the TnP are:
a) creation of methodologically correct working conditions for performing the TnP.
b) preparation of working material for the TnP (tests and their questionnaires).
c) good knowledge of the material of the official investigation by the polygraph examiner.
After preparation, a polygraph test is carried out, which also includes several stages.
So, the fifth stage of the IIP (or the first stage of the polygraph test) is the pre-test interview.
Depending on the specific situation, it can last from 20-30 minutes to several hours. During it, the polygraph examiner introduces the person being tested to the polygraph and the upcoming procedure as a whole, and also places special emphasis on the fact that any attempts by the person being tested to lie will be immediately detected by the physiological reactions recorded by the device. Pre-test communication gives the specialist the opportunity to establish the necessary psychological contact with the person being tested and assess his condition before the test begins. During the conversation, the polygraph examiner receives information from the person being tested about his life and work activities, health and education, family status, interests, hobbies, etc. After discussing the above issues, the polygraph examiner listens to the person being tested’s interpretation of the event being investigated.
Following the pre-test interview comes the main, sixth stage of the OIP — polygraph testing.
Immediately before each test, the polygraph examiner discusses the questions contained in the test with the person being tested, edits them if necessary, and only then turns on the device and performs the test. The number of tests used is determined exclusively by the polygraph examiner based on the case, the conditions for conducting a polygraph test, the specialist's personal experience, and can range from 3-4 to several dozen, depending on the complexity of the tasks set before the polygraph examiner.
With the start of the first test, the seventh and, in essence, the main stage of the polygraph begins — polygram analysis, that is, the analysis of the graphic display on chart paper or on a computer screen of the dynamics of physiological processes recorded using a polygraph, and interpretation of the test results.
Performing test after test, the polygraph examiner compares and evaluates the physiological reactions of the person being tested that arise in him in response to the questions asked. The registered polygrams are processed on a computer polygraph. The polygraph examiner also conducts an expert assessment of the polygrams and makes a judgment about the subjective significance of the questions asked to the person being tested. Then, relying on a certain set of logical rules, he comes to a probabilistic conclusion about the presence or absence of concealment of information by this person during the TnP. Having completed the prepared tests, the polygraph examiner comes to the conclusion that the material obtained with the help of the polygraph:
a) is of a visual nature and allows one to immediately draw a conclusion about the presence of hidden information about the event under investigation in a specific person
b) requires careful analysis
c) is insufficient for making any decision due to unexpected circumstances (during the pre-test conversation or the TnP itself) and the testing will have to be continued
d) does not allow answering the questions asked before the test due to the specific features of the physiological response of a particular person being interviewed.
If the results of the TnP do not allow for unambiguous conclusions to be made, the polygraph examiner suggests that the security service employee continue the test the next day or in a few days.
After completing the TnP, the eighth stage of the OIP follows — post-test interview, the implementation of which depends on the results of the testing performed. If the performed TnP indicated that the person being interviewed does not have any hidden information, he is thanked for his cooperation in the course of the official investigation.
Depending on the specific conditions of the IIP and only with the knowledge of the security service, the respondent may be familiarized with some of the results of the performed TnP, or notified that the results will be transferred to the security service, which will determine the procedure for familiarization with them.
If the polygraph shows that the person being tested hid something during the TnP on one or more questions, then, as a rule, it is recommended to conduct a post-test interview with this person immediately after the end of testing in order to take full advantage of the psychological advantages created by the OIP method and try to persuade the person being tested to give truthful answers.
When starting such a conversation, the polygraph examiner does not accuse the person being interviewed of lying, but only points out to him that one or more questions are bothering him, causing him to react, and therefore the polygraph examiner asks the person being tested to explain these reactions. As our own accumulated experience and the data of American specialists show, after such — sometimes very insignificant — psychological “pressure,” the persons being tested on the polygraph gave confessions.
The final ninth stage of the OIP is preparation of the final document, reflecting the results obtained and answering the questions asked before the polygraph test.
Each of the above stages is presented in a concise form and only to the extent necessary for a general understanding of the technology of preparation and implementation of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» using a polygraph: the actual technology of each of the stages of the OIP is significantly more complex and multifaceted.
The structure of the OIP clearly demonstrates that each of its stages includes many elements, and the stages themselves — directly or indirectly — are interconnected with each other
Screening OIP
These IIPs are aimed at identifying risk factors that are undesirable for the employer in the personnel working or being hired, and therefore are strictly regulated.
Therefore, the IIP of a specific person no longer requires the first, introductory stage, and the first stage of the screening IIP is studying the materials of the personal file of a specific person, which is carried out on a mandatory basis.
Since screening IIPs are carried out according to a single program, the selection of tests for polygraph testing of a certain contingent of people and the formulation of questions for them is usually carried out once. The issues of organizing the implementation of the IIP are also resolved once. Therefore, the third and fourth stages of the IIP structure are, in fact, “collapsed”.
Thus, the second stage of the screening IIP is the pre-test interview, at the end of which the test questions are adjusted taking into account the individual characteristics of the respondent. This stage, as well as the TnP andpolygram analysis and interpretation of test results (i.e. the third and fourth stages) are strictly mandatory for any screening IIP. However, due to the fact that the list of risk factors submitted for testing using a polygraph is constant, the technology for assessing them is unchanged, and the implementation of the IIP is significantly simplified.
The next stage is the post-test interview— in screening OIPs, it is carried out based on identified risk factors according to a plan previously agreed upon with the HR service, or is not carried out if there are no risk factors or the employer considers such a conversation inappropriate.
The IIP ends with a final document, which is standardized in nature and the preparation of which is significantly simpler than for an IIP performed in the interests of operational-search or investigative practice. From the above it follows that a number of stages of the screening IIP are of a “condensed” nature, in connection with which the technology of this type of polygraph testing is significantly simpler in the overwhelming majority of cases. It should be emphasized that knowledge of the IIP structure is important not only from a theoretical but also from a practical point of view.
A violation by a polygraph examiner of the IIP technology developed by world practice is inevitably accompanied by a decrease in the quality of the test performed and can lead to erroneous results based on the results of the polygraph test.
The above brief description of the process of implementing the IIP was intended not only to introduce this technology to specialists of the HR and security services of commercial banks, but also to provide them with some practical assistance.
IIPs, although they have not yet found due distribution in the sphere of ensuring banking security, are increasingly being used in other areas of domestic private entrepreneurship and, if correctly implemented, their technologies are a very effective means of detecting, investigating and preventing official violations.
Currently, the profession of «polygraph examiner» is in its infancy in Russia, and therefore the qualification requirements for polygraph examiners are not strictly defined and are still vague. Because of this, in the work of poorly trained specialists (working both in federal agencies and providing services in the private sector), obvious violations of the OIP technology are often noted, which can be divided into two groups. The first group should include violations that significantly reduce the methodological correctness of the OIP procedure and can damage its effectiveness, the second — violations that exclude the possibility of making any decision on the results of a specific test and the entire polygraph test as a whole.Users of the OIP — employees of human resources and security departments — when seeking help with polygraph tests do not know the true qualifications of the specialist working with this device, and, naturally, accept the result of such a test as reliable. There are frequent cases when people who are very little familiar with the OIP technology pose as specialists, misleading polygraph users who seek their help and often ruining the lives of people who come to them for testing. An analysis of the current situation led to the need to develop simple and effective criteria that could help OIP users who are not familiar with the cumbersome technology of this method, independently assess the quality of the test performed and protect themselves from an incompetent pseudo-polygraph examiner. As a result of this analysis, a number of basic methodological requirements for the implementation of the IIP were identified, violations of which oblige one to refuse to make any (positive or negative) decisions based on the results of a specific test and the entire polygraph test as a whole.
Requirement 1: during polygraph testing, the breathing of the person being questioned must be recorded.
Breathing, being one of the vital physiological functions of the human body, under IUP conditions can have a strong reflex effect on the dynamics of cardiovascular activity (CVA) and/or galvanic skin reflex (GSR). In particular, a deep breath, exceeding, on average, two or more times the depth of a person’s current breathing, causes reflex reactions in the CVA and GSR. Such deep breaths (the so-called phenomenon of pulmonary hyperventilation) are physiologically conditioned, providing ventilation of the peripheral areas of the lungs, and are performed by a person approximately once every 10-15 minutes, and in the case of mental stress (which is often observed during a polygraph test) — much more often.
Thus, under IUP conditions, the phenomenon of hyperventilation acts as a natural interference, complicating the high-quality registration of physiological reactions. If breathing is not recorded, the reflex reactions in the SSA and GSR caused by deep breaths will be incorrectly assessed by the polygraph examiner and may lead to an erroneous judgment based on the results of the test.
Registration of breathing during the OIP is strictly mandatory in world practice, and performing a polygraph test without monitoring this physiological process is fundamentally unacceptable.
Requirement 2: a preliminary discussion of the questions that will be asked during the TNP must be conducted with the person being interviewed.
The preliminary discussion of test questions is aimed at getting the respondent to understand their content in the way that the polygraph examiner has defined to solve the task set before the OIP. During such a discussion, it is not uncommon for the polygraph examiner and the respondent to make editorial changes and clarifications to some questions without changing their main content.
If a preliminary discussion of the questions is not conducted, and only familiarization with the topic of the test questions is performed, the perception during the TnP of questions containing inaccuracies or causing misunderstanding or surprise may lead to reactions that will be incorrectly interpreted by the specialist.
Requirement 3: when performing tests, each of the questionnaires is presented to the respondent at least three times.
However, it is well known that physiological reactions recorded during TnP in response to questions asked of the respondent are unstable. In this regard, a single presentation of any question may cause a reaction that does not reflect the real subjective significance of this question for the respondent. In order to judge that a particular question really has subjective significance for a person, it is necessary to ensure the stability of the reactions it causes, i.e. that the reactions do not appear by chance.
Therefore, the tradition of a single presentation of a questionnaire during testing and making a decision based on its results, observed in the work of some individuals who perform TnP unprofessionally, is a gross violation of the OIP technology that has currently developed in world practice.
Requirement 4: a pre-test interview must be conducted before TnP.
According to the unanimous recognition of domestic and foreign polygraph examiners, a pre-test interview is of exceptional importance for performing the OIP, largely determining the quality of the result that will be obtained later with the help of a polygraph.
As mentioned above, depending on the specific situation (whether the pre-test interview is conducted during personnel selection or in the interests of an official investigation), the pre-test interview can last from 20-30 minutes to several hours. After discussing the list of questions required in such cases, the polygraph examiner listens to the person being tested for his or her interpretation of the event being investigated. The pre-test interview allows the polygraph examiner to take into account and, if possible, eliminate the effect of various unfavorable factors that may affect the quality of recording the physiological reactions of the person being interviewed, and thereby distort the results of the pre-test interview.
The absence of a pre-test interview is fraught with unpredictable consequences both during the testing itself and when making a decision on the results of the polygraph test.
Requirement 5: during the TnP, the polygraph examiner and, especially, the computer polygraph screen are out of sight of the person being interviewed.
The person being tested on a polygraph, regardless of whether he or she is hiding anything or not, is interested in the speedy and successful completion of the test. If the polygraph examiner is located opposite the person being tested or is in his or her field of vision, the latter will closely monitor the actions and movements of the specialist. Such intense observation of the polygraph examiner's behavior may be the source of unpredictable reactions-interferences that make it difficult to perform the OIP qualitatively.
Requirement 6: During one working day, the polygraph examiner must not conduct more than two OIPs.
The minimum total duration of the pre-test interview and TnP, performed in compliance with existing methodological requirements, is about one and a half to two hours (in the case of screening OIP) or about two to three hours (for OIP conducted in the interests of official proceedings). If we take into account that the polygraph examiner is obliged to prepare a final document based on the results of the OIP, his daily «labor productivity» becomes obvious.
It is clear that during official investigations, life may dictate other standards for working hours, and a polygraph examiner has to conduct up to four to five OIPs per day. Such intensity of work of a polygraph examiner is permissible only for one or two days, and requires subsequent (for several days) rest. This limitation is due to the fact that the work of a polygraph examiner is intense and requires great attention, patience and endurance. Fatigue that occurs after several hours of intense work reduces the performance of a polygraph examiner, the ability to quickly and efficiently expertly evaluate the recorded reactions. And this is fraught with the appearance of errors in his work (both “missing the target,” when a person involved in the incident under investigation may be missed, and “false alarm,” when, based on the results of the IPR, an unfounded suspicion falls on a person not involved in the offense under investigation).
It is easy to see that the above six most important requirements for the procedure for performing polygraph tests can be easily assessed by any user of the IPR. The results of IPR performed in violation of these requirements cannot be taken into account.
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that it is advisable for users of the IPR to be interested not only in the technology of the conducted or upcoming polygraph test, but also to consult with authoritative specialists in order to avoid receiving unreliable or erroneous data on the results of this procedure.
Sample of a polygram recorded during polygraph testing
The figure shows (from top to bottom) graphs: «a» — the movements of the respondent during the TnP process; «b» — chest breathing; «c» — abdominal breathing; phasic («g») and tonic («d») components of the galvanic skin reflex; «e» dynamics of pulse rate /tachogram/; «zh» — plethysmogram /dynamics of blood filling of the vessels of the fingers/; «z» — sphygmogram /dynamics of blood filling of the artery of the forearm/; «i» — phonogram of the polygraph examiner's questions and the answers of the person being interviewed.