VIKTORIIA HREBENIUK,
polygraph examiner,
2021 graduate of the polygraph examiner training courses offered by
the All-Ukrainian Association of Polygraph Examiners
The reliability of conclusions drawn from a polygraph examination depends directly on the quality of the test questionnaire. One of the most effective approaches to designing test questioning protocols is the deductive approach, which underlies the Methodology of Concealed Information Detection (MCID). Unlike the inductive approach, which is based on generalizing individual facts, the deductive approach moves from the overall picture of an event to specific details, yielding logical and reliable conclusions from the examination [1, 2].
In the context of a polygraph examination, the deductive method is based on constructing a logical chain from the general to the specific. By identifying reactions to a given question, the polygraph examiner obtains data to develop subsequent tests, thereby reconstructing a complete picture of the event and uncovering details relevant to further investigation and documentation of the offense under applicable law.
When conducting an investigation into a specific criminal offense, the test questionnaire must be structured so that it ultimately becomes clear whether the individual has ever committed a similar.
When conducting an investigation into a specific criminal offense, the test questionnaire must be structured so that it ultimately becomes clear whether the individual has ever committed a similar offense, or whether they possess information about the details of the crime under investigation – provided that the circumstances of the event are known only to the investigators and the person implicated. If a polygraph examiner identifies a cluster of significant physiological responses that strongly suggest the subject has committed similar past offenses and is concealing knowledge of the circumstances of a specific crime, only then is it appropriate to proceed to the next phase of the examination. This subsequent stage focuses on uncovering concealed information regarding specific characteristics and other details not yet known to investigators. Typically, these tests aim to determine: the location of a weapon or stolen property (and how it was disposed of); the whereabouts of a victim’s body; the motives behind the crime; the circle of accomplices; with which intelligence services the individual secretly cooperated and through what means of communication, and so forth.
Surely every polygraph examiner understands that administering a test of knowledge of an unknown solution, such as asking where a body is hidden, to an individual uninvolved in a homicide is fundamentally inappropriate. In such cases, the subject’s physiological responses would likely be erratic, driven by fear, indignation, or similar reactions rather than actual guilt. Nevertheless, cases frequently arise where examiners, yielding to client pressure, disregard the principles of the deductive approach. Without first establishing basic involvement, they prematurely attempt to identify “accomplices” or “the extent of damages.” And they even manage to “confirm” all of it even in subjects who had no involvement whatsoever.
The deductive method is equally indispensable when conducting personnel screening. Consider a highly relevant example given current realities: when investigating information leaks, the deductive method is equally indispensable when conducting personnel screening. Consider a highly relevant example given current realities: when investigating information leaks, an examiner must first establish whether the subject has ever been involved in such activity at all. Only after identifying a cluster of significant responses is it appropriate to administer tests designed to ascertain specifics: who requested or coerced the disclosure, the underlying motives, the identity of the recipients, and the nature of the information shared.
If an examiner bypasses general threshold questions, such as whether the subject has ever surreptitiously disclosed sensitive information, and jumps to specifics, they risk reaching a false conclusion. For instance, if asked “Have you ever secretly passed confidential work information to business contacts?”, the examiner may in fact obtain a significant reaction to the first part of the question – “Have you secretly passed confidential work information…?”, rather than the second: “…to business contacts?” A person may react, and repeatedly so (this is especially true of anxious, conscientious, and responsible individuals), to questions about disclosure, transfer, or leaking of information, because despite a management prohibition and a signed NDA, they had been sharing work-related details with friends.
Test questions must be administered in a logical, sequential order. It is vital to recognize that an examiner’s pre-test explanations often fail to mitigate false reactions caused by an inconsistent or illogical test structure.
Utilizing the MCID, grounded in the deductive approach, minimizes errors in questionnaire construction through the following factors:
- logical sequencing: questions are structured systematically rather than haphazardly, creating a coherent framework that reduces the psychological burden on innocent subjects while providing the client with detailed information about the course of events.
- enhanced reliability: deduction eliminates ambiguous or illogical phrasing that might trigger false reactions caused by cognitive dissonance or emotional tension.
Ultimately, the deductive method allows the examiner to build a robust verification system. This makes the examination process coherent and the results logically sound and objective. This is precisely why the members of the All-Ukrainian Association of Polygraph Examiners, who predominantly employ the MCID, are held in such high regard in both the public and private sectors.
References:
- 1. Морозова Т.Р. Методика виявлення прихованої інформації у поліграфних дослідженнях: монографія / за наук. ред. О. М. Морозова. Київ: Алерта, 2023.
472 с. - Криміналістика : підручник / [В. М. Шевчук, В. А. Журавель, В. Ю. Шепітько та ін.] ; за ред. В. М. Шевчука : Нац. юрид. ун-т ім. Ярослава Мудрого. – Харків : Право, 2024. С. 488-510.
