Any work with people is based on ethics and boundaries that guarantee safety and respect for the individual. For a polygraph examiner, these are critically important: inappropriate interference in the respondent’s personal life is a red line. Crossing it, a polygraph examiner not only damages the profession’s reputation but turns a scientific instrument into a tool for manipulation and interrogation. However, explaining the harm caused by such specialists solely from a moral standpoint is insufficient. We need to look at the problem deeper, specifically considering what happens to data accuracy in these moments, and ultimately, what the Law says about it.

1. “Emotional rape” — this is exactly how a respondent described her state after a routine personnel screening. And this, unfortunately, is far from an isolated story in practice. The polygraph examiner, ignoring the purpose of the test, allowed himself a series of questions completely unrelated to the subject of the examination, specifically: “Have you cheated on your husband?”, “Are you sure all your children are his?”, “Have you had same-sex relationship experience?”, and “Do you have a lover?”. Besides the obvious immorality, such actions by a specialist can be qualified as evidently stemming from problems in his own personal life and experience, and, most importantly, as a sign of profound professional deformation. This is psychological voyeurism under the guise of a profession, when a polygraph examiner “peeks” into a person’s memory and soul, forcing them to “undress” emotionally, deriving a specific pleasure of power or morbid curiosity from it. Moreover, this is a manifestation of sexism and discrimination, as frequent cases show that such questions are usually asked to women, and by male polygraph examiners. And, of course, this indicates glaring professional incompetence — the inability to formulate a test questionnaire without involving taboo topics.
2. During the pre-test interview, instead of discussing the subject of the examination, the polygraph examiner comments on the respondent’s appearance, her figure, her clothes, and calls this “establishing psychological contact.” It should be emphasized that questions such as “Do men often compliment you at work?” or “Do you use your own attractiveness for career advancement?” constitute a form of harassment. Such remarks create in the female respondent a state of inner resistance, tension, and acute hostility, as a result of which the necessary neutrality is lost and the test results become significantly distorted.
3. The specialist suddenly turns on the “moralist,” expressing personal judgments such as: “How could you do this, you are a mother?”, “Normal people don’t do that!”, “So you are a draft dodger!”, “What kind of warrior are you if you went AWOL?”. Such an attitude from the polygraph examiner induces mental states in the respondent that inevitably manifest as physiological changes on the polygrams. These changes are not related to the questions the polygraph examiner asks during the examination. As a result, by provoking unnecessary emotional tension and putting the person in a state of psychological discomfort, the specialist will make an incorrect conclusion based on the examination results.

From a neurophysiological point of view, an intimate question is not a stimulus for the respondent, but a signal of direct aggression. When we touch upon taboo topics, the brain instantly activates the amygdala — the center for processing emotions and fear. This triggers an irreversible chain reaction and a shift in the dominant reflex.

When we work according to clear rules and methodological requirements, the brain instantly “recognizes” a significant detail of the offense or a significant personnel question and focuses attention on them. We see a natural physiological reaction. However, an intimate question is an irritant of such force that it instantly triggers a defensive reflex. The organism mobilizes not to search for information in memory. It prepares to “fight off the attack” or “flee” from humiliation.

At this moment, a hormonal storm covers the person. The Social Evaluative Threat effect is triggered. Studies by S. Dickerson and M. Kemeny back in 2004 proved that situations threatening our reputation and causing shame provoke the most powerful release of cortisol. This “stress hormone” blocks cognitive functions. A persistent background of arousal arises, and the output is banal “noise.” On the monitor screen, there is chaos. The autonomic nervous system shifts into hyperactivation. Reactions to different types of questions have the same amplitude. There are no markers for physiological reactions of shame, righteous anger, indignation, or concealment of information. They cannot be distinguished on a polygram!

By asking about the secrets of intimate life, the polygraph examiner manually “blinds” his own instrument. The classic “Othello Error”: we see fear and agitation, but mistakenly interpret them as deception. But in reality, it is simply the natural reaction of a living person to an invasion of their personal space.

However, if the moral (or rather, immoral) aspect of the issue and the laws of physiology do not convince you, there is the legislation. According to Article 32 of the Constitution of Ukraine, no one can be subjected to interference in their personal and family life, except in cases provided for by the Constitution. The collection, storage, use, and dissemination of confidential information about a person without their consent are not permitted. Although a polygraph examination using a polygraph is conducted exclusively with voluntary written consent, the mere fact of consent does not give the specialist carte blanche for unlimited interference in the most secret spheres of life. Consent to verify professional qualities and risky actions does not equal consent to discuss intimate life. A background check does not imply psychological penetration into the respondent’s intimate, sexual life.

The legal consequences of violating these principles may extend far beyond the disciplinary liability of the polygraph examiner. If such questions were unrelated to the investigation of a specific crime (for example, rape) or to establishing facts of marital infidelity, but were asked out of curiosity, for the purpose of manipulation, or as a means of psychological pressure merely because the polygraph examiner was unwilling to formulate neutral questions within another, non-taboo subject area, then this is no longer merely a professional error, but an unlawful intrusion into private life. Judicial practice on this matter is sufficiently clear: information obtained in violation of human rights is deemed inadmissible under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine [12]. An expert opinion reached in violation of human dignity loses its legal persuasiveness and may be challenged in court.

Ultimately, the true professionalism of a polygraph examiner is not measured by the ability to “pull everything out of a person.” It is the ability to obtain the necessary information without crossing red lines. Questions about intimate life are justified exclusively in a narrow segment of specific criminal or personal cases. In all other cases, whether it is a personnel screening or an internal investigation, it is a gross violation of professional standards that turns a scientific method into a tool of the Inquisition. And this damages the reputation not only of the specialist himself but of the entire institute of polygraphy.

The words of Tetiana Romanivna Morozova — a talented teacher and mentor to most of us — may serve as a kind of summary of the fundamental ethical principles of our work: “Do not dig into the respondent’s underwear with your questions!”; “Polygraphy is not a service industry; the client cannot always be right in it, because on the other side is also an individual — the respondent”; “You should want money, not love it. A polygraph examiner who loves money is dangerous, because for its sake he is capable of the most despicable acts”; “Nothing saves you and the respondent from mutual unfounded accusations quite like a video recording of the examination procedure.”

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Constitution of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine of 28.06.1996 No. 254k/96-VR (Articles 28, 32, 62).
2. Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine of 13.04.2012 No. 4651-VI (Article 87 “Inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms”).
3. On Personal Data Protection: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2297-17
4. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939). (Precedent-setting decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the “fruit of the poisonous tree” concept).
5. Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355–391. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15122924/ (Fundamental research on social evaluation as a major stressor).
6. Lupien, S. J., Maheu, F., Tu, M., Fiocco, A., & Schramek, T. E. (2007). The effects of stress and stress hormones on human cognition: Implications for the field of brain and cognition. Brain and Cognition, 65(3), 209-237. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17723033/ (On the impact of stress on memory and cognitive abilities).
7. McEwen, B. S. (2001). Plasticity of the hippocampus: adaptation to chronic stress and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 933, 265–277. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11708564/ (On the neurophysiology of stress).
8. National Research Council. (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. (Chapter 2: Scientific basis — about “noise” and emotional artifacts).
9. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Theory of cognitive dissonance).
11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15564358/
12. The term “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” first appeared in the practice of the US Supreme Court in 1939 (the case of Nardone v. United States). The author of the metaphor, Justice Felix Frankfurter, laid a simple logic into it: if the source of obtaining information (the “tree”) is illegal (pressure, violation of procedure, invasion of privacy), then any evidence obtained through this (the “fruits”) is legally void. In Ukraine, this principle is enshrined in Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine “An accusation cannot be based on evidence obtained illegally” and Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine “Inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms”. This means that a confession obtained as a result of an unethical polygraph examination using a computerized polygraph will be recognized by the court as inadmissible evidence.