I am quite unsure how this topic came to mind, yet somehow, it made its way into my thoughts. Does certain language affect the result of a polygraph test? Are certain linguistic tools used in order to acquire desired answers that are not necessarily true? We know that certain words have a wide range of connotations. This could possibly affect one's emotions and, in turn, cause odd physical activity. The fact of the matter is that even the innocent are capable of failing the test. Is it a farce? If so, it should be extinguished as soon as possible.
There are three types of questions asked throughout the duration of the polygraph test:
1.) Irrelevant
- These questions have obvious answers. [ How old are you? ]
2.) Relevant
- These questions portray what kind of information is wanted. [ Did you steal the car? ]
- These questions produce reactions that are then compared to your reactions from the relevant questions. They usually apply to all subjects. [ Have you ever gone to school? ]
Those who take the test are advised to give short answeres. A mere yes or no will suffice. Explained answers, as we well know from Hayakawa, will be dissected and analyzed. In this case, language is a tool of separation rather than a tool of "togetherness". Where is the cooperation in a polygraph test? If society depended upon "yes" or "no" answers, how could we learn to live mutually?
Isn't language supposed to provide a way to progress and a way to acquire a better understanding of the world's phenomena? Just a curious thought..
(Samantha Maliha)
5 comments:
I don't quite understand how language is being used as a tool of separation here.. The reason behind the simplicity of the answers is to decrease the variation in a person's emotional reactions. If I'm not mistaken, the polygraph usually measures things such as blood pressure and pulse which are prone to changing when our emotions run rampant. By eliminating variations in answers, you also eliminate most extraneous thought. Thus, if someone isn't running through their thoughts to compose a more complex (Though more complete) answer, there's less of a chance that the polygraph will pick up emotional changes that have nothing to do with "truth".
The polygraph is actually remarkably unverifiable via scientific means. It operates upon the assumption that liars feel a change in emotion - something that would manifest as a change in pulse etc. Obviously, innocents can fail the test because the polygraph isn't actually telling the interviewer the truth, just how the person is reacting to the question. Yes, short answers may seem vaguely counterproductive, but they're designed to eliminate unnecessary reactions that may compromise the reliability (If it even has any to start with) of the polygraph test results.
Moreover, the polygraph isn't really designed to create "togetherness". Its purpose is to test "truth" where mere trust obviously doesn't cut it. Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it separates.. Maybe interrogation techniques could potentially alienate some people.. But the polygraph, at the basest level, is simply measuring physical actions. Its the interpretation of this data with respect to "truth" that introduces human error and assumptions to the equation.
I see your point. And my thoughts may have stretched more than was necessary. But the base question (without the fluff) is merely: Do the way the questions are asked affect the outcomes? Maybe that will settle any ambiguity. I should have clarified.
(Sam Maliha)
In the irrelevant and the control type of questions, it seems that the wording would not really affect the outcome. It seems that no matter how you really word it, the outcome is basically the same. For example, take the question 'How old are you? (Although, I now notice that this wouldn't be a question because it doesn't have a yes or no answer...)
If the wording was changed to 'Are you an old lady?' I don't think the reaction would differ greatly. Yes, the person may be a bit taken back by the response, but probably not so much that it affects the polygraph reading.
I think this is even true with the relevant type of questions. Take the question, 'Did you steal the car?' Of course, many other words can be used to replace the word 'steal' and affect the connotations within the sentence. You could change it to 'Did you pick up that car?' The words 'pick up' give a lightly less negative connotation (in my opinion, anyway). The words could even possible change the entire meaning of the sentence, depending on how it's read. The point is, if the person is guilty of taking that car, then that person will probably react, no matter which words are used. Probably, even the mention of that car would get his heart beating.
Actually, the wording of a question almost always affects the response. Pollsters and survey formulators have to be particularly careful in constructing questions that do not make any prior assumptions or imply a certain answer. Statisticians have famously proven that the wording of a question can affect answers by a significant margin. I'll quote from my last year statistics book: "The wording of question is the most important influence on the answers given to a sample survey...even minor changes in wording can change a survey's outcome."
For instance, leading questions often contain the answer the interviewer wants hidden in the question. Or perhaps the questions make assumptions about the survey-taker that may or may note be true.
For example, differently worded (but essentially the same) questions regarding the Panama Canal were given to the public at around the same time period, but different answers resulted depending upon the wording.
Here's one wording: ""Do you think the time has come for us to modify our Panama Canal Treaty or that we should insist on keeping the Treaty as originally signed?" 24% of the respondents for this question were for modification and did not want to give the Panama Canal back to Panama. Most respondents wanted to "keep our word" and return the Canal to Panama.
The question implies that it is dishonorable to break our word and we should carry out the terms of our treaty as "originally signed." Accordingly, a relatively low percentage of respondents still wanted modification of the treaty.
Here is another version of the question: "The Senate now has to debate the Treaties that President Carter signed granting control of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama in the year 2000. Do you approve or disapprove of these Treaties?" 51% disapproved of the treaty and did not want to give Panama Canal back to Panama. This time, most respondents wanted to keep the Canal.
Now, because the question is much more vaguely asking if the respondent "approves" or "disapproves" the treaty without placing it an a context of "keeping our word" as the previous question did, a much higher percentage of respondents decided that they wanted to keep the Panama Canal and disapproved of treaties that would cede control back to Panama. Furthermore, President Carter was mentioned, which could easily affect some responses.
Although the two questions were essentially the same (should we give the canal back to Panama), there was more than a 25% difference in the responses.
Now, remembering these effects, we can take a new look at the polygraph example questions Sam gave us.
"Did you steal the car?" (original)
"Did you take the car?" (my rewording)
These two differently worded questions would almost certainly result in different reactions and answers. The usage of the word "steal" already has an implicit judgment of it, whereas "take" is a bit more neutral. I'm sure that someone may be convinced that he merely temporarily borrowed the car for an emergency or rightfully bought it, which would cause him to answer the two differently worded questions differently. ("stealing vs taking")
"Have you gone to school?" (original)
"Have you graduated from high school?"
"Have you been at the school building?"
"Have you been to college?"
The rewording almost certainly results in different answers, whether they are survey questions or polygraph questions.
Thoughts?
Douglas Rushkoff brushed up on Eric's very same point in Coercion.
Pollsters have developed deceptive tactics in the world of polling. Leading questions have become frequent and result in information that intentionally leans in one direction. TV Guide once asked, "Should the president have the Line Item Veto to eliminate waste?" 97% of those interviewed replied with a yes. The question was slightly tweaked to read, "Should the president have the Line Item Veto, or not?" In this case, only a slight majority of the people polled (57%) answered with a yes.
The language of the first question somewhat limited the reader's outlook of possible outcomes. In the second, however, the "not" reminds the reader of their ability to select no as an answer.
Just imagine how language may be manipulated in this way on polygraph tests, despite single-word answers.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment