UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Comparison of dog teams and polygraph in detecting "Guilt" Ramirez Monzon, Carmen Elizabeth 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 R34.pdf [ 2.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094356.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094356-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094356-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094356-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094356-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094356-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094356-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094356-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094356.ris

Full Text

COMPARISON OF DOG TEAMS AND POLYGRAPH IN DETECTING "GUILT" by CARMEN ELIZABETH^RAMIREZ MDNZON B.A., P o n t i f i c i a U n i v e r s i d a d J a v e r i a n a , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f P s y c h o l o g y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A u g u s t , 1977 0 Carmen E l i z a b e t h Ramirez M., 1977 i n In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of JTS^CriPLQe.^ The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 Date Jtr-xO l o | i i ABSTRACT A s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e a b i l i t y o f p o l i c e dog teams t o i d e n t i f y " g u i l t y " s u b j e c t s i n a s i m u l a t e d c r i m e s i t u a t i o n and t o com-p a r e t h e i r a c c u r a c y w i t h t h a t o f a p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n . R e s e a r c h on the o l f a c t o r y a c u i t y o f dogs, and on t h e r o l e o f o l f a c t o r y cues such as pheromones i n s o c i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , i m p l i e s t h a t t h e d e t e c t i o n o f g u i l t by e x p e r i e n c e d p o l i c e dogs c o u l d o c c u r as r e l i a b l y as p o l i c e dog h a n d l e r s b e l i e v e . The l i t e r a t u r e on p o l y g r a p h i n v e s t i g a t i o n s shows h i g h r e l i a b i l i t y i n d e t e c t i n g g u i l t . T h i s was one o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r u s i n g t h e p o l y g r a p h as t h e c o m p a r i s o n t e c h n i q u e . T h r e e e x p e r i e n c e d dog teams f r o m t h e Vancouver P o l i c e Dog Squad and two e x p e r t p o l y g r a p h f i e l d e x a m i n e r s were used. The s u b j e c t s were 64 male v o l u n t e e r s , a l l u n i v e r s i t y o r c o l l e g e s t u -d e n t s . S u b j e c t s randomly a s s i g n e d t o t h e " g u i l t y " c o n d i t i o n were i n s t r u c -t e d t o " s t e a l " and c o n c e a l a $10 b i l l t h a t h a d been l e f t i n an empty o f f i c e , and t o deny t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e s t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t t h a t t h e y had done s o . V o l u n t e e r s i n t h e "not g u i l t y " c o n d i t i o n were t o l d n o t h i n g about t h e " c r i m e " B o t h groups were t o l d t h a t p o l i c e dog teams and p o l y g r a p h o p e r a t o r s w o u l d t r y t o f i n d o u t w h e t h e r t h e y were g u i l t y . They were p r o m i s e d $5.00 f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g p l u s a bonus o f $10 i f t h e y succeeded i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e y were i n n o c e n t . P o l i c e dog team performance was about chance l e v e l , w h i l e t h e p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c u r a t e t h a n chance and t h a n t h e dog teams. No i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e was found among t h e dog teams. The f a i l u r e o f t h e dog teams c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d e i t h e r t o t h e i m p o s s i -b i l i t y o f d e t e c t i n g g u i l t y by s m e l l cues o r t o some a s p e c t o f t h e s i m u l a t i o n i i i procedure. Further research should be directed at developing more r e a l i s -t i c f i e l d studies. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE i ABSTRACT i i TABLE.OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i INTRODUCTION 1 The Use o f P o l i c e Dog Teams 2 •. R e s e a r c h on C a n i n e O l f a c t i o n s .... 6 S o c i a l O l f a c t i o n 9 Pheromones i n Human B e i n g s .... 12 Ca n i n e D e t e c t i o n o f G u i l t : The H y p o t h e s i s .... 14 The P o l y g r a p h 16 Summary .... 22 METHOD 23 P a r t i c i p a n t s .... 23 S u b j e c t s .... 23 Dog Teams .... 23 P o l y g r a p h O p e r a t o r s .... 23 P r o c e d u r e .... 24 G e n e r a l O r i e n t a t i o n .... 24 C o n d i t i o n s .... 25 D e s i g n .... 26 Table of Contents (cont'd) Ph y s i c a l F a c i l i t i e s .... 26 Dog Test Procedure .... 27 Polygraph Test Procedure .... 27 Order of Events .... 28 Summary of Variables .... 29 RESULTS .... 30 DISCUSSION 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY 42 APPENDIX A Instructions to Dogmasters .... 49 APPENDIX B Polygraph Questions 51 APPENDIX C Instructions to the " G u i l t y " Subjects 54 APPENDIX D Instructions to the "Not G u i l t y " Subjects 58 APPENDIX E Polygraph Examination Technique .... 61 v i LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. Performance Accuracy (Pairs of Subjects) .... 32 TABLE 2. Performance Accuracy (Individual Subjects, N = 64) .... 33 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There a r e many p e o p l e w i t h o u t whose a s s i s t a n c e t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u l d n o t have been c a r r i e d o u t , and t o whom t h e a u t h o r w i s h e s t o e x p r e s s h e r g r a t i t u d e . Dr. R o b e r t H. W r i g h t was a c o n s t a n t s o u r c e o f h e l p and i n f o r m a t i o n t h r o u g h o u t the e n t i r e c o u r s e o f t h e r e s e a r c h . H i s e x p e r t i s e i n t h e a r e a o f o l f a c t i o n , and h i s e x p e r i e n c e w i t h p o l i c e dogs, were c r u c i a l i n d e s i g n -i n g and c o n d u c t i n g t h e work. He a l s o g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e d t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t he p o l i c e dog teams. Ms. M a r g a r e t Byrne p r o v i d e d i m p o r t a n t a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e a c t u a l r u n n i n g o f the e x p e r i m e n t s , h e l p i n g t o r e c r u i t and s c h e d u l e s u b j e c t s , p r e p a r e t h e s i t e , and a d m i n i s t e r t h e p r o j e c t . Her p a r t i c i p a t i o n d u r i n g many weekends t h r o u g h o u t the c o u r s e o f t h e s t u d y i s g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . S e r g e a n t P a t Laug'hy was t h e o f f i c e r i n charge o f t h e Vancouver P o l i c e Dog Squad d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f t h i s work. H i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o s a c r i f i c e many ho u r s o f h i s f r e e t i m e , and t o encourage h i s c o l l e a g u e s t o v o l u n t e e r as w e l l , were v i t a l i n making t h e r e s e a r c h p o s s i b l e . S p e c i a l t h a n k s go t o t h e t h r e e dog teams t h a t were i n v o l v e d : S g t . Laugliy and Duke, C o n s t . A d r i a n de Jo n g and S p i k e , and Co n s t . John L e V o i e and Rex IV. S i m i l a r l y , t h e two p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n e r s , Mr. John W e l l e r and Mr. H a r o l d S t e -venson,,^ d e v o t e d a g r e a t d e a l o f ti m e and e f f o r t t o t h i s s t u d y . W o r k i n g w i t h o u t c o m p e n s a t i o n , t h e y t o o were c e n t r a l l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a r r y i n g o u t o f the r e s e a r c h . The a u t h o r a l s o e x p r e s s e s h e r thanks t o t h e members o f t h e t h e s i s commit-t e e . The chairman o f the committee, Dr. P e t e r S u e d f e l d , p r o v i d e d i n v a l u a b l e v i i i assistance and guidance during a l l phases of the work. Drs. Charlan J . Nemeth and Lawrence M. Ward gave suggestions concerning the design and pro-cedure of the study. Dr. Ward also helped with the analysis of the r e -s u l t s , and contributed extensive e d i t o r i a l improvements to the t h e s i s . Dr. Robert E. Knox and Dr. Roderick Wong, j o i n i n g the committee at a l a t e r stage, made valuable comments on the f i n a l d r a f t . Besides the committee members, the author thanks Dr. A. Ralph Hakstian f o r h i s assistance i n designing the analyses and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e -s u l t s , and Dr. Demetrios Papageorgis, f o r allowing his o f f i c e to be used as the scene of the crime. INTRODUCTION T h i s r e s e a r c h i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t e s t i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f two ways i n w h i c h l a w enforcement a g e n c i e s a t t e m p t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between g u i l t y and i n n o c e n t s u s p e c t s when a c r i m e has been committed. C l e a r l y s o c i e t y must be a b l e t o i d e n t i f y t he t r u e p e r p e t r a t o r s ' o f c r i m e i n o r d e r t o a p p l y ap-p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n s , r e h a b i l i t a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s , p r o t e c t i v e s e g r e g a t i o n from the p u b l i c , and so on. Our system o f c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s h o u l d be d i -r e c t e d toward a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h i s g o a l as a c c u r a t e l y , e f f i c i e n t l y and f a i r l y as p o s s i b l e . The i n i t i a l c o n t a c t between t h e l a w and t h e s u s p e c t e d c r i m i n a l , and the one w h i c h i s f r e q u e n t l y c r u c i a l , o c c u r s when t h e p o l i c e i d e n t i f y and apprehend a s u s p e c t . W h i l e t h i s i s t o a g r e a t e x t e n t a m a t t e r o f r o u t i n e c o l l e c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e and o f p u r s u i t , t h e p o l i c e do make a p r e l i m i n a r y judgement as t o the p r o b a b l e g u i l t o f t h e apprehended p e r s o n . T h i s j u d g e -ment i s n o t b i n d i n g i n t h e l e g a l s e n s e , b u t o f t e n i t d e t e r m i n e s t h e s u b s e -quent c o u r s e o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e a c c u s e d . When the i d e n t i t y o f t h e g u i l t y p e r s o n i s n o t o b v i o u s — e . g . , he was n o t caught i n t h e a c t o f l a w b r e a k i n g , o r t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l s u s p e c t s — m o d e r n p o l i c e departments use a v a r i e t y o f t e c h n i q u e s t o reduce u n c e r t a i n t y . Some of t h e s e a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e p h y s i c a l g a t h e r i n g and e v a l u a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e , and some t o i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f s u s p e c t s and o f w i t n e s s e s . Two o f t h e s y s t e m a t i c methods c u r r e n t l y employed t o f u r t h e r t h i s work a r e " l i e - d e t e c t o r " ( p o l y g r a p h ) e x a m i n a t i o n s and t h e use o f t r a i n e d p o l i c e dogs and t h e i r m a s t e r s . I n N o r t h A m e r i c a , n e i t h e r o f t h e s e methods can be used as d i r e c t e v i d e n c e i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s b u t p o l i c e do use b o t h t o i n d i c a t e 2 i n which, d i r e c t i o n further i n v e s t i g a t i o n should go. In t h i s way the r e s u l t s of such methods, frequently determine the fate of suspects. In b r i e f , the research that w i l l be described here was designed to evaluate the e f f i c a c y of trained dog and master teams i n detecting g u i l t i n a simulated crime s i -tuation, and to compare the v a l i d i t y of the technique with that of polygraph examinations. To the maximal degree p o s s i b l e , the personnel involved and the procedures used were the same as those commonly found i n f i e l d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of actual crime. . The more v e r s a t i l e , but l e s s p u b l i c i z e d and much less researched, use of p o l i c e dog teams w i l l be discussed f i r s t . The use of the polygraph, which i s f a i r l y straightforward, r e s t r i c t e d , and r e l a t i v e l y w e l l known, w i l l be reviewed l a t e r i n t h i s section. In order to provide the relevant background we must look at the l i t e r a -ture bearing upon,the t r a i n i n g and employment of p o l i c e dogs; research data r e l a t e d to the o l f a c t o r y acuity of dogs and the importance of s o c i a l o l f a c -t i o n among animals, including the r o l e of pheromones i n t h i s context. These topics are basic to the consideration of the p o s s i b i l i t y that dogs may detect some s p e c i a l odor associated with f e e l i n g s of g u i l t . The l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to polygraph techniques w i l l also be discussed, since i t i s to these procedures, that the dogs performance w i l l be compared. The Use of P o l i c e Dog Teams According to a summary of operations prepared by the Vancouver P o l i c e Dog Squad (Campbell, 1969), the use of dogs has been a d e f i n i t e asset to p o l i c e e f f i c a c y . The use of dogs has increased the number of ar r e s t s i n such si t u a t i o n s as b u i l d i n g searches, tracking and crowd control (Campbell, 1969). 3 It has been claimed that the use of dog teams can prevent or -defuse some potentially dangerous situations. For example, i t has been reported (Campbell, 1969) that because the public believes that dogs are truly effective, the combination of a police off icer and a dog reduces the l ikelihood of criminal act ivi ty in crowds. Campbell (1969) estimated that one well trained dog team can replace ten policemen i n crowd control work at parades, demonstrations, street fes t ivals , and the l i k e . The economic advantages of dog use may be seen in the fact that the mainten-ance of a police dog cost only about $200.per year in 1969. The 1977 est i^ mate (Campbell, personal communication, August 1977) is $350, s t i l l a great saving. In cases where an arrest i s being made once a suspect has been trapped, i t has been found that the criminal usually surrenders more peacefully when confronted by a dog. As a result , the use of police dogs by the Vancouver Police Department alone increased by 12.6% between 1968 and 1969, and their use in arrest situations by 64% between 1967 and 1968. These figures, were collected in the f i r s t formal evaluation of the Dog Squad (Vancouver Police Department, 1969). This i s the last year for which data were available (Campbell, personal communication, 1977). With respect to odor identif icat ion the RCMP favours the use of dogs' In airports and post offices particularly for the detection of explosives, narcotics and restricted agricultural goods (Marshal, 1976). This use of dogs i s common i n several Western Countries, including West Germany, Sweden, and'the Unitedc States -(Schims ca? cl976 ;'.aWideii976,; -Linde & McEathron, 1976),. Dogs i assigned" td^this type 6'fpdetec't%6n\ea'rea^r.a^n'ed*^o.-<recognize : the ^particular odor •to--be-sought ".among '•many.bdif.feeenfceodqrs7 Ms-in -the. iderit'ifip 4 c a t i o n o f s u s p e c t s , t h e r e have been many r e p o r t e d i n s t a n c e s o f a c c u r a t e d e t e c t i o n ; b u t t h e r e a r e no s y s t e m a t i c assessments o f o v e r a l l p e r f o r m a n c e e f f e c t i v e n e s s . W i t h human o d o r s , p o l i c e have s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e dog l e a r n s t o i d e n -t i f y " something more tha n j u s t t h e s c e n t o f t h e p e r s o n " ( C a m p b e l l , 1969). I n f a c t i t i s sometimes c l a i m e d t h a t t r a i n e d dogs w i l l n o t c a p t u r e a non-g u i l t y i n d i v i d u a l , s i n c e t h e dog i s s a i d t o r e s p o n d t o a uniq u e " g u i l t " o d o r . However, t h e r e i s no s c i e n t i f i c e v i d e n c e as t o t h e dogs' a l l e g e d g u i l t - d i s c r i m i n a t i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s . A t p r e s e n t , t h e o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l -a b l e about t h e use o f dogs i n c r i m i n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s t o be found i n p o l i c e r e c o r d s . A c c o r d i n g t o Ca m p b e l l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , many p o l i c e dogmasters b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a c h e m i c a l component, a d e t e c t a b l e s u b s t a n c e e m i t t e d when a g u i l t y i n d i v i d u a l c o n f r o n t s the p o l i c e , w h i c h d i f f e r s f rom n o r m a l human s c e n t . T h i s f a c t o r e n a b l e s e x p e r i e n c e d dogs t o i d e n t i f y c r i m i n a l o f f e n d e r s even i n t he p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l odors.. A p o l i c e dog w i t h some months o r y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e w i t h c r i m i n a l s and c r i m i n a l s u s p e c t s can s u p p o s e d l y r e c o g n i z e t h i s s m e l l emanating f r o m p e r s o n s who a r e i n an e m o t i o n a l s t a t e t h a t combines elements o f f e a r , h o s t i l i t y and r e s e n t m e n t . I t i s s a i d t o be t h i s c o m b i n a t i o n o f e m o t i o n s , whose o l f a c t o r y c o n c o m i t a n t i s r e f e r r e d t o as t h e odo r o f g u i l t , t h a t t h e dog has l e a r n e d as a c r i t i c a l s t i m u l u s . W h i l e t h e r e i s no d i r e c t b i o c h e m i c a l e v i d e n c e on t h i s p o i n t , i t i s c o n -c e i v a b l e t h a t a p e r s o n i n t h i s s p e c i a l complex e m o t i o n a l s t a t e may emit a p a r t i c u l a r c o m b i n a t i o n o f c h e m i c a l m o l e c u l e s t h a t t h e dog can l e a r n t o r e c o g n i z e and i d e n t i f y , and t h a t he w i l l i n d i c a t e t o h i s m a s t e r . 5 A c c o r d i n g t o W r i g h t (1964) as w e l l as Campbell ( 1 9 6 9 ) , an e x p e r i -enced p o l i c e dog can d i s t i n g u i s h t h e "odor o f g u i l t " f rom n o r m a l a n x i e t y caused s i m p l y by b e i n g a b y s t a n d e r i n a p o l i c e dog t r a c k i n g o r s e a r c h s i t u a t i o n . To d a t e , however, no s t u d i e s have been done t o t e s t t h e v a l i -d i t y o f t h i s b e l i e f . I n one common s i t u a t i o n , dogs a r e used t o d e t e c t p e o p l e u n l a w f u l l y c o n c e a l e d i n a b u i l d i n g . P o l i c e dogs a r e t r a i n e d t o d e t e c t s c e n t s from d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s , c l a s s i f i e d as ground s c e n t , c o n t a c t s c e n t and w i n d -b orne s c e n t . I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o n d i t i o n , t h e dog r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y on c u r r e n t s o f a i r , w h i c h c a r r y t h e f r e s h s c e n t o f t h e h i d d e n p e r s o n t h r o u g h -out t h e a r e a . F o r t h i s t a s k i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o have a t h o r o u g h l y e x p e r i -enced dog who has p a r t i c i p a t e d i n s e v e r a l s u c c e s s f u l a p p r e h e n s i o n s ; n o v i c e dogs a r e e a s i l y c o n f u s e d by t h e s i t u a t i o n ( C a m p b e l l , 1 9 6 9 ) . The dogs a r e t r a i n e d i n s u c h a way t h a t t h e y can f i n d p e r s o n s i n d i f -f e r e n t a r e a s . When an i n d i v i d u a l i s l o c a t e d , t h e dog f a c e s . t h e - l o c a t i o n and b a r k s u n t i l t he h a n d l e r a r r i v e s . The dog i s t r a i n e d t o do a n y t h i n g t o p r e v e n t e s c a p e , a l t h o u g h he w i l l b i t e o n l y i f t h e p e r s o n a t t a c k s h im o r the dogmaster. When s e a r c h i n g a b u i l d i n g , t h e dog i s under t h e c o n t r o l and gu i d a n c e o f h i s h a n d l e r b u t i s u n l e a s h e d u n t i l t h e s u s p e c t i s fo u n d . One o b v i o u s q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n s t h e t r a n s m i t t a l o f i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e dog t o h i s m a s t e r . Dog m a s t e r s f i n d i t v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o d e s c r i b e o r e x p l a i n t h e l e v e l o f communication t h a t t h e y e s t a b l i s h w i t h t h e i r dogs. I n g e n e r a l t h e y say t h a t t h e s y s t e m combines t h e a n i m a l ' s sounds and ges-t u r e s t o e x p r e s s a complete message, and t h a t t h i s code s y s t e m i s d e v e l o p e d and l e a r n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e t r a i n i n g p r o c e s s . E v e n t u a l l y , t h e h a n d l e r i s a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t t h e a n i m a l ' s sounds and g e s t u r e s as e x p r e s s i n g 6 r e a c t i o n s r a n g i n g from i n j u r y t o enjoyment-:,. The main sounds a r e c a t e g o r -i z e d as b a r k , g r o w l , w h i n e , and whimper. These sounds a r e accompanied by p h y s i c a l movements, s t a n c e s and f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n s , w h i c h a l s o have s p e c i f i c meanings ( C a m p b e l l , 1 9 6 9 ) . A l l o f t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s l e a d t o many q u e s t i o n s : Are p o l i c e dogs r e a l l y a c c u r a t e i n i d e n t i f y i n g c r i m i n a l s ? What cues a r e i n v o l v e d i n the p r o c e d u r e t h a t a l l o w s t h e dog t o p i c k t h e g u i l t y p e r s o n and t h e h a n d l e r t o r e s p o n d a c c o r d i n g l y ? How a c c u r a t e i s t h e t e c h n i q u e ? I s t h i s method b e t -t e r t h a n o t h e r methods i n i d e n t i f y i n g g u i l t y s u s p e c t s ? The p r e s e n t s t u d y a t t e m p t s t o answer t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . R e s e a r c h On Canine O l f a c t i o n A c c o r d i n g t o our p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h e dogmasters o f t h e V a n c o u v e r P o l i c e Dog Squad, t h e most i m p o r t a n t cue u s e d by t h e dog i n p u r s u i t i s t h e s m e l l emanating from t h e s u s p e c t o r c r i m i n a l . The s u s -p e c t ' s b o d i l y movements p r o v i d e a s e c o n d , much l e s s i m p o r t a n t , s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n . A l t h o u g h t h i s i s c o n s e n s u a l among the d o g m a s t e r s , t h e r e i s s u r p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e a r e a (see W r i g h t , 1 9 6 4 ) . The b e l i e f -i s p l a u s i b l e , g i v e n t h a t t h e dog has an e x t r e m e l y w e l l d e v e l o p e d o l f a c t o r y system. F o r example, t h e number o f c i l i a p e r o l f a c t o r y r e c e p t o r i s one c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n o l f a c t o r y a c u i t y . I n t h e dog, t h e number v a r i e s f r o m 100 t o 150, c o n t r a s t e d t o ranges o f 6 t o 8 i n human b e i n g s , 15 t o 20 i n t h e r a t and a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40 i n t h e d o m e s t i c c a t (I-Br.own, 1975) . I t has b e e n shown t h a t dogs can d e t e c t t h e a l i p h a t i c a c i d s p r e s e n t i n s k i n s e c r e -t i o n s a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s l e s s t h a n one m i l l i o n t h o f t h e o l f a c t o r y t h r e s h o l d f o r human s m e l l (NeUhaus, 1957). P o l i c e dogs a r e even more l i k e l y t o 7 have good s m e l l i n g c a p a b i l i t y : German s h e p h e r d s , used e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e Vancouver Squad, a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m o t h e r b r e e d s by t h e i r s u p e r i o r o l f a c t o r y a c u i t y , among o t h e r d e s i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( C a m p b e l l , 1969). I n v i e w o f t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d f u n d a m e n t a l r o l e o f s m e l l i n t h e work o f the p o l i c e dog, i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o examine t h e r e s u l t s o f e x p e r i m e n t s r e l a t e d t o c a n i n e p e r f ormance i n d e t e c t i n g and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g o d o r s . I t has been shown t h a t dogs have no d i f f i c u l t y i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e owner o f p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n s , such as w a l l e t s o r h a n d k e r c h i e f s . They can do t h i s even w i t h o b j e c t s t h a t have been d e o d o r i z e d and t h e n h a n d l e d v e r y b r i e f l y (Kalmus, 1955; L o h n e r , 1926). P o l i c e dogs t r a i n e d t o f o l l o w human t r a c k s and show-dogs t r a i n e d t o r e t r i e v e o b j e c t s p r e v i o u s l y h a n d l e d by p e o p l e can d i s t i n g u i s h between the body o d o r s o f d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s . (Kalmus, 1955). T h i s i s t r u e even when t h e p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d a r e a l l mem-b e r s o f a s i n g l e f a m i l y . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f body odor a r e i d e n t i f i e d by the dog r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e b o d i l y r e g i o n from w h i c h the s m e l l emanates ( e . g . , palm,, a r m p i t , s o l e ) a l t h o u g h t h e s e r e g i o n a l o d o r s appear q u i t e d i f f e r e n t t o t h e human nose. P e r s o n a l o d o r s a r e d i s - . c r i m i n a t e d by t h e dog even when a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c e n t s a r e mixed w i t h t h a t o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n o r w i t h v a r i o u s s t r o n g s m e l l i n g s u b s t a n c e s (Kalmus, 1955). I n r e t r i e v a l s i t u a t i o n s , dogs cannot d i s c r i m i n a t e between t h e body o d o r s o f i d e n t i c a l t w i n s i f t h e s c e n t s a r e e n c o u n t e r e d one a f t e r t h e o t h e r (Kalmus, 1 9 5 5 ) . However, i n t r a c k i n g s i t u a t i o n s , where t h e o d o r s o f two i d e n t i c a l t w i n s a r e p r e s e n t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i n mixed f o r m , the s c e n t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d by t h e dogs. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , when t h e dog 8 i s f a m i l i a r i z e d with the odor of one twin, and then i s presented i n a test with that of the other and of unrelated i n d i v i d u a l s , he can pick out the scent of the twin even though he had not previously encountered i t . Thus, i t seems that under some conditions dogs can d i s t i n g u i s h be-tween i d e n t i c a l twin partners, although t h e i r odors are evidently more si m i l a r to each other than those of any p a i r of l e s s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d people. The work of Lubow, Kahn, and Fromtrier(1973, 1976) approached the study of the dog as an information processing system i n a di s c r i m i n a t i o n s i t u a -t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r i t was of i n t e r e s t to f i n d out whether there were s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the dog i n the di s c r i m i n a t i o n process as a r e s u l t of i t s well-developed o l f a c t o r y system. Lubow et al.found a d e f i -n i t e learning process's;1 the dogs showed a high l e v e l of r e t e n t i o n of these discriminations even a f t e r two months. Early learning was r e t r i e v e d bet-te r than l a t e r learning (Lubow et a l . , 1973). Later studies (Lubow e_t a l . , 1976) found that dogs used a p o s i t i o n habit ( l e f t - p o s i t i o n preference) as part of t h e i r sampling strategy. This 'tactic i s s i m i l a r to those found i n rats ( H a l l , 1974; Handler, 1966; S i e g e l , 1967). The dogs exhibited this behavior regardless of the l o c a -tion of the previously reinforced stimulus. The p o s i t i o n habit seemed to be important as the basis for more complex and successful approaches, since i t was modified rather than abandoned i n l a t e r t r i a l s as the sampling strategy became incr e a s i n g l y e f f i c i e n t . As the review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s , there are both p h y s i o l o g i -c a l and behavioral data to support the contention that dogs have high acuity i n detecting, following, and i d e n t i f y i n g human scent. Consequently, there is no reason so far to reject the hypothesis that they could d i s -tinguish a smell related to particular emotional or biochemical conditions. If such specific odors do i n fact exist , were the emission of such smells demonstrated, the occurrence and detection of a guil t odor would seem to be acceptable as a hypothesis for research. Social Olfaction Thei.actual3.role of scents i n social communication has been the topic of several investigations. In particular , researchers have looked at the communicative consequences of pheromones produced i n specific emotional states. While most of this work has been done with infrahuman species, there i s some evidence of similar mechanisms operating at the human level as well . Cheal and Sprott (1971) have argued that an important contribution of olfaction research is the poss ibi l i ty of helping to understand animal communication. Since the senses of vis ion and auditionv are.-in general superior to£theetac1iile'candc;olrf aotory senses s in-"man, chuman^communication tends to rely upon the f i r s t two channels. But many other species, including the largely nocturnal rodents, are quite sensitive to smell stimuli and may therefore rely upon an olfaction to a greater extent. For example, albino mice use only olfactory cues to discriminate among conspecifics, either-of the same or opposite sex (Kalkowski, 1967, 1968). The disadvantage of less specificity in localization may be offset by longer persistence of the s t i -mulus and i t s detectability over f a i r l y long distances. The existence of chemical communication through pheromones has been shown in a variety of 10 a n i m a l s , i n c l u d i n g some i n v e r t e b r a t e s , and has been h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be the f i r s t t y p e o f communication i n p r o t o z o a ( C h e a l and S p r o t t , 1 9 7 1 ) . Pheromones, w h i c h a r e f r e q u e n t l y m entioned as a g e n t s i n o l f a c t o r y c o m m u n i c a t i o n , have been d e f i n e d as " C h e m i c a l o d o r s e m i t t e d b y one i n d i -v i d u a l and p e r c e i v e d b y a s e c o n d , and i n t h e l a t t e r , a c t i n g on the hypo-thalamus and a s s o c i a t e d l i m b i c s t r u c t u r e s , c a u s i n g hormonal e f f e c t s " ( S c h n e i d e r , 1974, p. 2 2 0 ) . The t e r m pheromone i s d e r i v e d from t h e Greek " p h e r e i n " meaning t o c a r r y and "horman" meaning t o e x c i t e o r t o s t i m u l a t e ( C h e a l & S p r o t t , 1 9 7 1 ) . A l t h o u g h pheromones may a l s o a c t on t h e r e c i p i e n t by i n g e s t i o n and a b s o r p t i o n , o n l y o l f a c t o r y pheromones have so f a r been i d e n t i f i e d i n mammals, Workers have d i v i d e d pheromones i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s , p r i m e r s and r e l e a s e r s . The f i r s t o f t h e s e t y p e s has t h e e f f e c t o f i n i t i a t -i n g a p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n , w h i c h may be i n t h e form o f e n d o c r i n e , morphogenic, o r m e t a b o l i c changes. The second t y p e t r i g g e r s a b e h a v i o r a l r e s p o n s e . R e l e a s e r s have a l s o b e e n c a l l e d s i g n a l l i n g pheromones, t o a v o i d t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f a r e f l e x i v e o r a u t o m a t i c S-R "release-".'' From t h i s p o i n t of" v i e w , the pheromone i s i n t e r p r e t e d as p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h the r e c i p i e n t m a y — b u t does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y have t o — u s e as a r e s p o n s e - e v o k i n g s t i m u l u s ( C h e a l & S p r o t t , 1 9 7 1 ) . Among ma j o r a r e a s i n w h i c h pheromones have been shown t o a f f e c t be-h a v i o u r a l and/or p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n s a r e r e p r o d u c t i o n and f e a r o r s t r e s s r e a c t i o n s . F o r example, when female mice t h a t had been exposed t o male mice a r e s u b s e q u e n t l y housed w i t h s t r a n g e m a l e s , t h e y shew b l o c k i n g of p r e g n a n c y ; t h i s e f f e c t d i s a p p e a r s when t h e f e m a l e s ' o l f a c t o r y b u l b s a r e removed, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the s e n s i n g o f a pheromonerj was a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r 11 ( B r u c e , 1959, 1961). On t h e o t h e r hand, f e m a l e s housed w i t h o t h e r f e -males o c c a s i o n a l l y show a p r o l o n g e d d i e s t r o u s phase (pseudopregnancy) i n t e r r u p t i n g the r e g u l a r e s t r o u s c y c l e , j u s t as do f e m a l e s mated w i t h s t e r i l e males (yan-aier^Lee, &i.,B&.'ot',11955., 1956.),. .Cheal? arndt: S p r o t t (1971) argue t h a t t h i s d i s r u p t i o n i s due t o the a c t i o n o f a pheromone. S e x u a l a t t r a c -t i o n may-also i n v o l v e a pheromone s i g n a l l i n g s ystem ( S i e n g e r , A g o s t a , O ' C o n n e l l , P f a f f m a n , Bowen & F i e l d , 1976). Pheromones e m i t t e d by s t r e s s e d a n i m a l s a r e a p p a r e n t l y a l s o d i s c r i m i -n a t e d by c o n s p e c i f i c s . F o r example, mice p r e f e r t h e o d o r o f male mice who had been v i c t o r i o u s ' i n an a g g r e s s i v e i n t e r a c t i o n i n p r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t o f d e f e a t e d f i g h t e r s , and a l s o p r e f e r the odor o f i s o l a t e d ( n o n - f i g h t i n g ) i n d i v i d u a l s o v e r t h a t o f l o s e r s ( C a r r , M a r t o r a n o & Krames, 1970). I n a p a s s i v e a v o i d a n c e s t u d y , mice e x t i n g u i s h e d more s l o w l y when e x -p o s e d t o t h e o d o r o f s u b j e c t s t h a t were s t i l l r e c e i v i n g shock as compared t o t h e odor o f o t h e r a n i m a l s on an e x t i n c t i o n s c h e d u l e ( S p r o t t , 1969). They a r e a l s o a v e r s i v e t o t h e odor o f a s t r e s s e d c o n s p e c i f i c ( M u e l l e r -V e l t o n , 1 9 6 6 ) , even though t h e y a r e a t t r a c t e d ,to t h a t o f a n o n s t r e s s e d one (Rottman & Snowdown, 1973). I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h i s e f f e c t i s u n r e l a t e d t o d e f e c a t i o n and u r i n a t i o n by the s t r e s s e d a n i m a l . Rottman and Snowdown a l s o found t h a t r e moval o f t h e o l f a c t o r y mucosa a b o l i s h e d t h e a v e r s i o n . W h i l e t h i s c l e a r l y i m p l i e s t h e o l f a c t o r y a c t i o n o f t h e pheromone, e n v i r o n -m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s were a l s o r e l e v a n t * ; a n i m a l s t h a t were s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d f o r 12 weeks a f t e r w e a ning d i d " n o t r e s p o n d as d i d p n o r m a l s , even though t h e y d i d e m i t the same odors ( i . e . , evoked t h e same r e s p o n s e i n n o r m a l a n i -m a l s ) . Thus, t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t p h e r o m o n e - t r a n s m i t t e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a c t e d upon was s u p p o r t e d . W i t h s t r e s s e d r a t s , L o r e 12 B l a n c and S u e d f e l d (1971) showed t h a t a n i m a l s t h a t had o b s e r v e d conspe-c i f i c s w h i c h were l e a r n i n g an escape r e s p o n s e , l e a r n e d t h a t r e s p o n s e more r a p i d l y . A g a i n , t h e e m i s s i o n o f a pheromone was p r o p o s e d as a p r o -b a b l e m e d i a t i n g v a r i a b l e . S t r e s s may l e a d t o t h e e m i s s i o n o f a g e n e r a l s i g n a l l i n g pheromone w h i c h i n d i c a t e s danger and may r e s u l t i n a v o i d a n c e ( V a l e n t a & R i g b y , 1968). Pheromone r e s e a r c h w i t h a number o f s p e c i e s and a v a r i e t y o f r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s has f u r t h e r documented the i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s c ommunication chan-n e l . A d e t a i l e d r e v i e w was r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d by T h i e s i e n and R i c e ( 1 9 7 6 ) , c o v e r i n g r e s e a r c h w i t h mammals, and a ne w l y p u b l i s h e d book ( S h o r e y , 1976) a l s o d e a l s w i t h t h e phenomenon. S i n c e o u r i n t e r e s t h e r e i s p r i m a r i l y i n cues t h a t may be g i v e n o f f by human b e i n g s and d e t e c t a b l e by dogs, the l i t e r a t u r e on human pheromones w a r r a n t s a c l o s e r l o o k a t t h i s p o i n t . Pheromones i n Human B e i n g s I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e p e a t e d d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f p h e r o -mones i n l o w e r a n i m a l s , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h shows t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t p h e r o -mones a l s o c o u l d be p r e s e n t i n human b e i n g s . F o r example, Comfort (1971) s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f pheromones i n man g e n e r a l l y a p p ears t o be t h e s k i n , b u t the a x i l l a r y and p u b i c a p o c r i n e g l a n d s and t h e smegma a r e p a r -t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t s i t e s i n b o t h s e x e s . The a x i l l a r y s e c r e t i o n a p p ears t o be t h e s o u r c e o f a s o c i a l pheromone. M c C l i n t o c k (1971) r e p o r t e d a s t u d y w i t h 135 female r e s i d e n t s o f a c o l l e g e d o r m i t o r y . She found t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n s y n c h r o n i z a t i o n o f t h e o n s e t o f m e n s t r u a t i o n among roomates, and a l s o t h a t the e x t e n t o f s o c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e female s u b j e c t s and male s t u -d e n t s a f f e c t e d the l e n g t h o f t h e m e n s t r u a l c y c l e . M c C l i n t o c k ' s c o n c l u s i o n 13 was t h a t t h e s e e f f e c t s were due t o b i o c h e m i c a l changes i n i t i a t e d by t h e a c t i o n o f p r i m e r pheromones. S e v e r a l a u t h o r s have s u g g e s t e d t h a t s e x u a l p r o c e s s e s i n human b e i n g s , as w e l l as i n o t h e r a n i m a l s , a r e communicated by s m e l l . "The e v i d e n c e appears q u i t e c o n v i n c i n g t h a t o dors a r e c a p a b l e o f a c t i v a t i n g h y p o t h a l a m i c -r e l e a s i n g f a c t o r s w h i c h i n t u r n a l l o w p i t u i t a r y r e l e a s e o f t r o p h i c h o r -mones a f f e c t i n g t h e hormonal s e c r e t i o n s o f t h e gonads and t h e a d r e n a l c o r -t e x " ( S c h n e i d e r , 1974, p. 2 2 2 ) . A s t u d y c o n c e r n i n g human s o c i a l o l f a c t i o n was r e p o r t e d by McBurnay, L e v i n e and Cavanaugh (1977). A group o f g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s p r o v i d e d sam-p l e s o f body odor (sweated s h i r t s ) . They were t h e n t o l d t o r a t e t h e od o r o f each s t i m u l u s f o r p l e a s a n t n e s s o r u n p l e a s a n t n e s s , u s i n g a s t a n d a r d mag-n i t u d e e s t i m a t i o n p r o c e d u r e , and t o e v a l u a t e the od o r donors u s i n g b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s c a l e s . They a l s o a t t e m p t e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e i r own o d o r . Re-s u l t s showed a h i g h p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e r a t e d u n p l e a s a n t n e s s o f an odor and the s o c i a l u n d e s i r a b i l i t y o f the t r a i t s a s c r i b e d t o t h e s o u r c e o f t h e odor. S u b j e c t s t y p i c a l l y r a t e d t h e i r own od o r as t h e most p l e a s a n t , even though t h e y d e m o n s t r a t e d o n l y m a r g i n a l a b i l i t y t o i d e n t i f y i t as t h e i r own. Not enough r e s e a r c h has been done i n t h i s a r e a , and t h e r e a r e s t i l l many q u e s t i o n s t o answer about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f human pheromones and t h e i r p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s on b e h a v i o r . A l t h o u g h , t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e o f the p r e s e n c e o f pheromones a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r e m o t i o n s such as a g g r e s s i v e n e s s and f e a r i n a n i m a l s , t o my knowledge t h e r e i s no s u c h r e -s e a r c h on human b e i n g s . 14 Canine Detection of G u i l t : The Hypothesis In summary, experienced f i e l d i n vestigators i n one of the world's outstanding p o l i c e dog squads (Wright, 1976) strongly believe that the odor of human g u i l t reaction can be i d e n t i f i e d by the p o l i c e dog. This odor i s supposedly the product of biochemical processes associated with the emotions of fear, h o s t i l i t y and resentment, the emotions that g u i l t y persons are purported to experience when confronting the p o l i c e . We have seen that the o l f a c t o r y acuity of dogs i s quite high. Ana-l y s i s of t h e i r sensory mechanisms and behavioural experiments both i n d i -cate impressive s e n s i t i v i t y i n di s t i n g u i s h i n g s p e c i f i c o d o r s — i n c l u d i n g those emanating from human beings. They also have an impressive a b i l i t y to follow and locate the sources of the scent, as shown by con t r o l l e d ex-periments as w e l l as p o l i c e records. I t i s also clear that i n various species of animals o l f a c t o r y cues are emitted as signs of s p e c i f i c emotional and biochemical states. The states associated with such secretions include fear and aggressiveness, both of which are related to the hypothetical odor of g u i l t as described above. While the existence of these s p e c i f i c pheromones i n human beings has not yet been demonstrated, there i s some evidence for human s o c i a l o l f a c t i o n and no reason to exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that smell cues for fear and aggressiveness may also be emitted. Thus, i t appears worth while to test the hypothesis that p o l i c e dogs can detect a s p e c i a l scent emanating from g u i l t y i n d i v i d u a l s , i d e n t i f y the source, and communicate that i d e n t i t y to t h e i r handlers. The current study was designed to test that hypothesis. Of necessity, the " g u i l t " had to be produced i n a simulation s i t u a t i o n ; but i t was considered c r u c i a l 15 to use dog teams trained and experienced in.the actual detection of criminal suspects (see Wright, 1964). As a minor point, comparability of performance across dog teams was included, since even i f the general phenomenon were demonstrated i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to evaluate the ex-istence and degree of i n d i v i d u a l differences i n this context. The absolute l e v e l of accuracy of the dog teams was, of course, one of the major dependent v a r i a b l e s . But even supposing that the teams were not completely accurate—and we did not expect e r r o r l e s s p erformance—it would be important to see how t h e i r a b i l i t y to detect g u i l t compared to other methods for achieving that goal. For this reason,, the design of the experiment included another frequently used, c o n t r o v e r s i a l technique i n the p o l i c e r e p e r t o i r e : the polygraph examination. 16 The P o l y g r a p h P o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n was chosen as t h e second t e c h n i q u e i n t h i s s t u d y f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . P o l y g r a p h s a r e w i d e l y used by b o t h p o l i c e and p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , and i n some ways t h e i r s t a t u s r e s e m b l e s t h a t o f p o l i c e dogs;:, t h a t i s , i n d i v i d u a l s u s i n g them a r e f i r m l y c o n v i n c e d o f t h e i r a c c u r a c y , b u t t h e y have o n l y tenuous l e g a l s t a n d i n g and t h e i r employment may a r o u s e p u b l i c c o n t r o v e r s y . There i s c o n s i d e r a b l y more r e s e a r c h on p o l y g r a p h i c l i e d e t e c t i o n , however, and t h e e v i d e n c e a t t e s t i n g t o t h e g e n e r a l h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f v a l i d i d e n -t i f i c a t i o n s u s i n g t h i s t e c h n i q u e i s q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t . T h i s makes the method an a p p r o p r i a t e one a g a i n s t w h i c h t o check t h e v a l i d i t y o f p o l i c e dog i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , i t was d e s i r a b l e t o a v o i d approaches s u c h as i n t e n s i v e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , w h i c h w o u l d be s t r e s s f u l t o the s u b j e c t s . As a l a s t p o i n t , even though t h e r e i s a s i z e a b l e s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e t e s t i n g p o l y g r a p h v a l i d i t y , most s i m u l a t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s have n o t used f i e l d i n v e s t i g a t o r s , equipment, and p r o c e d u r e s . Thus, t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y c o u l d add t o the r e l e v a n t d a t a on p o l y g r a p h use b e s i d e s u t i l i z i n g t h e t e c h n i q u e as a co m p a r i s o n b a s e l i n e f o r t h e performance o f t h e dog teams. As has been m e n t i o n e d , " l i e - d e t e c t i o n " b y means o f t h e p o l y g r a p h i s a v e r y w i d e l y used t e c h n i q u e . Many p o l i c e departments use i t as an a d -j u n c t t o the i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f s u s p e c t s and w i t n e s s e s , and i t s use by p r i -v a t e a g e n c i e s i n h i r i n g p e r s o n n e l and i n t e r r o g a t i n g employees has been s p r e a d i n g t h r o u g h o u t N o r t h A m e r i c a , W h i l e i n g e n e r a l p o l y g r a p h e v i d e n c e has had no l e g a l s t a n d i n g i n t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m , a r e c e n t 17 d e c i s i o n i n a Vancouver c o u r t a d m i t t e d p o l y g r a p h r e s u l t s as i n t e r p r e t e d by an e x p e r t p s y c h o l o g i s t t o s t a n d as e v i d e n c e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e j u r y . T h i s may be a p r e c e d e n t t h a t w i l l be f o l l o w e d by o t h e r c o u r t s ; i f s o , t h e use and r e s p e c t a b i l i t y o f t h e " l i e d e t e c t o r " w i l l be l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e even f u r t h e r . The v a l i d i t y o f p o l y g r a p h d a t a must be j u d g e d on t h e b a s i s o f two k i n d s o f e v i d e n c e . One i s r e p r e s e n t e d by p u b l i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g the r e -s u l t s o f p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n t h e f i e l d , w h i l e t h e o t h e r stems f r o m s y s t e m a -t i c l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s . Our r e v i e w w i l l f o c u s on t h e s e m a t e r i a l s , and w i l l o m i t as i r r e l e v a n t t h e v o l u m i n o u s l i t e r a t u r e on s u c h t e c h n i c a l i s s u e s as i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , d e t a i l s o f s c o r i n g GSR r e c o r d s , and so on. I n h i s h i s t o r i c a l r e v i e w , H o r v a t h (1976) d e s c r i b e s s e v e r a l a n t e c e -d e n t s o f the modern p o l y g r a p h . These i n c l u d e m e d i e v a l " o r d e a l s " such as t h e t o u c h i n g o f h o t i r o n s t o t h e tongue o f t h e s u s p e c t . The g u i l t y p a r t y was supposed t o show b u r n s , w h i l e t h e i n n o c e n t remained u n s c a t h e d . I t may be argued t h a t t h e a c t u a l p e r p e t r a t o r w o u l d e x p e r i e n c e a n x i e t y , l e a d -i n g t o d i m i n i s h e d s a l i v a t i o n , and t h u s t o re d u c e d p r o t e c t i o n from t h e h e a t e d o b j e c t ; and t h a t t h e i n n o c e n t s u s p e c t s w o u l d have s u f f i c i e n t m o i s t u r e i n t he mouth t o m i n i m i z e t i s s u e damage. T h i s o f c o u r s e , p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e y had so much f a i t h i n the e f f i c a c y o f the t e c h n i q u e t h a t t h e y f e l t no a n x i e t y — a n h y p o t h e s i s t h a t may a l s o be r e l e v a n t t o t h e e f f e c t s o f p r e - . s e n t day l i e d e t e c t i o n . The b e g i n n i n g o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l l i e d e t e c t i n g was p r o b a b l y t h e use i n 1895 o f a hydrosphymoggrabh ( H o r v a t h , 1976). A c o m b i n a t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures and o b s e r v a t i o n was used t o d e t e c t l y i n g . M u n s t e r b e r g (1908) d i s c u s s e d t h e changes i n 18 breathing, blood flow, skin conductivity and involuntary b o d i l y movements that accompany attempts to deceive. In 1914, Benussi and Moston began a serie s of laboratory experiments on the e f f e c t s of l y i n g on breathing and blood pressure. Even though those studies omitted relevant controls, they were c r u c i a l i n pioneering this approach to the development of l i e detection (Larson, 1969). From t h i s beginning, Larson (1921) developed modified instrumentation and pro-cedures to make possible the continuous recording of blood pressure, pulse r a t e , and r e s p i r a t i o n . Even today, most f i e l d examiners agree that the measurement of cardiovascular and respiratory a c t i v i t y i s the c r u c i a l minimum of p h y s i o l o g i c a l recording i n detecting deception (e.g., Ansley, 1972). Most of the systematic research on the polygraph has been conducted by experimental psychologists rather than by p r a c t i t i o n e r s . The most com-monly used procedure involves the commission of a simulated crime, with h a l f of the subjects i n the g u i l t y and h a l f i n the non-guilty groups. The c r u c i a l test of polygraph accuracy i s the correct i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the group to which each subject belongs by a b l i n d operator (Horvath, 1976). Aside from the obvious question as to the external v a l i d i t y of the simu-l a t i o n s i t u a t i o n , the research has many other dubious c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Horvath rs (1976) c r i t i c a l review l i s t s among these the use of college s t u -dents as the subject population, exclusive r e l i a n c e on the galvanic skin response as the sole p h y s i o l o g i c a l measure used, t e s t i n g by laboratory-trained research s t a f f , and data analysis on the ba s i s of s p e c i f i e d objec-t i v e c r i t e r i a . While these factors increase the degree of control and s t a t i s t i c a l r igour, they make the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s to 19 a c t u a l f i e l d p r o c e d u r e s somewhat tenuous. Summers ( 1 9 3 9 ) , one o f t h e f i r s t r e s e a r c h e r s t o use t h i s a p p r o a c h , c l a i m e d t h a t h i s t e c h n i q u e was c o r r e c t 98% o f t h e t i m e i n s e p a r a t i n g " g u i l t y . ^ , ' " i n n o c e n t a n d " a c c o m p l i c e " s u b j e c t s i n a c r i m e s i t u a t i o n . I n a r e c e n t s t u d y , B a r l a n d and R a s k i n (1975) a s s i g n e d 36 c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s each t o the g u i l t y and i n n o c e n t c o n d i t i o n s i n a s i m u l a t e d t h e f t e x p e r i -ment. They were t o l d t h a t the " s t o l e n " money ($10.00) wo u l d be t h e i r s t o keep i f t h e y c o n v i n c e d t h e p o l y g r a p h examiner o f t h e i r i n n o c e n c e . Sub-j e c t e x p e c t a n c y was a l s o c o n t r o l l e d : 12 s u b j e c t s i n each c o n d i t i o n were l e d t o b e l i e v e i n t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e p o l y g r a p h , 12 i n i t s l a c k o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and 12 were g i v e n no e x p e c t a n c y i n d u c t i o n . B o t h a s t r i c t l y q u a n t i t a t i v e and a more g e n e r a l f i e l d method o f s c o r i n g showed h i g h a c c u r -a c y , w i t h 81% o f the " c o n c l u s i v e " c a t e g o r y a s s i g n m e n t s b e i n g c o r r e c t . There was, however, a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of " i n c o n c l u s i v e " r a t i n g s . F i v e o t h e r e x a m i n e r s , who s c o r e d t h e p r o t o c o l s b l i n d , o b t a i n e d a mean i n t e r -e xaminer c o r r e l a t i o n o f .86 on t o t a l s c o r e s . D i s c r i m i n a t i v e a b i l i t y was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t on a l l measures. W i t h abnormal s u b j e c t s , t h e t e c h n i q u e has shown mixed v a l i d i t y . Abrams and W e i n s t e i n (1974) found t h a t t h e y c o u l d d e t e c t t r u t h f u l n e s s , b u t n o t l y i n g , among b o r d e r l i n e r e t a r d a t e s (IQ 65 t o 7 9 ) . A h i g h l e v e l o f i n c o n s i s t e n t r e a c t i v i t y was n o t e d . The p o l y g r a p h was a l s o i n e f f e c t i v e w i t h a s c h i z o p h r e n i c sample (Abrams, 1974). By c o n t r a s t , and w i t h more r e l e v a n c e t o f i e l d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , the p o l y g r a p h a p p e a r s t o have u t i l i t y w i t h p s y c h o p a t h i c s u b j e c t s . I m p r i s o n e d p s y c h o p a t h s were p u t t h r o u g h t h e s t a n d a r d s i m u l a t e d t h e f t s i t u a t i o n by 20 Raskin>&" Hafe (1977) . With. a trained .psychologist ..serving as ..an evaluator 88% of the subjects were c o r r e c t l y categorized as " g u i l t y or innocent" (96% i f "inconclusives" are omitted). Accuracy was about the same as for a sample of nonpsychopathic prisoners, contradicting the general be-l i e f that psychopaths e i t h e r do not f e e l g u i l t y to the same extent as, or can suppress the signs of g u i l t more thoroughly than, normal i n d i v i -duals. In another prison study, L i e b l i c h , Ben (S^ankh'arsarid:Kugelmass (1976) used only the GSR as contrasted to Raskin's u t i l i z a t i o n of GSR, cardiovascular, and r e s p i r a t i o n measures. The a b i l i t y of the r a t e r to - aaMftiSBereae q uSi^^ ? ; S i g f e i Q a n t ^ t h e . 01 l e v e l . I t may be argued that the simulated crime paradigm i s too a r t i f i -c i a l , although t h i s may be interpreted as enhancing the impact of the ex-perimental r e s u l t s since i t demonstrates polygraph accuracy i n even a low-stress s i t u a t i o n . At any rate, two studies i n which the need to de-ceive the l i e detector was more pressing had compatible outcomes. In one, p o l i c e trainees were led to believe that successful deception was important to t h e i r evaluation (Kugelmass & L i e b l i c h , 1966); i n another the tests were given to actual criminal suspects i n the course of the i n -ve s t i g a t i o n (Kugelmass; L i e b l i c h , Ben Is h a i , Opatowski and Kaplan, 1968). GSR responses, but not heart rate, were found to reveal attempts at de-ception. The accuracy of p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n the f i e l d has also been evaluated, with p o s i t i v e results/, Horvath and Reid (1971) obtained polygraph r e -cordings c o l l e c t e d i n f i e l d i n v estigations conducted by Horvath. Forty 21 r e c o r d s were u s e d , o f w h i c h 20 were v e r i f i e d as i n n o c e n t by the c o n f e s s i o n o f a n o t h e r s u s p e c t . Ten p o l y g r a p h examiners employed by a c o m m e r c i a l agency were i n s t r u c t e d t o s e p a r a t e g u i l t y and i n n o c e n t s u s p e c t s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e c o r d s . O v e r a l l , t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s were c o r r e c t i n 88% o f t h e c a s e s . A c c u r a c y r a n g e d . f r o m 79% f o r r e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e r i e n c e d o p e r a t o r s (4 t o 6 months of t r a i n i n g ) t o 91% f o r the more e x p e r i e n c e d ( a t l e a s t one y e a r o f e x p e r i e n c e a f t e r h a v i n g c o m p l e t e d t h e t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m ) . S i m i l a r l y , H u n t e r and A s h (1973) f o u n d 86% a c c u r a c y w i t h seven o p e r a t o r s r a t i n g t r u t h f u l and d e c e p t i v e p o l y g r a p h r e c o r d s . B e r s h (1969) c o l l e c t e d p o l y g r a p h and o t h e r e v i d e n c e f r o m m i l i t a r y c o u r t - m a r t i a l c a s e s , and had t h e n o n - p o l y g r a p h e v i d e n c e e v a l u a t e d i n d e -p e n d e n t l y by f o u r e x p e r i e n c e d l a w y e r s . T h e s e e e v a l u a t o r s were asked t o i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r t h e s u s p e c t was g u i l t y o r n o t on t h e b a s i s o f e v i d e n c e , i g n o r i n g t e c h n i c a l i t i e s . I n o v e r 92% o f t h o s e c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e l e g a l judgement was unanimous, i t a g r e e d w i t h t h e p o l y g r a p h r e s u l t s ; when th e l a w y e r s had o n l y a m a j o r i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , agreement was 75%. P o l y g r a p h agreement w i t h the combined unanimous and m a j o r i t y judgements was 88%. I n a r e p l i c a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n , B a r l a n d (1975) c h e c k e d h i s own p o l y g r a p h d e c i s i o n s w i t h t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e p a n e l o f f i v e l a w y e r s and t h e j u d i c i a l outcome: There was agreement i n 90% o f t h e c a s e s ; a l l d i s a g r e e m e n t s were i n i n s t a n c e s where the c o u r t had a c q u i t t e d t h e s u s p e c t . W i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o f the l e g a l p a n e l , p o l y g r a p h agreement r e a c h e d 79%; i n c a s e s where a t l e a s t f o u r o f f i v e l a w y e r s a g r e e d , c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h p o l y g r a p h was 87%. To i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e t e c h n i q u e s e p a r a t e l y f r o m v a l i d i t y , Rouke (1941) r a n a s i m u l a t e d c r i m e s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g 80 de-l i n q u e n t and 90 n o n - d e l i n q u e n t b o y s . GSR d a t a showed h i g h r e l i a b i l i t y 22 over repeated scorings by the same operator as w e l l as high interjudge r e l i a b i l i t y (approximately 90% agreement). In another r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t , Barland (1972) calculated correlations between a l l possible p a i r s among independent judges r a t i n g GSR measures according to a numerical scoring system proposed by Backster (19690. On the records of 72 subjects i n a simulated crime s i t u a t i o n , the c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from .78 to .95, with a mean of .86, Thus, laboratory-trained scorers have shown high r e l i a -b i l i t y i n evaluating records. These findings support the use of the polygraph i n t h i s study. There was a need for a r e l a t i v e l y v a l i d and frequently used guilty-detec-t i o n technique against which dog team performance could be compared. The l i t e r a t u r e on polygraph accuracy demonstrates that this method f u l f i l l s the requirements. Summary In view of the demonstrated o l f a c t o r y acuity of dogs, the l i k e l i h o o d that s p e c i f i c emotional states i n human beings produce d i f f e r e n t patterns of body odor, and the wwiuie.spread use of p o l i c e canine dcg corps, the be-l i e f of p o l i c e o f f i c e r s that trained dogs can d i s t i n g u i s h between g u i l t y and innocent i n d i v i d u a l s c a l l s f o r an empirical t e s t . No such research has been av a i l a b l e to evaluate the accuracy of the p o l i c e claim. The ex-periment described here was meant to provide such anSevaiuation assessing the a b i l i t y of experienced p o l i c e dog teams to i d e n t i f y g u i l t y suspects i n a simulation s i t u a t i o n more accurately than chance and comparing that a b i l i t y with that of the more fi r m l y validated polygraph examination. 23 METHOD P a r t i c i p a n t s  S u b j e c t s A d v e r t i s e m e n t s were p o s t e d and p l a c e d I n the u n i v e r s i t y newspaper ' o f f e r i n g $5.00 f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n an e x p e r i m e n t l a s t i n g about one and a h a l f h o u r s . The payment f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n was i n d i c a t e d as t h e minimum t h a t w o u l d be e a r n e d , b u t s u b j e c t s c o u l d w i n an a d d i t i o n a l $10.00 depend-i n g upon t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e . I n o r d e r t o r e d u c e e x t r a n e o u s s o u r c e s o f v a r i a b i l i t y , and c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e predominance of males among a r r e s t e d s u s p e c t s (Laughy, P e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , O c t o b e r , 1976) o n l y male v o l u n -t e e r s were i n v i t e d . A t o t a l o f 64 r e s p o n d e n t s c o n s t i t u t e d t h e f i n a l sam-p l e . Dog Teams C o n t a c t was made w i t h t h e Vancouver P o l i c e Dog Squad t h r o u g h a s c i e n -t i s t i n t e r e s t e d i n o l f a c t i o n who has been a c o n s u l t a n t t o the Squad. A f t e r p r o l o n g e d d i s c u s s i o n and s e v e r a l m e e t i n g s , t h e o f f i c e r i n charge d e s i g n a -t e d t h r e e dog teams, i n c l u d i n g h i m s e l f and h i s dog, t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s t u d y . These were among th e most e x p e r i e n c e d teams a v a i l a b l e . Each team c o n s i s t e d o f a p o l i c e dogmaster and a male German Shepherd dog, f u l l y t r a i n e d and w i t h a r e c o r d o f s u c c e s s i n e x t e n s i v e f i e l d work. P a r t i c i p a -t i o n was v o l u n t a r y f o r t h e s e dogmasters. Only one team was a c t i v e a t any p a r t i c u l a r t i m e . I n s t r u c t i o n s t o dogmasters a r e r e p r o d u c e d i n A p p e n d i x A. Polygraph Operators Of s e v e r a l e x p e r i e n c e d p o l y g r a p h o p e r a t o r s who were c o n t a c t e d , two 24 were av a i l a b l e and w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e . Each of them has h i s own polygraph t e s t i n g service a f t e r long experience as a polygraph operator for the RCMP. The equipment used consisted of portable S t o l t i n g poly-graph machines, each with four channels•; two pneumographs, one galvanic skin response and an e l e c t r o n i c a l l y enhanced cardiograph. Three charts were completed for each subject ( f o r more d e t a i l s see Appendix B, p. 1). Both polygraph operators were used simultaneously. Procedure General Orientation Subjects were scheduled so as to appear at the laboratory two at a time. . Upon reporting to the laboratory, the p a i r of subjects was met by a female assistant who, a f t e r making them comfortable, explained that the experiment was concerned with the way i n which p o l i c e personnel made de-ci s i o n s about suspects. They were t o l d that a team from the P o l i c e Dog Squad and a polygraph examination would be involved, but that the dog would be leashed and there would be no physical contact between the subject and the "investigators'"'-- Furthermore, there would be no harassment, intensive in t e r r o g a t i o n or any other sort of unpleasant or demeaning i n t e r a c t i o n . Subjects were also t o l d that they could decide to end t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment at any time (including during the o r i e n t a t i o n ) , would receive t h e i r $5.00, and would not be persuaded to continue. At this point, the subjects were given a typed summary of the f o r e -going information and a consent s l i p . A l l subjects agreed to continue. The rest of the or i e n t a t i o n was given i n d i v i d u a l l y since i t v a r i e d as a function of experimental condition. Neither subject was permitted to 25 hear the s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s given to the other, nor to i n t e r a c t with him u n t i l a f t e r the end of the experimental session. Conditions One of the subjects i n each p a i r was randomly assigned to the G u i l t y and the other to the Not Guilty condition (see below). Simulated Crime Instructions: Subjects i n the G u i l t y condition, a f t e r being b r i e f e d for the experiment i n general, were to l d that one of t h e i r tasks was to commit a simulated crime. This consisted of going to the second f l o o r of the b u i l d i n g where the experiment was conducted, entering a designated o f f i c e that had been l e f t unlocked and taking an envelope containing a $10.00 b i l l that had been l e f t i n a l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i e d by the experimenter. The subject was to hide the envelope and money on h i s person through the remainder of the study. Guilty subjects were informed that there would be two attempts to i d e n t i f y them as having committed the "crimey" one using a polygraph and one using a p o l i c e dog team. The subject's task would be to convince both investigators of h i s innocence; he was to continue claiming to be innocent throughout the rest of the experiment regardless of what the poly-graph operator and the dogmaster s a i d or did. I f both i n v e s t i g a t o r s ac-cepted this claim, the subject would get to keep the $10.00 i n the envelope (see Appendix C for verbatim protocol) , Not Guilty subjects were t o l d only that a p o l i c e dog team and a poly-graph operator would t r y to f i n d out i f they had committed a misdeed. They were to maintain t h e i r innocence and would win $10.00 extra i f the investigators accepted t h e i r claim (verbatim i n s t r u c t i o n s appear i n Appendix D). 26 D e s i g n Of the 64 s u b j e c t s , h a l f were randomly a s s i g n e d t o each of t h e two e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . Each o f t h o s e two groups was i n t u r n randomly d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e s u b g r o u p s , w i t h n = 10, 10 and 12. One subgroup was r u n by each of t h e t h r e e dog teams, a p r o c e d u r e recommended by the o f f i -c e r i n charge o f t h e Dog Squad t o a v o i d h a b i t u a t i o n on t h e p a r t . o f t h e subjectGorfethecd^gt'teams, t o p r e v e n t e x c e s s i v e r e l i a n c e on t h e t a l e n t s o f any one team and t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e s c h e d u l i n g a t t e m p t s o f t h e Dog Squad t o p r o v i d e teams when needed. E v e r y s u b j e c t underwent two " i n v e s t i g a t i o n s " , 1 " o n e by t h e dog team and one by t h e p o l y g r a p h o p e r a t o r . The o r d e r o f t h e s e two e v e n t s was c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d so t h a t e q u a l numbers o f G u i l t y and Not G u i l t y s u b j e c t s e n c o u n t e r e d each i n v e s t i g a t i o n f i r s t . P h y s i c a l F a c i l i t i e s To a v o i d h a b i t u a t i n g t h e dogs, t h e e x p e r i m e n t was r u n i n s i m i l a r f a -c i l i t i e s i n t h r e e l o c a t i o n s on t h e campus o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The a r e a s used were as f o l l o w s : 1. Two o f f i c e s f o r b r i e f i n g t h e s u b j e c t s . 2. One o f f i c e i n w h i c h t h e s i m u l a t e d c r i m e was committed. 3. Two s m a l l s e m i n a r rooms i n w h i c h the p o l y g r a p h examiners p e r f o r m e d t h e i r t e s t s . 4. A s t r e t c h o f c o r r i d o r between rooms. The rooms were used as p l a c e s o f concealment by t h e s u b j e c t s and t h e dog team w a l k e d a l o n g the c o r r i d o r d u r i n g i t s phase of t h e p r o c e -d u r e . T h i s a r e a was around t h e c o r n e r of an L-shaped h a l l so t h a t n e i t h e r the dogmaster n o r t h e p o l y g r a p h i n v e s t i g a -t o r c o u l d t e l l w h i c h s u b j e c t was j u d g e d g u i l t y by t h e o t h e r t e c h n i q u e . 2'7 Dog Test Procedure In the dog test the subject was shown the s t r e t c h of c o r r i d o r men-tioned previously and was t o l d to hide i n one of the rooms a f t e r the ex-perimenter had l e f t so that no one knew exactly where he was. He was i n -structed to hide behind the c u r t a i n , out of sight from the door, and to remain there u n t i l e i t h e r the dog team or the experimenter came to get him. A delay of approximately 15 minutes was imposed before the dog team went into action to allow the subject's odor to reach the hallway. At that time, the leash was removed and the dogmaster gave the command to begin searching. When he decided that the dog had located a "suspect" he r e -placed the leash and entered the classroom indicated. I f no subject was hidden there, the search resumed; i f a subject was found, the dogmaster spoke and acted toward him i n a f r i e n d l y way so that the dog calmed down. The subject was then escorted e i t h e r to the b r i e f i n g room or to the poly-graph examination room by the experimenter and the procedure was repeated with 'the second subject. At the end of this search the dogmaster i n d i c a -ted to the experimenter which subject was "guilty*".. Polygraph Test Procedure Each polygraph examination consisted of three components: thefse were a pre-test procedure, the t e s t i n g , and the post-test. The pre-test was designed to relax the subject, explain what the instrument was about, and develop information that enabled the examiner to assess the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p h y s i c a l and mental health, motivation and general s u i t a b i l i t y for exami-nation. The subject was given the opportunity to confess that he was g u i l t y ; however, he did not undergo any intense i n t e r r o g a t i o n . During a 28 d i s c u s s i o n , t he q u e s t i o n s t h a t were g o i n g t o be used i n t h e e x a m i n a t i o n were p h r a s e d i n the language o f t h e examinee, and were a s c e r t a i n e d t o be r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o r the t e c h n i q u e and n o t ambiguous. Once t h e sub-j e c t a g r e e d t o c o n t i n u e , t h e q u e s t i o n s were r e h e a r s e d t w i c e b e f o r e t h e e x a m i n a t i o n p r o p e r was co n d u c t e d . A t t h a t t i m e , t h e examinee was a t t a c h e d t o t h e p o l y g r a p h and t h e l i s t o f q u e s t i o n s a g r e e d upon was r e p e a t e d t h r e e t i m e s w i t h e a c h s e r i e s r e c o r d -ed on a s e p a r a t e c h a r t . The c h a r t s were t h e n a n a l y z e d and an o p i n i o n was formed by the examiner. When t h e exa m i n e r f e l t t h a t t h e s u b j e c t was n o t g u i l t y , t h e r e was a b r i e f p o s t - t e s t d i s c u s s i o n . When t h e s u b j e c t was s u s p e c t e d o f d e c e p t i o n , he was i n f o r m e d o f t h e examiner^s o p i n i o n and i n v i t e d t o o f f e r an e x p l a n a -t i o n . A f t e r t h e p o s t - t e s t , t h e s u b j e c t d e p a r t e d . The exa m i n e r t h e n went o v e r h i s c h a r t s and n o t e s , and i n f o r m e d t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r whether i n h i s o p i n i o n t h a t s u b j e c t had been i n t h e G u i l t y o r Not G u i l t y c o n d i t i o n . A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f d i v e r s e v a r i e t i e s o f t h e p o l y g r a p h p r o c e -dure and s c o r i n g t e c h n i q u e s a r e g i v e n i n Ap p e n d i x F. S p e c i f i c examples o f the t y p e s o f q u e s t i o n s used i n t h e t e s t a r e g i v e n i n A p p e n d i x B. Orde r o f E v e n t s A f t e r t h e o r i g i n a l b r i e f i n g , t h e G u i l t y s u b j e c t was e s c o r t e d u p s t a i r s where he committed t h e s i m u l a t e d c r i m e . I n t h e meantime, t h e Not G u i l t y s u b j e c t remained i n the b r i e f i n g a r e a u n t i l t h i s was o v e r , and was t h e n . e s c o r t e d t o b e g i n e i t h e r t he p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n o r t h e dog t e s t . A f t e r t a k i n g t h e money, t h e G u i l t y s u b j e c t was a l s o e s c o r t e d t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t i n g a r e a . 29 A t t h e end o f t e s t i n g , b o t h s u b j e c t s s w i t c h e d t o t h e o t h e r t e s t p r o c e d u r e . When t h a t was c o m p l e t e d , t h e s u b j e c t s were e s c o r t e d t o the b r i e f i n g a r e a and d e b r i e f e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . They were t o l d w h e t h e r t h e y had won t h e $10. o f f e r e d f o r c o n v i n c i n g b o t h i n v e s t i g a t o r s o f i n n o c e n c e i n t h e m a t t e r o f the s t o l e n money, and were g i v e n e i t h e r $5 o r $15. Any q u e s t i o n s were answered, t h e y were a s s u r e d t h a t t h e y had done w e l l , and t h e y were thanked f o r t h e i r h e l p . T h e i r a d d r e s s was r e c o r d e d i f t h e y were i n t e r e s t e d i n r e -c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about the r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y . Summary o f V a r i a b l e s A. Independent v a r i a b l e s : I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y the f o l l o w i n g were c o n s i d e r e d as i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s : 1. S i m u l a t e d c r i m e s i t u a t i o n : P a r t i c i p a n t s who t o o k t h e money ( g u i l t y ) vs t h o s e who had no knowledge of t h e c r i m e s i t u a -t i o n (Not g u i l t y ) . 2. D e t e c t i o n method: P o l i c e dog teams and t h e p o l y g r a p h t e s t e r . B. Dependent v a r i a b l e s : S u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e o f t h e dog teams and t h e p o l y g r a p h t e s t e r (number o f e r r o r s i n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ) . 30 RESULTS D a t a a n a l y s e s were c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h r e e a s p e c t s o f t h e r e s u l t s . The f i r s t o f t h e s e was t h e l e v e l o f a c c u r a c y , r e l a t i v e t o c hance, o f t h e two t e c h n i q u e s i n i d e n t i f y i n g G u i l t y and Not G u i l t y s u b j e c t s . N e x t , i t was i m p o r t a n t t o e v a l u a t e t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e dog teams compared t o t h a t o f the p o l y g r a p h o p e r a t o r s . And l a s t was t h e i s s u e o f whether t h e r e were i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c c u r a c y among th e t h r e e dog teams. The n a t u r e o f t h e p r o c e d u r e and o f t h e dependent measures imposed some r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e a n a l y s i s . Because t h e d a t a were i n t h e f o r m o f a s s i g n m e n t s t o the G u i l t y o r t h e Not G u i l t y c a t e g o r y , i t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o use a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e n o r s i m i l a r p a r a m e t r i c t e s t s ; i n s t e a d , t e s t s o f p r o p o r t i o n s ( G l a s s & S t a n l e y , 1970, pp. 326-328) were used. A n o t h e r p r o b l e m a r o s e from the f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s were r u n i n d i v i d u a l l y i n t h e p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n p a r t o f t h e s t u d y , b u t i n p a i r s d u r i n g t h e dog team ph a s e . I n t h e l a t t e r p r o c e d u r e , i f t h e dogmaster i d e n t i f i e d one s u b j e c t as g u i l t y , he a u t o m a t i c a l l y c l a s s i f i e d t h e o t h e r as Not G u i l t y . T h i s f a c t r e d u c e s the d egrees o f freedom i n t h e dog team c o n d i t i o n , c a l l i n g f o r an a n a l y s i s by p a i r s . T h i s was not t h e c a s e f o r t h e p o l y g r a p h , o p e r a t o r s , who had a c h o i c e o f G u i l t y o r Not G u i l t y , ? f o r each i n d i v i d u a l e x a m i n a t i o n . The d a t a a n a l y s e s r e f l e c t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . The p r o p o r t i o n o f c o r r e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s made by t h e dog team was .47. Compared t o t h e .50 t o be e x p e c t e d by chance a l o n e , t h i s y i e l d s a z^.of -.35, i n d i c a t i n g by a t e s t o f i n d e p e n d e n t p r o p o r t i o n s ".that t h e a c c u r a c y was a t about chance l e v e l . The p r o p o r t i o n o f c o r r e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s f o r the p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n s was .91, z_= 4.59, p_<.01, i n d i c a t i n g p e r -31 formance s i g n i f i c a n t l y above chance. T h i s l a t t e r r e s u l t i s a l s o o b v i o u s -l y o f p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e two t e c h n i q u e s w i t h each o t h e r showed 15 c o r r e c t answers out o f 32 p a i r s o f s u b j e c t s f o r t h e dog teams and 28 c o r r e c t f o r the p o l y g r a p h o p e r a t o r s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t by a t e s t o f dependent p r o p o r t i o n s , = 3.36, p_< — 01 ( s e e T a b l e 1 ) . The p r o -p o r t i o n o f c o r r e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s was n o t a f f e c t e d by w h e t h e r t h e s u b j e c t had a c t u a l l y been i n t h e G u i l t y o r Not G u i l t y c o n d i t i o n . L o o k i n g a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s r a t h e r t h a n p a i r s ( T a b l e 2) we f i n d t h a t t h e p o l y g r a p h o p e r a t o r s were c o r r e c t i n 9 1% o f t h e c a s e s . A g a i n , t h e same number o f e r r o r s o c c u r r e d w i t h a c t u a l l y G u i l t y as w i t h Not G u i l t y s u b j e c t s . As n o t e d above, t h e dog t e a m s — w i t h t h e i r s l i g h t -l y d i f f e r e n t p r o c e d u r e t h a t r e q u i r e d o n l y one r e a l d e c i s i o n f o r each two s u b j e c t s (but l e a d i n g t o two i n c o r r e c t a s s i g n m e n t s i f t h a t one was w r o n g ) — s c o r e d 47% c o r r e c t . As t o i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e dog teams, t h e i r p e r c e n t a g e s o f c o r r e c t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s were 40%, 45%, and 54%. The d i f f e r e n c e s among them d i d n o t r e a c h s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e by M a r a s c u i l l o ' s (1966) t e s t 32 TABLE 1 P e r f o r m a n c e A c c u r a c y ( P a i r s o f S u b j e c t s ) DOGS Not C o r r e c t C o r r e c t POLYGRAPH C o r r e c t 14 14 28 No.tr-C o r r e c t 3 1 4 17 15 TABLE 2 P e r f o r m a n c e A c c u r a c y ( I n d i v i d u a l S u b j e c t s , N = 6 4 ) h ~ t h c d R e s u l t s Method C o r r e c t I n c o r r e c t Dogs P o l y g r a p h 30 58 34 6 34 DISCUSSION The most s t r i k i n g r e s u l t s of t h i s study were the f a i l u r e of the p o l i c e dog teams, and the success of the polygraph operators, i n r e l i a -b l y i d e n t i f y i n g the G u i l t y and the Not G u i l t y subjects. Dog teams per-forme..dcat:iohly_ chahceelevel?'• makihgngorfect. i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ^ i n . approximately one h a l f of the cases. Since each pair of subjects was known to include one person i n each category, f l i p p i n g a coin would presumably have pro-duced equally good r e s u l t s . Obviously, t h i s f i n d i n g f a i l s to confirm the b e l i e f that trained p o l i c e dogs can recognize the "odor of g u i l t " and that they can communi-cate to t h e i r masters the i d e n t i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s emitting that odor. The p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who worked with us on the study, in c l u d i n g the sergeant i n charge of the Dog Squad^attributed t h i s f a i l u r e to the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the experimental s i t u a t i o n . Several other explanations for the f a i l u r e are also f e a s i b l e . F i r s t , of course, i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that dogs cannot i n fact detect any d i s t i n c t i v e g u i l t odor, or at l e a s t cannot communicate any such detec-t i o n to t h e i r handlers. There i s no question that p o l i c e dogs are demon-st r a b l y e f f e c t i v e i n other s i t u a t i o n s , including tracking and b u i l d i n g searches. In this p a r t i c u l a r study, a l l of the concealed subjects were located i n a f a i r l y b r i e f period of time, on the average 20 min^ for each p a i r . But these are d i f f e r e n t tasks from picking out the g u i l t y one of two subjects; i n tracking, the dog follows only one spoor, as i n b u i l d i n g searches he locates one person. In each case, the one i n d i v i d u a l thus 35 i d e n t i f i e d i s usually accepted by the master as a v a l i d suspect. The dog may learn to follow a smell and treat i t s o r i g i n as h i s quarry, without the hypothesized "fear, resentment and h o s t i l i t y " pattern charac-t e r i z i n g the scent. Thus, the usefulness of p o l i c e dogs i n the usual f i e l d s i t u a t i o n i s not incompatible with t h e i r f a i l u r e i n the experiment. An a l t e r n a t i v e explanation, favoured by our p o l i c e p a r t i c i p a n t s , i s that the situation,- f a i l e d to simulate the r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n i n an adequate manner. G u i l t odor may occur when a r e a l c r i m i n a l i s confronted by the p o s s i b i l i t y that, due to the a c t i v i t y of the dog team, he w i l l be located, i d e n t i f i e d , and i n due course punished. The g u i l t y subject i n the current study, on the other hand, knew that his act had not been cr i m i n a l : i i i took place i n an experimental s e t t i n g , the money was l e f t d e l i b e r a t e l y , and he had been informed of i t s " h i 4 a r i i g -place" and i n s t r u c t e d to take i t . Furthermore, i t was clear that he would not be punished even i f he were i d e n t i f i e d as g u i l t y . True, he stood to lose the $10 bonus, but he would s t i l l receive $5. and the knowledge that he had contributed to the comple-t i o n of the study. The s i t u a t i o n was hardly equivalent to that of a c r i -minal facing a r r e s t . The subject's motivational state might include i n -t e r e s t , excitement, competitiveness, avarice and hope, but i t was u n l i k e l y to be characterized by much fear or anger. I f , as the p o l i c e contend, the g u i l t smell represents an amalgam of the l a t t e r two emotions, i t may be unreasonable to expect to f i n d such a smell i n the simulated crime s e t t i n g . One must remember, though, that t h i s analysis of the g u i l t odor i s a purely suppositional one on the part of the p o l i c e dogmasters, and that there i s no empirical evidence to support the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the 36 h o s t i l i t y - f e a r - r e s e n t m e n t t r i a d . I t may be t h a t g u i l t y c o n s c i e n c e , t h e knowledge o f h a v i n g committed a c r i m i n a l o r f o r b i d d e n a c t , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e l i c i t the o d o r . Even i n t h i s c a s e , t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n may have been t o o a r t i f i c i a l i n v i e w o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o u t l i n e d above. Thus, t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e dogs t o d e t e c t a g u i l t odor may m e r e l y r e f l e c t the i n a b i l i t y o f the s i t u a t i o n t o a c t i v a t e s u c h an o d o r r e g a r d l e s s o f what the components o f t h e s c e n t may be. One c ounterargument t o t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n r e l a t e s t o t h e p o l y g r a p h r e s u l t s , w h i c h w i l l t h e m s e l v e s be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . C l e a r l y t h e s i m u l a -t i o n p r o c e d u r e was s t r o n g enough t o produce i n t h e J l u i l t y s u b j e c t s p h y s i o -l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n s t h a t were i d e n t i f i a b l e by t h e p o l y g r a p h e r . I t i s f e a s i -b l e , however, t h a t a s i t u a t i o n t h a t p r o duced d e t e c t a b l e changes i n r e s p i r a -t i o n and b l o o d p r e s s u r e may not have t r i g g e r e d t h e hormonal changes l e a d -i n g t o a s m e l l cue. A n o t h e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t t h e a r t i f i c i a l i t y o f t h e s i t u a -t i o n a f f e c t e d the dog team, as w e l l as ( o r r a t h e r than) t h e s u b j e c t . W h i l e the dogmasters were v e r y c o o p e r a t i v e , t h e r e may be s o m e t h i n g about t h e i r b e h a v i o r on a r e a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n — g e s t u r e s , s t a n c e , v o i c e , f a c i a l e x p r e s -s i o n , and even s m e l l — t h a t communicates u r g e n c y , e x p e c t a t i o n , s e r i o u s n e s s , danger and so on t o the dog, and t o w h i c h t h e dog r e s p o n d s . These cues may have been absent d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r u n s , and t h e i r absence may have a f f e c t e d t h e dog's r e a c t i v i t y t o t h e s i t u a t i o n and t o w h a t e v e r o l -f a c t o r y s t i m u l i were em a n a t i n g f r o m t h e s u b j e c t s . The dogmasters r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y f e l t more as though t h i s were a t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n t h a n a f i e l d s i t u a t i o n , and t h i s a t t i t u d e c o u l d have been sensed by t h e dogs. 37 This " t r a i n i n g " reaction would have been compatible with the physi-ca l conditions of the experiment. In r e a l crimes, the dog team searches d i f f e r e n t b u i l d i n g s , l o c a t i o n s , and areas from incident to incident; r e -peated runs over the same ground occur mostly during t r a i n i n g . Because of the need f o r comparable experimental environments, the study was conduc-ted i n only three places on campus, so that each dog team repeatedly searched i n each l o c a l e . This would reinfo r c e the simulation a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the experiment. Some other differences between our procedure and the r e a l f i e l d i n -v e s t i g a t i o n procedure also appeared. To safeguard our subjects, we asked that the dog be leashed i n the hallway as soon as he i d e n t i f i e d the door of the room i n which a subject was hidden. In an actual b u i l d i n g search, the dog i s l e t loose to f i n d and immobilize the suspect, and i s t y p i c a l l y free to move around the b u i l d i n g f o r quite some time. The leash i s put on only a f t e r the suspect has been taken into custody, searched, possibly hand-cuffed, etc. The r e s t r a i n t imposed by the leash was unusual, marking t h i s par-t i c u l a r search as abnormal. Not only that, but the r e s t r a i n t mader the dogs more aggressive when they did locate a suspect, thus possibly mis-leading the po l i c e o f f i c e r s . These differences i n dog handling procedure could explain an anomaly noted i n the course of the study. Beforehand, the dogmasters said that they knew when the dog had found a g u i l t y person by the i n t e n s i t y of the response: lunging, barking and the l i k e . In p i l o t runs, the masters d i d assess the i n t e n s i t y of aggressive behavior before coming to a decision about the g u i l t of the subject. But during the experiment i t s e l f , t h i s 38 c r i t e r i o n was t a c i t l y de-emphasized. Instead, the dogmasters almost always picked as g u i l t y whichever subject the dog found f i r s t . In re-sponse to question, the handlers argued that the G u i l t y subject probably gave o f f a stronger odor, leading to e a r l i e r detection. This i s contrary to t h e i r e a r l i e r d e s c r i p t i o n of how to read the dogs' reaction to g u i l t . Furthermore, i t seems to abandon the hypothesis that the g u i l t y smell i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from—not merely more intense t h a n — t h e odors emitted by innocent bystanders. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , on seven occasions the members of the research team who were observing the dog judged that h i s r e a c t i o n to the G u i l t y subject was i n fa c t more i n t e n s e — o n l y to have the p o l i c e dogmaster, following the prima.cy c r i t e r i o n , make the wrong•choice. Since t h i s was completely unfor'ese"en(given the verbal adherence of dogmasters to r e a c t i v i t y as the relevant factor) no systematic observations were made or recorded. In any future study, i t would be desirable to have i n t e n s i t y of the dogs' reaction rated independently by members of the research team and perhaps by a nonparticipating dogmaster or dog expert. One other possible factor i n the low accuracy of the dog teams may have been the r e s u l t of our i n t e r e s t i n the a b i l i t y of the dog to detect g u i l t by smell. In r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s , there are auditory and v i s u a l cues to which the p o l i c e dogs may also respond. Some f a c i a l expressions, p h y s i c a l stances and gestures, movements and sounds may be used to i d e n t i -fy a g u i l t y suspect (see Lorenz, 1952). These were l a r g e l y eliminated i n this study. Here the suspects were behind a closed door and drawn cur--t a i n , so that the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between g u i l t y and not g u i l t y subjects was made e s s e n t i a l l y on the basis of the smell alone. This was of course, 39 appropriate given the focus of the study, but i t did decrease both the realism of the procedure and the information base on which i t was made. In contrast; to the dogs, the performance of the polygraph operators was extremely accurate. Correct i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n over 90% of the t r i a l s supported the usefulness of this technique even i n a simulated crime s i t u a t i o n . The implication i s that polygraph accuracy with r e a l suspects, where p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i v i t y may be even stronger, i s l i k e l y to be of at l e a s t a comparable l e v e l , a t t e s t i n g to the usefulness of the approach. I t should be noted that i n this study, the polygraph examination was not administered, scored, or interpreted by the sophisticated s c i e n t i f i c per-sonnel and techniques t y p i c a l l y used i n simulation tests (e.g., Barland. & Raskin 1975 \\ Raskin9'& Hare,, 197.7)'."Rather the'itesters'awere^ i n v e s t i g a t i v e organizations, using t h e i r standard procedures as normally applied i n the f i e l d . This meets one of the c r i t i c i s m s offered by some reviewers (e.g., Horvath, 1976), that laboratory attempts to v a l i d a t e the polygraph technique involve personnel and procedures that are so far removed from actual use conditions as to make external v a l i d i t y highly doubtful. Some u n r e a l i s t i c features s t i l l existed, of course. These i n -cluded the b r i e f time l a g between the "crime" and the examination, the knowledge that h a l f of the subjects were g u i l t y , and the fact that a l l suspects were u n i v e r s i t y students. The pre-test interview, the demonstration to convince subjects of the effectiveness of the procedure, the running of the three charts per subject and the post-test interview, took approximatly 1 hour and 45 40 minutes per case. Evaluation of the data by the Backster number scoring procedure took varying periods • depending upon the consistency of the pat-tern, but in general 2-1/2 hours covered the total expenditure on each subject. This seems to show that the polygraph is economical in time, which, in view of i t s accuracy, makes i t a f a i r l y effective', investigative technique. Future research may take several directions. One of these i s related to the performance of the dog teams. It is d i f f i c u l t to avoid some a r t i -f i c i a l i t y i n the test situation. For example, research ethics make i t doubtful that an unleashed search procedure can be instituted since i t is known that i n real search situations,while i t i s not common, an excited and unleashed dog sometimes bites or jumps upon a suspect. More r e a l i s t i c role-playing by the dogmasters would help but may be d i f f i c u l t to e l i c i t . The restoration of visual cues would make the situation more r e a l i s t i c , but would not provide an adequate test of the hypotheses related to olfaction. Also, the whole scenario could be made more r e a l i s t i c . For example, the dog could f i r s t track the suspect, perhaps by being exposed to some object that the subject had handled; the area within which the person was hiding could be enlarged; only one suspect could be hidden at a time, with-out the pairing of one guilty and one not-guilty person each time. In fact, the original design of the current study involved a series of steps, starting with the scent marking of objects by the two "suspects,;'' followed by the tracking and then the detection phase. However, this plan was abandoned, on the suggestion of the Dog Squad Commander who f e l t that i t would involve a great deal of time without commensurate usefulness. Obviously, i t would be useful i f the police made tentative i d e n t i f i -41 cations of g u i l t or innocence among the subjects located by the dogs and compared this polygraph r a t i n g and the outcome of t r i a l s . Given the established v a l i d i t y of polygraph examinations, they could be used as a c r i t e r i o n measure against which other sources of judgment can be compared. Legal and e t h i c a l problems may a r i s e , however, and would have to be handled c a r e f u l l y . There seems to be l i t t l e empirical reason to doubt the power of the polygraph technique, even though p h i l o s o p h i c a l and i d e o l o g i c a l ob-j e c t i o n s to i t s use may s t i l l be raised. As to the use of p o l i c e dogs, this study was not designed to assess t h e i r reported e f f i c a c y f o r crowd c o n t r o l , drug detection, tracking, or apprehension of suspects. But t h e i r a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y g u i l t by odor alone, and/or to communicate such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to the dogmaster, was not confirmed. Some s k e p t i -cism i n this area i s therefore j u s t i f i e d at l e a s t u n t i l more supportive data are obtained. 42 '..REFERENCES ' Abrams, S. The v a l i d i t y o f p o l y g r a p h w i t h s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . J o u r n a l o f t h e Ame r i c a n P o l y g r a p h A s s o c i a t i o n , 1974, 3_, 328-332. Abrams, S., & W e i n s t e i n , E. The v a l i d i t y o f t h e p o l y g r a p h w i t h r e t a r d a t e s . J o u r n a l o f P o l i c e S c i e n c e and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1974, 2_, 11-14. A l l e n , W.F. J o u r n a l o f P h y s i o l o g y , 1937, 118. C i t e d i n E.H. A s h t o n , J.T. E a ^ r s , & D.G. M o u l t o n . O l f a c t o r y ^ a c u i t y i n t h e dog. N a t u r e , 1957, 179, 1069-1070. A l l i s o n , V.C., & K a t z , S.H. J o u r n a l o f I n d u s t r i a l E n g i n e e r i n g and C h e m i s t r y 1919, 11, 338. C i t e d i n E.H. A s h t o n , J.T. E a ^ r s , & D.G. M6ulton. O l f a c t o r y a c u i t y i n t h e dog. N a t u r e , 1957, 179, 1069-1070. A n s l e y , N. I n q u i r y r e g a r d i n g D e k t o r PSE-1, A m e r i c a n P o l y g r a p h A s s o c i a t i o n  N e w s l e t t e r , 1972, _3» 18. A r t h e r , R. Peak o f t e n s i o n . B a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P o l y g r a p h S t u - d i e s , 1967, 1, 1-4. A r t h e r , R. Peak o f t e n s i o n . Dangers. J o u r n a l o f P o l y g r a p h S t u d i e s , 1968, 2, 1-4. B a c k s t e r , C. TRI-ZONE P o l y g r a p h . New Y o r k : B a c k s t e r R e s e a r c h F o u n d a t i o n , 1969. B a r l a n d , G. An e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f f i e l d t e c h n i q u e s i n l i e d e t e c t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d M.A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f U t a h , 1972. B a r l a n d , G., & R a s k i n , D.C. An e v a l u a t i o n o f f i e l d t e c h n i q u e s i n d e t e c t i o n o f d e c e p t i o n . P s y c h o p h y s i o l o g y , 1975, 12, 321-330. 43 B e r s h , P. A v a l i d a t i o n s t u d y o f p o l y g r a p h examiner judgements. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 53_, 399-403. Brown, T.S. G e n e r a l b i o l o g y o f s e n s o r y s y s t e m s . I n B. S h a r f ( E d . ) , E x p e r i m e n t a l s e n s o r y p s y c h o l o g y . G l e n v i e w , 111: S c o t t , Foreman, 1975. B r u c e , H.M. An e x t e r o c e p t i v e b l o c k t o pregnancy i n the mouse. N a t u r e , 1959, 184, 105. B r u c e , H.M. Time r e a c t i o n s i n the p r e g n a n c y - b l o c k i n d u c e d i n mice by s t r a n g e m a l e s . J o u r n a l o f R e p r o d u c t i o n and F e r t i l i t y , 1961, 2_, 138-142. C a i n , W.S. D i f f e r e n t i a l s e n s i t i v i t y f o r s m e l l : " N o i s e " a t nose. S c i e n c e , 1977, 195, 796-798. C a m p b e l l , P. Vancouver P o l i c e Dog Squad Manual ( D r a f t ) . U n p u b l i s h e d , 1969. C a m p b e l l , P. P e r s o n a l c c o m m u n i c a t i o n , August 8, 1977. C a r r , W.J., & M a r t o r a n o , R.D., & Krames, L. Responses, o f mice t o odors a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t r e s s . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y - c h o l o g y , 1970, 71, 223-228. C h e a l , M.L., & S p r o t t , R.L. S o c i a l o l f a c t i o n ^ . A r e v i e w o f the r o l e o f o l f a c t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971, 29, 195-243 (Monograph Supplement 1-V29). C o m f o r t , A. L i k e l i h o o d o f human pheromones. N a t u r e , 1971, 230, 432-433, 479. G l a s s , G.V., & S t a n l e y , J.C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n E d u c a t i o n and P s y c h o - l o g y . Englewood C l i f f s , N .J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1970. H a l l , G. S t r a t e g y o f s i m u l t a n e o u s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g i n p i g e o n s . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 26, 520-529. H o r v a t h , F.S. V e r b a l and n o n v e r b a l c l u e s t o t r u t h and d e c e p t i o n d u r i n g p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f P o l i c e S c i e n c e and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1973, 1, 138-152. H o r v a t h , F.S. D e t e c t i o n o f d e c e p t i o n : A r e v i e w o f f i e l d and l a b o r a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s and r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n P o l y g r a p h A s s o c i a - t i o n , 1976, 5., 107-145. H o r v a t h , F.S., & R e i d , J.E. The r e l i a b i l i t y o f p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n e r d i a g n o s i s o f t r u t h and d e c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n a l Law, C r i m i n o l o g y and Po- l i c e S c i e n c e , 1971, 62, 276-281. H o r v a t h , F.S., & R e i d , J.E. The p o l y g r a p h s i l e n t t e s t . J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n a l  Lw, C r i m i n o l o g y and P o l i c e S c i e n c e , 1972, 63, 285-294. H u n t e r , F., & A s h , P. The a c c u r a c y and c o n s i s t e n c y o f p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n e r s ' d i a g n o s e s . J o u r n a l o f P o l i c e S c i e n c e and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1973, _1, 370-375. K a l k o w s k i , W. [ O l f a c t o r y b a s i s o f s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n t h e w h i t e mouse]. F o l i a B i o l o g i c a , K w a r l a l n i k Naukowy (Krakow ) , 1967, 15_, 669-687. C i t e d i n C h e a l , M.L., & S p r o t t , R.L. S o c i a l o l f a c t i o n . A r e v i e w o f t h e r o l e o f o l f a c t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971, 29, 195-243 (Monograph Supplement 1V-29). K a l k o w s k i , W. [ S o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n by t r a c e s i n t h e w h i t e mouse]. F o l i a B i o l o - g i c a , K w a r l a l n i k Naukowy (Krakow ) , 1968, 16, 307-322. C i t e d i n C h e a l , M.L., & S p r o t t , R.L. S o c i a l o l f a c t i o n . A r e v i e w o f t h e r o l e o f o l f a c t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971, 29^, 195-243 (Monograph Supplement I V - 2 9 ) . Kalmus, H. The d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by t h e nose o f t h e dog o f i n d i v i d u a l human o d o r s , i n p a r t i c u l a r o f odors o f t w i n s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f A n i m a l B e h a v i o r , 1955, 3, 25-31. 45 Kugelmass, S., & L i e b l i c h , I . E f f e c t s o f r e a l i s t i c s t r e s s p r o c e d u r a l i n t e r -f e r e n c e i n e x p e r i m e n t a l l i e d e t e c t i o n . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 50, 211-216. Kugelmass, S., & L i e b l i c h , I . , Ben I s h a i , A., O p t a w s k i , A., & K a p l a n , M. Ex-p e r i m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n o f g a l v a n i c s k i n r e s p o n s e and b l o o d p r e s s u r e change i n d i c e s d u r i n g c r i m i n a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n a l Law, C r i m i n o l o g y , and P o l i c e S c i e n c e , 1968, 59_, 632-635. L a r s o n , J.A. M o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e M a r s t o n D e c e p t i o n t e s t . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n  I n s t i t u t e o f C r i m i n a l Law and C r i m i n o l o g y , 1921, 12, 390-399. L a r s o n , J.A. L y i n g and i t s d e t e c t i o n . M o n t c l a i r , N.J.: P a t t e r s o n S m i t h , 1969. Laughy, P. P e r s o n a l Communication, O c t o b e r 10, 1976. v a n d e r L e e , & B o o t , L.M. [Spontaneous pseudopregnancy i n m i c e ] . A c t a P h y s i o l o - g i c a e t P h a r m a c o l o g i c a N e e r l a n d i c a , 1955, 5_, 442-444. C i t e d i n C h e a l , M.L. , & S p r o t t , R.L. S o c i a l o l f a c t i o n . A r e v i e w o f t h e r o l e o f o l f a c t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971, 29, 195-243 (Mono-graph Supplement 1-V29). van d e r L e e , S., & B o o t , L.M. [Spontaneous pseudopregnancy i n mice. I I . ] A c t a P h y s i o l o g i c a e t P h a r m a c o l o g i c a N e e r l a n d i c a , 1956, 5_, 213-215. C i t e d i n C h e a l , M.L., & S p r o t t , R.L. S o c i a l o l f a c t i o n , A r e v i e w o f t h e r o l e o f o l f a c t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f a n i m a l b e h a v i o r s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971, 29, 195-243. (Monograph Supplement 1-V29). L i e b l i c h , I . , Ben Shankhar, G., & Kugelmass, S. V a l i d i t y o f t h e G u i l t y Knowledge Technique i n a p r i s o n e r sample. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 61, 89-93. L i g g e t t , J.R. An e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f o l f a c t o r y s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e w h i t e r a t . G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y Monographs, 1924, 3^ , 1-64. L i n d e , J.V., & M c E a t h r o n , E. T r a i n i n g and u t i l i z a t i o n o f d e t e c t o r dog teams by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Customs S e r v i c e . B u l l e t i n on N a r c o t i c s , 1976, 25_, 54-60. 46 L o h n e r , L. [R e s e a r c h on o l f a c t o r y p h y s i o l o g y , o l f a c t o r y e f f i c i e n c y o f po-l i c e dogs.] A r c h . Ges. P h y s i o l . P f l u g e r s , 1926, 212, 84-94. C i t e d i n W r i g h t , R.H. The s c i e n c e o f s m e l l . London: A l l e n and Unwin, 1964. L o r e , R.K., B l a n c , A., & S u e d f e l d , P. E m p a t h i c l e a r n i n g o f a p a s s i v e a v o i d -ance r e s p o n s e i n d o m e s t i c a t e d R a t t u s n o r v e g i c u s . A n i m a l B e h a v i o u r , 1971, 19, 112-114. L o r e n z , K. K i n g Solomon's R i n g . New Y o r k : C r o w e l l , 1952. Lubow, R.E., Kahn, M., & Frommer, R. I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g o f o l f a c t o r y s t i m u l i by t h e dog: I . The a c q u i s i t i o n and r e t e n t i o n o f f o u r o d o r - p a i r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s . B u l l e t i n o f t h e Psychonomic S o c i e t y , 1973, 1, 143-145. Lubow, R.E., Kahn, M., & Frommer, R. I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g o f o l f a c t o r y s t i m u l i by t h e dog: I I . S t i m u l u s c o n t r o l and s a m p l i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n s i m u l t a n e o u s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g . B u l l e t i n o f t h e Psychonomic S o c i e t y 1976, 8, 323-326. M a n d l e r , J.M. B e h a v i o r changes d u r i n g o v e r t r a i n i n g and t h e i r e f f e c t s on r e -v e r s a l and t r a n s f e r . Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1966, ^L, 187-202. M a r a s c u i l o , L.A. L a r g e - s a m p l e m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1966, 65, 280-290. M a r s h a l l , E.A. A r e a s i n w h i c h dogs can be e f f e c t i v e l y d e p l o y e d . B u l l e t i n on N a r c o t i c s , 1976, 25_, 41-47. McBurnay, P.H., L e v i n e , J.M., & Cavanaugh, P.H. P s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l r a t i n g s o f human body o d o r . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n , 1973, 3, 135-138. M c C l i n t o c k , M.K. M e n s t r u a l s y n c h r o n y and s u p p r e s s i o n . N a t u r e , 1971, 229, 244-245. M u e l l e r - V e l t o n , H. Uber den A n g s t g e r u c h b e i d e r Hausmaus (Mus musculus L.) Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r V e r g l e i c h e n d e P s y c h o l o g i e , 1966, 52, 401-429. C i t e d i n M.L. C h e a l & R.L. S p r o t t , S o c i a l o l f a c t i o n : A r e v i e w o f t h e r o l e o f o l f a c t i o n i n a v a r i e t y of animal behaviors. Psychological Reports, 1971, 29., 195-243 (Monograph Supplement, 1, V. 29). Munsterberg, H. On the witness stand. New York: Doubleday, 1908. Neuhaus, W. [(The thresholds of perception and recognition i n the o l f a c t i o n of the dog i n comparison with the o l f a c t o r y perception i n man.][ Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Vergleichende Bsychologie, 1957, 39_, 624-633. Cited i n R.W. Wright, The Science of Smell. London: A l l e n and Unwin, 1964. Raskin, D., & Hare, R.D. Psychopathy and detection of deception i n a prison population. Psychophysiology, In Press, 1977. Reid, J . A revised questionning technique i n the detection t e s t s . Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1947, 37_, 542-547. Reid, J . , & Inbau, F. Truth and deception: The polygraph ( " l i e detector") technique. Baltimore: Williams and Wilklns, 1966. Rottman, S.J., & Snowdown, G.T. Demonstration and analysis of an alarm pheromone i n mice. Journal of Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l Psychology, 1972, 81, 483-490. Rouke, F. Evaluation of the indices of deception i n the psychogalvanic technique. Unpublished d i s s e r t a t i o n , Fordham U n i v e r s i t y , 1941. Schimsca, R. Training of dogs for the detection of drugs i n the Federal Republic of Germany. B u l l e t i n on Narcotics, 1976, 25_, 47-50. Schneider, R.A. Newer in s i g h t s into the r o l e and modifications of o l f a c t i o n i n man through c l i n i c a l studies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1974, 237, 217-223. Shorey, H.H. Animal communication by pheromones. New York: Academic Press, 1976. S i e g e l , S. Overtraining and tran s f e r processes. Journal of Comparative and  P h y s i o l o g i c a l Psychology, 1967, 64_, 471-477. 48 S i e n g e r , A.G., A g o s t a , W.C., O ' C o n e l l , R . J . , P f a f f m a n , C., Bowen, D.V., & F i e l d , F.H. D i m e t h y l d i s u l f i d e : An a t t r a c t a n t pheromone i n hams-s t e r v a g i n a l s e c r e t i o n . S c i e n c e , 1976, 192, 948-950. S p r o t t , R.L. "Fear communication" v i a odor i n i n b r e d m i c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1969, 25, 263-268. S t o n e , C P . A s i m p l e method f o r d e v e l o p i n g o l f a c t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h a b i t s i n r a t s . J o u r n a l o f G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y , 1941, 58, 419-421. Summers, W. S c i e n c e can get t h e c o n f e s s i o n . Fordham Law Review, 1939, 8^ 334.354. T h i e s i e n , D., & R i c e , M. Mammalian s c e n t g l a n d m a r k i n g and s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1976, 83, 504-539. V a l e n t a , J.G., & R i g b y , M.K. D i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f the o d o r o f s t r e s s e d r a t s . S c i e n c e , 1968, 161, 599-601. Vancouver P o l i c e Department. R e p o r t , U n p u b l i s h e d , 1969. W r i g h t , R.H. The s c i e n c e Of s m e l l . London: A l l e n and Unwin, 1964. W r i g h t , R.H. Odorous c o m p a r i s o n s : The R.S. Jane M e m o r i a l l e c t u r e . C h e m i s t r y i n Canada, 1977, 29_, 21-26. 49 APPENDIX A 50 INSTRUCTIONS TO DOGMASTERS Only one dog and h i s master should be i n action at any given time. Your task i s to f i n d the two volunteer subjects who are hiding i n d i f f e r e n t rooms on this f l o o r . You should not at any time release your dog from the leash except i n the c o r r i d o r . When you f i n d each subject, he w i l l be standing behind a c u r t a i n . Have your dog leashed as you enter the room; do not allow him to come, int o contact with the subject; and do not ask the subject to come out from behind the cur t a i n . Also, please do not interrogate the subject at a l l , nor speak to him about anything. When both subjects have been located, we w i l l ask you to ind i c a t e on the basis of your dog's behaviour which one i s g u i l t y of a simulated crime that occurred before they h i d i n the rooms. Remember that i n each p a i r of subjects one i s g u i l t y and one i s completely innocent. 51 APPENDIX B 52 P o l y g r a p h Q u e s t i o n s E i g h t q u e s t i o n s were used d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t , e a c h w i t h a s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e . 1. I r r e l e v a n t : D e s i g n e d n o t t o have any e m o t i o n a l c o n t e n t . I t i s used as the f i r s t q u e s t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e the e x a m i n a t i o n and may be r e p e a t e d a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e examiner s h o u l d t h e r e be any a n o m a l i e s i n the c h a r t s . Examples o f t h e typ e o f q u e s t i o n : a) I s today Wednesday? ( t h e day o f the e x a m i n a t i o n ) . b) I s y o u r name D a v i d ? ( t h e name o f t h e s u b j e c t ) . 2. Weak R e l e v a n t : D e s i g n e d t o absorb the e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s r e s u l t -i n g from t h e f i r s t a c c u s a t o r y r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s . Type o f ques -t i o n : R e g a r d i n g t h e $10. t a k e n f r o m room # t h i s a f t e r n o o n , do y ou i n t e n d t o answer t r u t h f u l l y e a ch q u e s t i o n about t h a t ? 3. Symptomatic: To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e examiner has d e v e l o p e d a bond o f c o n f i d e n c e w i t h t h e examinee. Type o f q u e s t i o n : A r e you c o m p l e t e l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t I w i l l n o t ask you a q u e s t i o n on t h i s t e s t t h a t has n o t a l r e a d y been r e v i e w e d ? 4. C o n t r o l : D e s i g n e d t o have a s i m i l a r e m o t i o n a l i m p a c t on t h e non-& 6 d e c e p t i v e examinee as t h e r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s w o u l d have on t h e de-c e p t i v e examinee. Type o f q u e s t i o n s : #4, Between the ages o f 17 and 20 d i d you e v e r t a k e s o m e t h i n g t h a t y ou knew you s h o u l d n ' t have? #6. D u r i n g the f i r s t 16 y e a r s o f y o u r l i f e d i d you e v e r t a k e some-53 Appendix B (cont'd) 5. Relevant. Designed to be relevant to the issue, a c r u c i a l question & 7 posed about the f a c t s . Question #5. Did you s t e a l that money? Question #7. Did you s t e a l that money from room # ? 8. Symptomatic: Designed to e s t a b l i s h whether there i s an outside issue which would have an emotional impact that would be more powerful than e i t h e r the relevant or the control questions and therefore i n -va l i d a t e the examination. Type of question: Is there something else you are a f r a i d I w i l l ask you about, even though I have t o l d you I w i l l not? 54 APPENDIX C 55 A. I n s t r u c t i o n s ' t o t h e " G u i l t y " s u b j e c t s . As we t o l d y o u , the s t u d y has t o do w i t h p o l i c e b e h a v i o u r . B a s i -c a l l y , we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n how e f f e c t i v e t h e p o l i c e a r e i n i d e n t i f y i n g s u s p e c t s who a r e a c t u a l l y g u i l t y o f some k i n d o f misdeed. So what we ar e d o i n g i s s e t t i n g up a s i m u l a t e d c r i m e s i t u a t i o n , and t h e n l e t t i n g some r e a l p o l i c e m e n have a chance a t i d e n t i f y i n g w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n committed i t o r n o t . What we woul d l i k e you t o do i s t o go i n t o Dr. o f f i c e , Room # You w i l l be l e f t a l o n e t h e r e f o r a w h i l e . There i s an e n v e l o p e b e h i n d one o f t h e books on t h e 6 t h s h e l f from the top i n the l e f t - h a n d b o o k c a s e . T h i s e n v e l o p e c o n t a i n s a $10 b i l l w h i c h when you f i n d i t , y o u s h o u l d h i d e on y o u r p e r s o n . Do t h i s when nobody i s l o o k i n g a t y o u , and h i d e t h e money as w e l l as you can. You r t a s k w i l l be t o p r e v e n t b e i n g i d e n t i f i e d as t h e g u i l t y p e r s o n who " s t o l e " t he money f o r the r e s t o f t h e s t u d y . There w i l l be two a t t e m p t s t o i d e n t i f y y o u as g u i l t y ; n e i t h e r w i l l i n v o l v e s e a r c h i n g y o u , g i v i n g y o u i n t e n s i v e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , o r any o t h e r u n p l e a s a n t p r o c e d u r e s . I f you s u c -ceed i n d e c e i v i n g the p e o p l e who a r e t r y i n g t o d e t e c t y o u r g u i l t , y o u w i l l g e t t o keep t h e $10 you t o o k i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $5 you a r e g e t t i n g f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e s t u d y . Remember t h a t i t i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t h a t you c o n t i n u e t o appear i n n o c e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e s t u d y . Don't c o n -f e s s under any c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and t r y as h a r d as you can t o pers u a d e t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r s t h a t y o u i n f a c t d i d n o t t a k e t h e money. Keep on t r y i n g t o c o n v i n c e them o f t h i s even i f y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e y don't b e l i e v e y o u and t h a t t h e y have i d e n t i f i e d y o u as t h e g u i l t y p e r s o n . Remember t h a t i f you were a r e a l c r i m i n a l you woul d c o n t i n u e t o deny y o u r g u i l t i n o r d e r t o 56 A p p e n d i x C ( c o n t 1 d ) t r y t o escape punishment; i n t h i s case i f y ou manage t o c o n v i n c e them t h a t y ou a r e n o t g u i l t y , y o u s t a n d t o g a i n $10." "Your payment depends on how w e l l you do i n t h e t a s k . I f i n b o t h o f the two a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h y o u r g u i l t y o u a r e a b l e t o f o o l t h e p o l i c e ( t h a t i s , t o make them t h i n k t h a t you a r e i n f a c t n o t g u i l t y ) , y ou w i l l g e t t o keep t h e $10 you t o o k i n a d d i t i o n t o the $5 you w i l l be p a i d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the s t u d y . I want t o remind y o u a g a i n t h a t y o u c a n ' t p o s s i b l y w i n the e x t r a $10 i f y ou don't c o n t i n u e t o m a i n t a i n y o u r i n n o c e n c e as c o n v i n c i n g l y as you c a n . I f e i t h e r o f t h e a t t e m p t s i d e n t i f y y o u as g u i l t y , y o u w i l l have l o s t t he money. Even i f y ou t h i n k t h a t one o r b o t h o f t h e p e o p l e t h a t y ou a r e d e a l i n g w i t h t h i n k t h a t y ou a r e a g u i l t y p e r s o n , i f y o u a c t i n n o c e n t w e l l enough t h e y might change t h e i r minds and y o u might get away w i t h i t . " B. Dog C o n d i t i o n : " A f t e r y o u have t a k e n t h e money and h i d d e n i t on y o u r p e r s o n , we woul d i ' i k e d youe t o go down the c o r r i d o r , t u r n l e f t , and h i d e i n any o f t h e open r o o m s ' t h a t y ou see t h e r e . A f t e r y ou e n t e r the room, make s u r e t h a t y ou c l o s e the do o r f i r m l y . The p o l i c e w i l l t h e n a t t e m p t t o f i n d y o u , so draw the c u r t a i n a c r o s s t h e window and h i d e b e h i n d t h e c u r t a i n . Do n o t come ou t u n t i l e i t h e r the p o l i c e o r I come t o g e t y o u . Remember t h a t t h e po-l i c e w i l l n o t t o u c h y o u , n o r h u r t y ou i n any way, a l t h o u g h t h e y w i l l t r y h a r d t o f i n d y o u. Once you a r e h i d d e n , s t a y t h e r e and do n o t t r y t o change y o u r h i d i n g p l a c e . The p o l i c e may use dogs o r o t h e r equipment t o t r y t o f i n d y o u ; i f a dog i s u s e d , he w i l l be on a l e a s h and c o n t r o l l e d by h i s dog m a s t e r a t a l l t i m e s , so t h a t y o u don't have t o w o r r y about b e i n g 57 Appendix C (cont'd) attacked or hurt. However, i f you have a very high fear of dogs, please l e t us know so that we can make sure that this procedure i s not used with you." C. L i e detection Condition Subjects w i l l go to a l i e detector room and be interrogated. 58 APPENDIX D 59 A. I n s t r u c t i o n s t o the Not G u i l t y s u b j e c t s . As we t o l d y o u the s t u d y has t o do w i t h p o l i c e b e h a v i o u r . B a s i c a l l y , we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n how e f f e c t i v e t h e p o l i c e a r e i n i d e n t i f y i n g s u s p e c t s who a r e a c t u a l l y g u i l t y o f some k i n d o f misdeed. So what we a r e d o i n g i s s e t t i n g up a s i m u l a t e d c r i m e s i t u a t i o n , and t h e n l e t t i n g some r e a l p o l i c e -men have a chance a t i d e n t i f y i n g w hether a p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n committed i t o r n o t ; y ou w i l l be i n n o c e n t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r a c t . Y o u r payment depends on how you do i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t . The p o l i c e w i l l make two a t t e m p t s t o d i s c o v e r whether you have committed a p a r t i c u l a r a c t . I f you a r e a b l e i n b o t h c a s e s t o c o n v i n c e them o f t h e f a c t t h a t you d i d n o t commit t h e a c t , y ou w i l l g et $10 bonus i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $5 you w i l l be p a i d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e s t u d y . B. Dog C o n d i t i o n We woul d l i k e y o u t o go t o the c o r r i d o r , t u r n l e f t , and h i d e i n any o f t h e open rooms t h a t y o u see t h e r e . A f t e r you e n t e r t h e room, make s u r e t h a t y ou c l o s e t h e door f i r m l y . The p o l i c e w i l l t h e n a t t e m p t t o f i n d y o u , so draw t h e c u r t a i n a c r o s s t h e window and h i d e b e h i n d t h e c u r t a i n . Do n o t come out from b e h i n d the c u r t a i n u n t i l e i t h e r t h e p o l i c e o r e x p e r i m e n t e r come t o get you. Remember t h a t t h e p o l i c e w i l l n o t t o u c h y o u , n o r h u r t y o u i n any way, a l t h o u g h t h e y w i l l t r y h a r d t o f i n d you. Once you a r e h i d d e n , s t a y t h e r e and do n o t t r y t o change y o u r h i d i n g p l a c e . The p o l i c e may use dogs o r o t h e r equipment t o t r y t o f i n d y o u : i f a dog i s u s e d , he w i l l be on a l e a s h and c o n t r o l l e d by h i s dog m a s t e r a t a l l t i m e s , so t h a t you don't have t o w o r r y about b e i n g a t t a c k e d o r h u r t . However, i f y ou have a v e r y h i g h f e a r o f dogs, p l e a s e l e t us know.nnow so t h a t we can make Appendix D (cont'd) sure this procedure i s not used with you. C. L i e Detection Condition Subjects go to the l i e detector room to be interrogat 61 APPENDIX E 62 P o l y g r a p h E x a m i n a t i o n Technique W i t h t h e i n c r e a s i n g development and use o f t h e p o l y g r a p h d i f f e r e n t methods o f c o n d u c t i n g t h e e x a m i n a t i o n have been a p p l i e d a c c o r d i n g t o H o r v a t h ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Among the most f r e q u e n t l y used have been: 1. R e l e v a n t - I r r e l e v a n t : D u r i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w , t h e e x -aminer a s s e s s e s t h e e m o t i o n a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f t h e s u b j e c t and d e c i d e s on t h e l e n g t h o f t h e t e s t . D u r i n g t h e p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n , he asks a s e r -i e s o f q u e s t i o n s t h a t combines i t e m s r e l a t i n g t o t h e c r i m e w i t h o t h e r s t h a t a r e i r r e l e v a n t o r n o n - c r i t i c a l . A d v o c a t e s o f t h i s t e c h n i q u e argue t h a t t r u t h f u l s u b j e c t s w i l l r e s p o n d i d e n t i c a l l y t o r e l e v a n t and i r r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s , w h i l e d e c e p t i v e r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l r e a c t d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . T h i s t e c h n i q u e has been c r i t i c i z e d on t h e grounds t h a t i t does n o t p r o v i d e ade-quate c o n t r o l s a g a i n s t w h i c h t o compare t h e " c r i t i c a l " r e a c t i o n . 2. C o n t r o l Q u e s t i o n : To t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w and p o l y g r a p h t e s t some e x a m i n e r s add a p o s t - t e s t i n t e r r o g a t i o n . The major d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s and t h e p r e v i o u s t e c h n i q u e l i e s i n the k i n d s of q u e s t i o n s a s ked d u r i n g t h e t e s t and i n t h e method o f d a t a a n a l y s i s . H e r e , i r r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s a r e used t o e s t a b l i s h p a t t e r n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g i v e n t r u t h f u l i n f o r m a t i o n , e.g., t h e s u b j e c t ' s name. R e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e i n v e s t i g a -t i o n . A t h i r d c a t e g o r y , c o n t r o l q u e s t i o n s , d e a l w i t h s e n s i t i v i t y i s s u e s n o t d i r e c t l y b e a r i n g upon t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( e . g . , "Have y o u e v e r s t o l e n a n y t h i n g ? " ) . The p u r p o s e o f the c o n t r o l q u e s t i o n s i s t o f o c u s the a t t e n -t i o n o f h o n e s t s u b j e c t s away from r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s , w h i l e l y i n g s u b j e c t s m a i n t a i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e t c e n t e r e d on r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s and p e r c e i v e 63 Appendix E (cont'd) the control items as r e l a t i n g to themr) This procedure permits each sub-j e c t to act as his own control, and has increased the v a l i d i t y of the polygraph examination while reducing the proportion of inconclusive r e -s u l t s (Horvath, 1976). Since i t s inception (Reid, 1947) i t has become the most common technique used by f i e l d p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Variations of these techniques, used i n more r e s t r i c t e d s i t u a t i o n s include the Mixed Questions procedure, where the questions on an o r i g i n a l Control Question l i s t are asked repeatedly i n d i f f e r e n t order (Reid & Inbau, 1966), and the S i l e n t Answer t e s t , i n which the subject gives no overt verbal answer (Horvath & Reid, 1972). More extensive differences from the f i r s t two major techniques charac-t e r i z e the following procedures: 3. Affirmation: Here, the subject i s given a second administration of the o r i g i n a l l i s t , with i n s t r u c t i o n s to answer "Yes" to a l l questions i n -cluding those to which he had previously answered "No". The point of this i s to discover whether subject i s d e l i b e r a t e l y attempting to d i s t o r t the polygraph measures. Of course, the answers on the second examination are not interpreted i n the same way as those on the o r i g i n a l run-through (Reid and Inbau, 1966) . 4. Peak of Tension (POT): An a l t e r n a t i v e procedure frequently used by c r i t i c s of the Relevant-Irrelevant technique and the Control Question technique. One version i s the searching POT i n which the examiner asks sets of s i m i l a r questions with each set concentrating on a p a r t i c u l a r point such as the l o c a t i o n of the weapon involved i n a crime u n t i l he feels that that p a r t i c u l a r point i s resolved (Arther, 1967). In the known solu t i o n 64 Appendix E (cont'd) POT, the questions include some to which the answer i s already known to the examiner, but would not be known to an innocent subject. R e a c t i v i t y to supposedly unknown items of information i s interpreted as a sign of deception (Arthe.r, 1968). In general, POT testers consider that the poly-graph tra c i n g w i l l "peak" at c r i t i c a l items i f the subject has g u i l t y knowledge or i s attempting to deceive the examiner (Arther, 1967; Reid and Inbau, 1966') . Since the '(Control Question technique i s the most common i n f i e l d ex-amination, and was used i n the study described here, i t i s useful to des-cribe the procedure i n more d e t a i l . The f i r s t step i n the session i s the pre-test interview. The examiner discusses with the respondent the nature of the examination, explains the equipment, and attempts to e s t a b l i s h a state of rapport. He also i d e n t i -f i e s the matters to be investigated and develops a l i s t of questions that the respondent f u l l y understands, accepts, and helps to phrase. Some ex-aminers also ask questions about the subject's personal background, medical h i s t o r y etc.^ The exact approach d i f f e r s among examiners (Barland & Raskin, 1973; Horvath, 1973). At the end of this preliminary interview the examiner impresses the subject with the power of the polygraph by i d e n t i f y i n g through the instrument a number on a card that the subject i s thinking about but attempts to conceal (Barland & Raskin, 1975; Reid & Inbau, 1966). The second component i s the polygraph examination i t s e l f . There i s a l i s t of ten to eleven questions previously discussed with the subject and including relevant, i r r e l e v a n t and control items as described above. The interim i n t e r v a l i s approximately 20 seconds. 65 Appendix E (cont'd) A second run-through of the o r i g i n a l questions i s then performed, with such changes i n phraseology or emphasis as the subject may suggest. A t h i r d administration i s then performed. At i t s conclusion, the examiner looks over the charts, and decides whether any further t e s t i n g i s needed. I f i t i s , one or more of the more s p e c i a l i z e d procedures described pre-v i o u s l y may be used. The judgement of the examiner w i l l d i c t a t e h i s choice of procedures. Analysis of Polygraph Records Texts and t r a i n i n g manuals are used as guidelines f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g the changes i n the ski n conductance, breathing, and blood flow recorded on the charts. The magnitude and duration of r e a c t i v i t y to each question on each chart are evaluated (Backster, 1969). F i e l d i n v e s t i g a t o r s r e a l i s e that deception reactions d i f f e r from case to case., so that there i s no s p e c i f i c pattern xteo i d e n t i f y but rather deviations from baseline l e v e l s for the p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . The important c r i t e r i o n i s that the changes occur consistently as compared to other changes i n the record (Horvath, 1976) . The study reported here used Backster's (1969) quantitative scoring system which the differences i n reactions to paired relevant and control questions are assigned a score -3 ftol +3. The examiner then makes h i s de-c i s i o n and magnitude of these scores. This procedure was used i n the current study. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094356/manifest

Comment

Related Items