Essentials of the Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Strength: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Comparison Question Test (CQT)

  • 1 , Tel Aviv, Israel

Abstract

The essentials of the Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) theoretical framework for explaining the Comparison Question Test (CQT) (Ginton, 2009), is presented here in a detailed outline format. It is based on the notion that examinees who lie on the test in the relevant questions are attached psychologically to the relevant issue in a different way than the truth-tellers. An essential difference is the strength by which the suspect’s attention is directed, focused, and bound to the relevant issue. These aspects of attention in the context of polygraph examinations are coined, Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Strength. The RIG strength is assumed to distribute differently between the liars and the truth-tellers. There is reason to believe that liars hold a stronger RIG compared to the truthful subjects, and eventually, that affects the differential reactivity to the relevant vs. comparison questions. The following describes the rationale behind the RIG concept, some supporting data, and the theoretical as well as practical implications.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • American Polygraph Association (2011), ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on validated techniques’. Polygraph, 40(4), 196–305.

  • Ginton, A. (2009), ‘Relevant Issue Gravity (RIG) Strength – a New Concept in PDD that Reframes the notion of Psychological Set and the Role of Attention in CQT Poly-graph Examinations’. Polygraph, 38, 204–217.

  • Ginton, A. (2015), ‘Good intentions that fail to cope with the main point in CQT: a comment on Palmatier and Rovner’. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95, 25–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.09.005.

  • Ginton, A. (2017), ‘Examining different types of comparison questions in a field study of CQT polygraph technique. Theoretical and practical implications’. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 14, pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.1002/jip.147.

  • Honts, C.R. (2004), The psychophysiological detection of deception, [in:] Granhag, P. and Stromwall, L. (eds.), Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts, Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–123.

  • Horvath, F.S. (1977), ‘The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127–136.

  • Iacono, W. G., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2019), ‘Current status of forensic lie detection with the comparison question technique: An update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report on polygraph testing’. Law and H uman Behavior, 43, 86–98.

  • Kircher, J.C., Horowitz, S.W., and Raskin, D.C. (1988), ‘Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique’. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 79–90.

  • Krapohl, D.J., and Shaw, P.K. (2015), Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice, Elesvier Inc., Academic Press, San-Diego, Ca, USA.

  • National Research Council, (2003), The Polygraph and Lie Detection, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Nelson, R. (2011), ‘Monte Carlo Study of Criterion Validity for Two-Question Zone Comparison Tests with the Empirical Scoring System, Seven Position, and Th ree-Position Scoring Models’. Polygraph, 40, 146–156.

  • Nelson, R., and Handler, M. (2008), ‘Brute-Force Comparison: A Monte Carlo Study of the Objective Scoring System version 3 (OSS-3) and Human Polygraph Scorers’. Polygraph, 37, 185–205.

  • Raskin, D.C., Honts, C.R., Nelson, R., and Handler, M. (2015), ‘Monte Carlo Estimates of the Validity of Four Relevant Question Polygraph Examinations’. Polygraph, 44, 1–27.

  • Raskin, D.C., and Kircher, J.C. (2014), Validity of Polygraph Techniques and Decision Methods, [in:] Raskin, D.C., Honts, C.R., and Kircher, J.C. (eds.), Credibility Assessment; Scientific Research and Applications, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego.

  • Shterzer G. & Elaad E. (1985), Validity of the control question test in two levels of the severity of crimes. Proceedings of IDENTA-’85, [in:] Anti-Terrorism; Forensic Science; Psychology in Police Investigations (pp. 155–166). Jerusalem, Israel.

  • Vrij, A. (2008), Detecting Lies and Deceit, Pitfalls, and Opportunities, Wiley and Sons, 2nd ed., Chichester, England.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search