NCJ Number
187440
Journal
Polygraph Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Dated: 2000 Pages: 321-325
Date Published
2000
Length
5 pages
Annotation
Matte (2000) presented a paper which he described as a "critical analysis" of the current author's (Charles R. Honts) paper (1999) on the review of comparison questions between polygraph chart representations; the current paper is intended to correct Matte's mistakes and misrepresentations.
Abstract
Matte begins with a number of unattributed statements regarding an unspecified hypothetical construct, psychological set, and a number of hypothesized impacts of discussion of questions between repetitions on psychological set. The notion of psychological set is a contrivance of the polygraph profession and has received little scientific validation. Moreover, psychological set is not a term that is in general use in mainstream psychological science. Nevertheless, Matte asserts as fact that the discussion of relevant questions between repetitions would result in an increased false positive rate, and a discussion of comparison questions between charts would result in an increase in the false negative rate. Matte cites no data and no studies to support these alleged facts. Matte then uses data from Matte and Reuss (1999) in an effort to establish that directed-lie comparison questions are uniquely susceptible to deleterious impacts on false negative rates from review between question repetitions. This study, however, has no external validity. Matte further criticizes Honts for including studies that used different methodologies. Although this is true, it is not a valid criticism of Honts' analysis. Finally, Matte engages in an ad hominem attack on Honts credibility concerning descriptions of the course lecture material Honts referenced from the Backster School of Lie Detection. Honts maintains that his previous statements are accurate as they were presented. 18 references