Discussion Board Post/Replies/Forensic Accounting

(Discussion Board Post)

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act passed by Congress made it difficult to use polygraphs in fraud investigations. Currently, 11 conditions must be met in order for polygraph tests to be used. Assume you are a member of Congress debating the use of polygraphs. Discuss both sides of the issue and make your recommendation. Would you make it easier or harder to obtain permission to use a polygraph?

(Discussion Board Replies) (3 Replies) (150 words each) (2 APA citations) (in-text apa citations are a must)

1. Polygraph is a testing technique that monitors an individual’s physiological changes, such as pulse rate and respiration, during a questioning session to determine if they are lying. However, the accuracy of a polygraph test is a matter of debate. Supporters claim it is highly effective, with 80% and 90% accuracy rates, while critics argue that the accuracy of the test is only around 70%. Despite these discrepancies, polygraph exams are widely used in the US and other countries for various purposes.

In the US, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) bans most private employers from using lie detector tests in pre-employment screening. However, this law doesn’t apply to certain private companies and all federal, state, and local government agencies. Therefore, if you’re applying for a job that involves handling a lot of money, prescription drugs, controlled substances, and health and safety, you may have to undergo a polygraph examination. This helps companies and government agencies select trustworthy and reliable candidates.

During a polygraph test, the examinee must answer about ten questions. Despite having to answer only a few yes-or-no questions, the test can take considerable time to complete. Lie detector exams can last anywhere from 2 to 3 hours, with some being slightly shorter or longer, depending on the purpose of the examination and the examiner’s testing style.

However, an innocent person may be falsely accused of lying if they experience stress during the interview. Certain medical conditions can prevent an individual from undergoing a lie detector examination. This is because the results may be inconclusive or inaccurate, or the person’s health and safety may be at risk. Some of the conditions that may cause a polygraph test to be canceled include severe heart conditions, anxiety, PTSD, and depression. Additionally, anyone sick or exhausted is not allowed to take the test.

Polygraphs can provide accurate results when used by experts, but they have certain limitations.

2. I had to take a polygraph for a job I was tentatively hired to do, and my job offer was contingent on passing the polygraph (and a couple of other tthings). The polygraph experience was odd: The examiner had me in a windowed room, attached these sensors to my body, then asked me baseline questions. The examiner was getting a “feel” for what was a normal response. I do not remember too many questions, except that one question was about taking any non-prescription medications. I answered negatively, that I had not taken any within the last 24 hours; however, I realized after I was done with the polygraph that I had inadvertently lied–I had taken some cold medicine within the time frame asked. I, even now, feel bad about not being completely honest, but, at the time–and since I did not remember such specific details–I realized the polygraph had not caught my lie.

It is possible that the examiner knew of my inadvertent forgetfulness–it was a very stressful day, designed to through a person off kilter–but it also convinced me that polygraphs might be a tool in hiring, but not necessarily evidentiary in proving guilt. Most people do not lie seamlessly (despite my own example), unless they are sociopaths or psychopaths (Albrecht et al., 2019). Polygraphs would not be able to catch such personalities anyway. If someone truly believes what they are saying, it is possible that their indicators might read as “truthful” due to passionate beliefs, no matter how misguided.

People who commit fraud (not management fraud, however) can exhibit changes in behavior and personality that increase and spiral out of control the further along in the fraud scheme they are, having trouble remember which lie they told to the investigators or to which person and what story they told. That is stress-inducing, that kind of on-edge balancing act. It is possible, that if a person is already highly stressed, agitated, and edgy, that a polygraph would not necessarily discern an accurate baseline anyway, given the baseline is already skewed due to the pressure of concealing the alleged fraud (Albrecht et al).

If a polygraph cannot be presented in court as proof, I do not think they are particularly helpful. While it might apply outside pressure and stress to an alleged fraud perpetrator, it can also be stressful for others who are already innocent. Since polygraphs are not admissible, I think it would be better to stick with more concrete pieces of evidence found during a fraud investigation rather than wasting time and resources (and hoping to have a competent polygraph examiner) on something that might provide superfluous results at best without furthering the direction or resolution of the investigation for fraud.

3. There are many issues and disadvantages surrounding the use of polygraph testing. A polygraph attempts “to asses stress, and hence lying, by measuring key physical responses” (Albrecht et al., 2019, p. 307). A polygraph is based on the assumption that a person who is lying will have guilt that will create stress that can result in a behavior change. According to the APA, “there is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception” (American Psychological Association, 2004). However, when tested, a person can be stressed or afraid, leading to mixed or incorrect readings. A habitual liar who is guilty could pass a polygraph test because they do not feel stress when lying or show any change in their behavior. The polygraph is “only as good as the experts who administer them” (Albrecht et al., 2019, p. 307). Therefore, it would require an experienced professional to administer them. Without proper training and certification of the professional administering tests, there would be no way to standardize the testing and result readings. Overall, the results of polygraph testing are unreliable. There are arguments that a polygraph test violates an individual’s privacy rights. However, this would not be an issue if an employee voluntarily agrees to the test. The polygraph test is subjective due to bias that can be introduced by the person administering it when interpreting the results. The interpretation can be affected by mood, feelings, or prejudices. Another possible way the results can be invalid is by a person’s health or possible medications interfering with the accuracy of the test. It has also been shown to provide an employer with a false sense of security in that they rely on the results as being accurate without considering the flaws of the test results (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013).

However, there are benefits or advantages to using a polygraph in the workplace. It can be used as a tool to confirm suspicion when there is other supporting evidence that creates suspicion of an employee concerning theft. It can also prevent future fraudulent activity because employees will be aware that they are being monitored and could be subject to a polygraph test (The British Polygraph Society (BPS), 2023).

Until more substantial findings support the accuracy of polygraph testing, the restrictions on the use of polygraphs should stay in place. My recommendation would be that The Employee Protection Act should remain unchanged. More research needs to be done on the validity of the tests before the restrictions can be amended.