The Guilty Knowledge polygraph test (GKT) and a variation of the test, the Guilty Actions Test (GAT), were compared in a laboratory setting. 84 men who committed or witnessed a mock crime answered "No", repeated items, or remained silent in response to items on the GKT or GAT. A monetary reward was promised for appearing innocent on the test. An interaction with scores based on skin resistance showed that innocent witnesses tested on the GKT scored more in the guilt direction than subjects in any other groups. Subjects required to say "no" were more reactive to key items than subjects in the item repetition or silence groups. Thoracic respiration scores showed a difference between guilty and innocent subjects.

Males and females, truthful or deceptive, about a real life embarrassing story or a laboratory mock crime were examined with Control Question detection of deception tests.Exams were conducted either by a police or a laboratory trained polygraph operator.Subjects were more reactive to event relevant questions when deceptive than when truthful. Police scored subject records more towards innocence whereas laboratory investigators scored them more towards Bradley and Cullen (1993) selected one area of difference and attempted to add realism to the laboratory situation by examining events that had actually occurred to subjects. Subjects were asked to provide, from their own life, an embarrassing story that had a strong emotional impact on them. The story, which for ethical reasons, had to be non-criminal, involved events that subjects preferred no-one knew of and they would rather deny. Subjects, examined with the Control Question Test on two stories, one in which they were the principal actor and one in which they had no part, were accurately classified as deceptive in denying their own story and as truthful when denying another story. -----------------The present study furthered explored the use of real events by comparing the results of real event Control Question Test 5examinations with those from a mock crime situation.In addition, both police and laboratory trained examiners tested subjects.The two police officers had been trained by the Ottawa Canadian Police College in the early 1980's.Their work since that training has been in the use of the CQT for criminal investigation. In a comparable way to the laboratory examiners, the police officers agreed to blindly examine subjects solely on the basis of knowing only the details of the mock crime or the particular embarrassing story to classify whether subjects were deceptive or truthful about their role in these events. Beyond that, the police were free to apply the CQT in the way that their training and experience dictated that they should. The laboratory examiners were restricted to a laid out protocol. ProcedureForty three male and female volunteer subjects were asked to write out in some detail a very embarrassing incident in which they were involved. The stories were read for clarity and understanding. The authors of the thirty selected stories were contacted and polygraph examination sessions were arranged. An equal number of subjects were contacted who had not written a story. They were examined on one of stories generated by the first group of subjects. Subjects who appeared truthful on the subsequent polygraph testControl Question Test 8 received $20.00.A second set of subjects followed instructions leading them to be guilty or innocent of a mock crime murder. Guilty subjects were asked to go into a room labelled hotel, pick up a gun from the window ledge, and shoot a mannequin wearing a red shirt three times in the chest.The mannequin was wearing a name tag with "Bob" written on it and had $15 in his shirt pocket. Guilty subjects stole the $15,...