The push to accept someone’s “personal truth” as fact is dangerous in certain situations.
For example, in a background screening for a law enforcement agency, an applicant for the position of Chaplain could not pass the Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA/polygraph) for questions regarding his domestic violence history.
On his application background questionnaire, he denied being arrested or accused of any acts of domestic violence. During our one-on-one interview, he again denied being arrested or accused of an act of domestic violence. So then, it became curious that he could not pass the questions on the CVSA, and I needed to figure out why.
The CVSA reads psychological, not physical, stress. If he could not pass these questions, it needed some additional follow-up. I told him that he did not pass the CVSA and followed-up by asking what he was thinking about during the questions regarding domestic violence. He revealed that his marriage was difficult, stressful, and involved many hard arguments. He continued to deny any physical violence.
I assured him that all marriages have difficult and stressful moments and clarified that difficult and stressful moments were not acts of domestic violence. He agreed and said he understood. If he was telling the truth, this would have relieved the psychological stress and he would have passed the test.
I administered a second CVSA exam. He again passed all questions except for those involving domestic violence. In fact, the second CVSA detected even more stress than the first exam. I told him that I believed he was being deceptive and the only way for him to clear the CVSA exam was to be honest.
His story began to change.
He said that after his wife had left him, she told a neighbor that he had pulled her hair once during an argument. He denied this ever happened.
To verify this, I decided to give a third exam, but I changed the question to “have you ever pulled your wife’s hair during an argument”? He responded that he hadn’t. But the CVSA indicated even more stress than the second exam, and his story changed again.
The next discussion led to a confession.
He finally revealed that he had not only pulled his wife’s hair, but he had pulled her by the hair back into the house when she tried to leave him. He had committed not only domestic violence but also kidnapping.
Still trying to justify his actions, he said, “That was a hard time in my life, and I want to put it behind me. I choose to believe it didn’t happen, so it’s not true anymore”. Even as he said this, he couldn’t look at me. He stared at the floor and was rubbing each of his arms with the other hands. His own body was uncomfortable with the information coming from his mouth. (It’s important to note that reading body language is a learned skill that includes determining if a behavior is normal or only happens in stress.)
This candidate wanted to change the facts to fit a more comfortable “personal truth”.
But his personal truth was not, in fact, reality.
This candidate was deceptive in his written application and his interview, which led to follow-up questions designed for the CVSA. His deception was also evident in his lack of eye contact and self-comfort behavior (arm rubbing). The CVSA then confirmed his deception, and he was not cleared for hire.
How can that help you? How many times have you made a hiring mistake because the truth was not verified? It takes a powerful combination of skilled techniques to verify the truth and detect deception. It’s worth it.
Comments