Lie Detector Tests

In his 1964 book The Naked Society, author Vance Packard described a scene in which he was invited to watch the administration of a polygraph test to a prospective salesman named "Bill." In addition to questions aimed at testing Bill's honesty and whether he intended to remain in his sales position for a reasonable period of time, the examiner also asked several questions (including a direct inquiry after the exam) that were intended to determine if Bill was gay. On the basis of little more than a hunch, Packard reported, the examiner raised a question about Bill's sexual orientation with his prospective employer (at a time when such questions could have devastating consequences) and suggested that further investigation or a second polygraph test might be useful. ^[13]

Packard made it clear that the ordeal to which Bill was subjected was not at all uncommon at the time. In the absence of any federal or state statute or regulation, employers were free to instruct polygraph administrators to ask job applicants virtually any question, regardless of how private or personal it might be.

At the time that Packard was writing, approximately three-quarters of all polygraph testing in the United States was performed on employees or prospective employees. In 1987, the federal government's Office of Technology Assessment estimated that 2 million job applicants and employees were given polygraph tests each year. The following year, with the strong support of the American Civil Liberties Union, Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), which bans (with a few exceptions) the use of the lie detector device for screening new hires and only permits the use of the polygraph on existing employees if there is a "reasonable suspicion" of wrongdoing.

Even when an employer is permitted to give a polygraph test, the EPPA requires your employer to hand you a statement, which you must sign before the test can be administered, that explains the limits of the test:

• There are a number of topics about which you cannot legally be asked questions, including religious beliefs, sexual preference, racial matters, lawful activities of labor organizations, and political affiliation.

• You have the right to refuse to take the test.

• The employer cannot require that you take the test as a condition of employment.

• The employer must explain how the test results will be used.

• You have certain rights, which the employer must list, if the test is not properly administered.

• You have the right to stop the test at any time.

• You can request that questions not be asked in a "degrading or needlessly intrusive fashion."

The EPPA had a devastating impact on the commercial use of lie detectors and left employers scrambling for ways to find out the information that they were used to getting during the polygraph tests. The most popular option has been the growing number of personality tests, many of which skirt the lines of legality.

Personality Tests

Despite serious questions about their effectiveness, personality tests are becoming a huge business. In a 2000 survey of human resource managers, for instance, the American Management Association found that 30 percent used personality testing during the hiring process, and some testing experts report that the percentage is now over 40 percent and rising. In 1999, the Association of Test Publishers estimated that the personality testing industry had total revenues of over $400 million. And as with so many other aspects of employment, the attacks on 9/11 have heightened interest in the use of personality tests to improve workplace security.

The unregulated nature of personality tests makes them ripe for abuse. While the Americans with Disabilities Act regulates the administration of psychological exams, there is no similar federal statute governing the administration of personality tests. The chief threat to employee privacy of personality tests is that they will be used to ask improper questions or gather otherwise private information. For instance, in 1993, the retail giant Target agreed to pay $2 million to settle a class action suit filed by job applicants for security guard positions.

The suit stemmed from a long screening test administered by Target, in which the retailer asked applicants over 700 true/false questions. The test, known as the Rodgers Condensed CPI-MMPI, contains questions that are often exceedingly personal, including: "I believe in the second coming of Christ," "I have had no difficulty starting or holding my urine," "I have never engaged in unusual sex practices," and "I believe my sins are unpardonable." About 30 percent of the 2,500 people to whom the test was administered were not offered jobs by Target, although it's unclear how much of a role the applicants' screening test answers played in the decision.

The class-action plaintiffs asserted that the screening test violated their privacy rights and violated the Wisconsin labor code, which forbids asking questions about a job applicant's sexual orientation. Target defended the use of the test, claiming that it successfully weeded out emotionally unstable candidates. In settling the suit, Target did not admit that it had done anything wrong, but agreed to discontinue its testing program for a period of five years.

There's a famous New Yorker cartoon by Peter Steiner that shows a hound sitting at a computer and saying to a canine buddy, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." ^[14] At least one website, however, can fix that.

The growth of the World Wide Web has added a whole new wrinkle to the personality test: the online multiple-choice exam that can help you find, among other things, your inner canine. At Emode.com, an online test can help determine if you've got the personality of a German shepherd, a basset hound, a Saint Bernard, a chihuahua, or one of a half-dozen other dog breeds. Emode pegs me, for instance, as a Scottish terrier, which it says has the following characteristics:

No bones about it, you're an adventurous Scottish terrier. Fearless, feisty, and always up for a challenge, you like having things your way. Some people might even label you stubborn or headstrong. But we know you're just ambitious and motivated. (Being misinterpreted is such a trial, isn't it?) Besides, your can-do attitude serves you well when facing challenges at work or in your personal life. No job is too big, and absolutely no obstacle is going to stand in your way. You're always ready, willing, and able to rise to the challenge. A loyal, caring friend, you choose your pals very carefully, then stick by them through thick and thin. Woof!

According to Emode's calculations, 5 percent of its members match this breed, and an estimated 7 percent of the world's population. Is the description accurate? Well, it's close enough, I guess (some might say spot-on), but then, the descriptions of the various breeds are all general enough that they can apply to a wide range of people.

In addition to its dog breed personality test, Emode offers a wide variety of other online personality tests, ranging from a test of your relationship IQ (I scored a genius-level 128, which all by itself raises serious questions about the validity of these tests) to identifying your inner rock star (I was hoping for Sting, but got Chris Isaak instead).

These are all pleasant online diversions, but whether they offer any meaningful insights into someone's personality is another question altogether. In fact, there's no indication that any employers are seriously basing their hiring decisions on whether you're a chihuahua or a Saint Bernard. But at the same time, the complete lack of standards for the use of personality tests makes this an employment tool ripe for abuse.

^[13]Vance Packard, The Naked Society (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964), pp. 59–66.

^[14]Steiner, whose cartoon appeared nearly ten years ago in the July 5, 1993, edition of the New Yorker, was prescient. Public interest in the Internet did not begin to take off until two years later, when the World Wide Web helped make the Internet more accessible to the average user.