Truth and consequences: using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality

Journal of Sex Research,  Feb, 2003  by Michele G. Alexander,  Terri D. Fisher

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

As the experimenter placed electrodes on participants' hands, forearms, and neck, he or she told participants that the polygraph could assess truthfulness by measuring vital signs such as heart rate and galvanic skin response. To "calibrate the machine to ensure that it worked correctly," and to enhance the believability of the bogus pipeline, the experimenter asked participants to respond "yes" to two questions, one of which evoked a false response ("Is your name Bart Simpson?"), and one of which evoked a true response ("Is your name [participant's actual name?]"). As participants responded to these questions, the paper rollers and pens on the polygraph were activated. The experimenter showed everyone the same bogus printout, which clearly differentiated the false response from the truthful response. Reminding them that the machine was sensitive enough to detect dishonesty even in written responses, the experimenter urged participants to respond accurately, handed them the sex questionnaire, and exited the room, closing the door to provide privacy. When finished, participants placed their completed surveys in a locked box in the room.

Anonymous condition. Participants in the anonymous condition were attached to the polygraph during the filler task (viewing a videotape depicting a student asking a professor about a class assignment and then rating the degree of sexual interest each had displayed), but not while completing the sexuality questionnaires. They were told that their answers would be completely anonymous and they were left alone in the small room with the door fully closed. They placed their completed surveys in a locked box before exiting the room.

Exposure threat condition. In this condition, we did not use the polygraph. Participants were led to believe that the experimenter, a college student peer, might view their responses because they were instructed to directly hand the completed questionnaire to the experimenter when finished. They completed the questionnaires in the small room with the door open and the experimenter sitting just outside in full view as a reminder of the impending possibility of exposure. In actuality, when participants attempted to give their completed survey to the experimenter, they were instead told to place the questionnaire in the locked box in the testing room.

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

Responses on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale for all three conditions were compared with a 2 (Participant Sex) X 3 (Testing Condition) analysis of variance (ANOVA), which indicated a significant main effect for testing condition among the three groups, F(2, 197) = 14.1, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .127. (1) A Fisher's LSD post-hoc test indicated that, as predicted, social desirability scores were lowest in the bogus pipeline condition (M = 5.6, SD = 2.9), intermediate in the anonymous condition (M = 7.0, SD = 2.9), and highest in the exposure threat condition (M = 8.3, SD = 3.0).