Evaluation of the Value of Physiological Cues to Determining the Salience of a Risk Factor in a Situation of Screening Polygraph Test



The scientific validity of polygraph testing is regularly criticized by the scientific community in view of the subjectivity of data evaluation and the unclear predictive value of the parameters obtained with the help of a polygraph. In order to clarify the contribution of the physiological cues used in identifying the salience of the topic during polygraph screening, the materials of an empirical study obtained from a sample of 67 volunteers who have a risk factor associated with forgery of documents and do not have it are presented. A psychophysiological method was used with a preliminary questionnaire about the well-being at the time of the experiment. During the paid experiment, it was proposed to forge a financial document and lie about it to a polygraph examiner, or answer questions honestly. In order to eliminate subjectivity in data evaluation, all registered signals were digitized, standardized and processed using the discriminate analysis method. At the same time, a high accuracy of the discriminant model was found (92.5%). The parameters of a short-term rise in blood pressure and changes in the electrical activity of the skin were the main variables for the classification of persons with and without a risk factor. The data obtained complement previous studies on the accuracy of the polygraph screening test, expanding the prognostic value of the length of the respiratory signal line.

General Information

Keywords: screening polygraph test, personnel screening, psychophysiological cues, assessment of the salience of information, directed-lie questions, accuracy of polygraph

Journal rubric: Methodological Problems of Legal Psychology

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2023130207

Received: 12.07.2022


For citation: Kuptsova D.M., Dvoryanchikov N.V. Evaluation of the Value of Physiological Cues to Determining the Salience of a Risk Factor in a Situation of Screening Polygraph Test [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhologiya i pravo = Psychology and Law, 2023. Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 82–93. DOI: 10.17759/psylaw.2023130207. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Vinogradov M.V., Ulyanina O.A. Osobennosti provedeniya spetsial’nykh psikhofiziologicheskikh issledovanii s primeneniem poligrafa v otnoshenii sotrudnikov organov vnutrennikh del, naznachaemykh na inye dolzhnosti v sisteme MVD Rossii [Specifics of Conducting Special Psychophysiological Studies with the Use of a Polygraph on the Employees of Internal Affairs Bodies Appointed to Other Positions in the System of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhologiya i pravo = Psychology and Law, 2022. Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 141–160. doi:10.17759/psylaw.2022120211 (In Russ.).
  2. Kuptsova D.M., Kamenskov M.Yu. Teoreticheskaya model’ testirovaniya na poligrafe: pro-blemy i perspektivy ikh razresheniya [Theoretical Model of Polygraph Testing: Concerns and Prospects for their Solution] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhologiya i pravo = Psychology and Law, 2020. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 126–138. doi:10.17759/psylaw.2020100409 (In Russ.).
  3. Mendelevich V.D. Poligrafologiya, profailing, aitreking i drugie paranauchnye metody psikhiatricheskoi diagnostiki [Polygraphology, profiling, eyetracking and other parascientific methods of psychiatric diagnostics] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Nevrologicheskii vestnik = Neurology Bulletin, 2020. Vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 5–8. doi:10.17816/nb42282 (In Russ.).
  4. Nasledov A.D. Matematicheskie metody psikhologicheskogo issledovaniya. Saint Petersburg: Rech’, 2012, pp. 282–297. (In Russ.).
  5. Pelenitsyn A.B., Soshnikov A.P. Dokazatel’naya poligrafologiya. Podrobnoe rukovodstvo dlya poligrafologov-praktikov: V 4 ch. Ch. 4. Moscow, 2021, pp. 80–100. (In Russ.).
  6. Uchaev A.V., Aleksandrov Yu.I. Uspeshnost’ sokrytiya informatsii v protsesse testirovaniya na poligrafe individami raznykh tipov mental’nosti [The Success of Information Concealment during Polygraph Testing by Individuals of Different Mentality Types] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology, 2021. Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 156–169. doi:10.17759/exppsy.2021140211 (In Russ.).
  7. Arrigo B.A., Claussen N. Police corruption and psychological testing: a strategy for preemployment screening. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 2003. Vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 272–290. doi:10.1177/0306624X03047003003
  8. Bell B.G., Kircher J.C., Bernhardt P.C. New measures improve the accuracy of the directed-lie test when detecting deception using a mock crime. Physiology & Behavior, 2008. Vol. 94, no. 3, pp.331–340. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.01.022
  9. Collins N. The Use of Polygraph Test in Clinical Forensic Psychiatry Settings. Ethical Issues in Clinical Forensic Psychiatry. Springer Cham, 2020. С. 85–96. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37301-6
  10. Giboney J.S. Grouping cognitive processes of deception: a meta-analysis. In Siegel D. (ed.) World Scientific Reference on Innovation. Vol. 4. World Scientific Publishing, 2018. Р. 3–26.
  11. Handler M., Honts C., Nelson R. Information gain of the directed lie screening test. Polygraph, 2013. Vol. 42(4). P. 192–202.
  12. Handler M. el al. Integration of pre-employment polygraph screening into the police selection process. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2009. Vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 69–86. doi:10.1007/s11896-009-9050-2
  13. Honts C.R., Amato S. Automation of a screening polygraph test increases accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2007. Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 187–199. doi:10.1080/10683160600632843
  14. Honts C.R., Thurber S., Handler M. A Comprehensive Meta‐analysis of the Comparison Question Polygraph Test. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2021. Vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 411–427. doi:10.1002/acp.3779
  15. Johnson Jr.R. Chapter 6. The Neural Basis of Deception and Credibility Assessment: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. In D.C. Raskin, C.R. Honts, J.C. Kircher (eds.). Credibility Assessment. Scientific Research and Applications. Elsevier, 2014, pp. 217–300. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394433-7.00006-3
  16. Kircher J.C. et al. Human and Computer Decision-Making in the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception. Polygraph, Vol. 41(2), pp. 77–126.
  17. Nelson R., Handler M. Monte Carlo Study of Criterion Validity of the Directed Lie Screening Test using the Empirical Scoring System and the Objective Scoring System Version 3. Polygraph, Vol. 41(3), pp. 144–155.

Information About the Authors

Darina M. Kuptsova, Department of Forensic and Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Legal Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6803-1984, e-mail: dary.rin@gmail.com

Nikolay V. Dvoryanchikov, PhD in Psychology, Docent, Dean, Faculty of Legal and Forensic Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1462-5469, e-mail: dvorian@gmail.com



Total: 395
Previous month: 35
Current month: 11


Total: 258
Previous month: 16
Current month: 3