Theoretical Model of Polygraph Testing: Concerns and Prospects for their Solution

The problem of determining the constructive validity of the methodology for the mental and physical polygraph testing is currently particularly pressing due to the increased number of such testing procedures in various fields of social life. The possibility of labeling of mental and physical polygraph testing as one of evidence-based methods in investigative and judicial practice partly depends on defining a theoretical model that would be in line with the core scientific foundations and wouldn't contradict experimental data. In this review we are talking about possibility of considering a separate psychic process as an object of mental and physical testing. Criticisms have been cited for the earlier models of interpreting the psychological responses in individuals examined during a polygraph test. We look at the mechanism for the occurrence of physiological reactions during polygraph testing from the standpoint of the theory of functional systems proposed by Pyotr Anokhin. It is assumed that the systemic approach will set the right direction for defining a theoretical grounding of this methodology.

1. Aleksandrov YU.I., Aleksandrova N.L. Sub"yektivnyy opyt, kul'tura i sotsial'nyye predstavleniya [Subjective experience, culture and social representations]. Moscow: Publ. Institute of Psychology RAN, 2009. — 453 p.
2. Anokhin P.K. Sistemnyye mekhanizmy vysshey nervnoy deyatel'nosti: izbrannyye trudy [Systemic mechanisms of higher nervous activity: selected works]. Nauka, 1979. - 454 p.
3. Barabanshchikov V.A. Sistemnyy podkhod v structure psikhologicheskogo poznaniya [A systematic approach to the structure of psychological knowledge]. Metodologiya i istoriya psikhologii [Methodology and history of psychology], 2007, no. 1, pp. 86—99. (In Russ., abstr. in Engl.).
4. Bakhchina A.V., Aleksandrov YU.I. Slozhnost' serdechnogo ritma pri vremennoy sistemnoy dedifferentsiatsii [Heart rate complexity during the temporary systems dedifferentiation]. Eksperimental'nayapsikhologiya [Experimental Psychology], 2017. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 114—130. doi:10.17759/exppsy.2017100210. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
5. Ivanov R.S. Individual'nyy simptomokompleks kak instrument interpretatsii rezul'tatov psikhofiziologicheskogo issledovaniya s primeneniyem poligrafa [The law of force in a situation of psychophysiological research using a polygraph]. Natsional'nyy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], 2014. Vol. 3, no.15, pp. 90-97. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
6. Ivanov R.S. Zakon sily v situatsii psikhofiziologicheskogo issledovaniya s primeneniyem poligrafa [The law of force in a situation of psychophysiological research using a polygraph]. Vestnik psikhofiziologii [Psychophysiology news], 2016, no.2. 12 p.
7. Kuznetsov V.V., Baburov S.V., Mal'chevskiy A.A. Sistemnyy analiz v fundamental'nykh i prikladnykh issledovaniyakh [System analysis in basic and applied research]. Saint-Petersburg: Politekhnika. 2014. 325 p.
8. Luriya A.R. Lektsii po obshchey psikhologii [Lectures in General Psychology]. Saint-Petersburg:Piter. 2004. 210 p.
9. Ogloblin S.I., Molchanov A.YU. Instrumental'naya detektsiya lzhi: akademicheskiy kurs [Instrumental lie detection] Yaroslavl': Nyuans, 2004. P. 353—354.
10. Pelenitsyn A.B., Soshnikov A.P., Zhbankova O.V. Tak chto zhe vse-taki opredelyayet poligraf? [What does the polygraph determine after all?]. Vestnik kriminalistiki [Criminalistics news], 2011, no.2. 20 p.
11. Sudakov K.V. Funktsional'nyye sistemy organizma [Functional systems of the organism]. Moscow: Meditisina, 1987, 432 p.
12. Tkachenko A.A., Demidova L.YU. Postroyeniye obshchey modeli samoregulyatsii v sudebnoy psikhiatrii. Soobshcheniye 1. Printsip izomorfizma [Development of the general model of self-regulation in forensic psychiatry. Paper 1. The principle of isomorphism]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry], 2018, no. 5, 19 p.
13. Tkachenko A.A., Demidova L.YU. Postroyeniye obshchey modeli samoregulyatsii v sudebnoy psikhiatrii. Soobshcheniye 3. Rozhdeniye intentsii [Development of the general model of self-regulation in forensic psychiatry. Paper 3. Appearance of intention]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry], 2019, no.2, pp. 17—27.
14. Ukhtomskiy A.A. Dominanta kak factor povedeniya. Sobr. soch. [Dominant as a behavior factor], 1950, pp. 293—315.
15. Khavkin A.YU. Kompleksnaya diagnostika narusheniy seksual'nogo predpochteniya (kliniko-psikhopatologicheskiy, psikhofiziologicheskiyi psikhologicheskiy analiz). Diss. kand. med. nauk. [Comprehensive diagnosis of violations of sexual preference (clinical, psychopathological, psychophysiological and psychological analysis). Ph.D. Sci. (Medicine) diss.]. Moscow, 2003. 240 p.
16. Kholodnyy YU.I. Opros s ispol'zovaniyem poligrafa i yego yestestvennonauchnyye osnovy [A survey using a polygraph and its natural-scientific foundations]. Vestnik kriminalistiki [Criminology news], 2005. Vol.1, no. 13. 39 p.
17. Shvyrkov V.B. Vvedeniye v ob"yektivnuyu psikhologiyu. Neyronal'nyye osnovy psikhiki [Introduction to objective psychology. The neural basis of the psyche]. Moscow: Publ. Institute of Psychology RAN, 1995. 162 p.
18. Arici S. [et.al.]. Sympathetic skin responses in adult humans during sequential swallowing / Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology, 2013. Vol.1, no. 43. pp. 11—17.
19. Barry R.J. Preliminary process theory: towards an integrated account of the psychophysiology of cognitive processes / ActaNeurobiologiaeExperimentalis, 1996, no. 2, pp. 87—98.
20. Ben-Shakhar G. [et.al.]. Preliminary process theory does not validate the comparison question test: A comment on Palmatier and Rovner (2015) / International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2015. Vol.1, no. 95, pp. 16—19.
21. Bhutta M.R. [et.al.]. Single-trial lie detection using a combined fNIRS-polygraph system / Frontiers in psychology, 2015. Vol. 1, no. 6, p.709.
22. Deutsch J.A., Deutsch D. Attention: Some theoretical considerations. / Psychological review, 1963. Vol. 1, no. 70. P. 80.
23. Fryling M.J. A developmental-behavioral analysis of lying / International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 2016. Vol. 1, no. 16, pp. 13—22.
24. Holper L., Scholkmann F., Wolf M. The relationship between sympathetic nervous activity and cerebral hemodynamics and oxygenation: A study using skin conductance measurement and functional near-infrared spectroscopy / Behavioural brain research, 2014, no. 270,  p. 95—107.
25. Iddekinge C.H. Van [et.al.]. The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis / Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012. Vol. 3, no. 97, p. 499.
26. Kireev M. [et.al.]. Deceptive but not honest manipulative actions are associated with increased interaction between middle and inferior frontal gyri / Frontiers in neuroscience, 2017. Vol. 1, no. 11, p. 482.
27. Liu P., Shen H., Ji S. Functional Connectivity Pattern Analysis Underlying Neural Oscillation Synchronization during Deception / Neural plasticity, 2019, no. 13, pp. 35—40.
28. Marx G., Gilon C. The tripartite mechanism as the basis for a biochemical memory engram / Journal of integrative neuroscience, 2019. Vol. 2, no. 18, pp. 181—185.
29. Nelson R.I. Scientific basis for polygraph testing / Polygraph, 2015. Vol. 1, no. 41, pp. 21—61.
30. Nelson R.I. Testing the Limits of Evidence Based Polygraph Practices / Polygraph, 2016. Vol. 1, no. 45, pp. 74—85.
31. Nelson R.I. Multinomial reference distributions for the Empirical Scoring System / Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment, 2017. Vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 81—115.
32. Nepal O. [et.al.]. Galvanic Skin Response as a Simple Physiology Lab Teaching Tool-An Alternative Indicator of Sympathetic Arousal / Kathmandu Univ Med J., 2018. Vol. 2, no. 62, p. 156—160.
33. Palmatier J.J., Rovner L. Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity / International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2015. Vol. 1, no. 95, P. 3—13.
34. Senter S. [et.al.]. Psychological set or differential salience: A proposal for reconciling theory and terminology in polygraph testing / Polygraph, 2010. Vol. 2, no. 39, P. 109—117.