In the domain of forensic psychophysiology, salience—the degree to which a stimulus captures an individual’s attention due to its personal significance or threat value—is a central concept in the design and interpretation of polygraph examinations. This principle plays a critical role in shaping how examinees respond to specific questions and, by extension, how their physiological responses are interpreted.
Table of Contents
Psychological Set and the Origins of Salience
The notion of the psychological set—the idea that individuals are attuned to stimuli representing the greatest immediate threat to their well-being—can be traced back to observations by Floyd and Rush (1948) and earlier discussions by Titchener (1914). Although neither explicitly defined the term in their published works, the concept has become foundational in understanding how individuals allocate attention under perceived threat.
According to this model, an examinee’s fears, anxieties, and defensive arousal will become most pronounced in response to questions that target the most personally threatening behavior. This selective attention suppresses reactions to lesser concerns, enabling a polygraph examiner to isolate and measure responses to the most critical stimuli.
Theoretical Frameworks Supporting Salience in Polygraphy
Several psychological theories help explain how certain stimuli elicit stronger physiological reactions during a polygraph examination:
1. Conditioned Response Theory
Originating with Pavlov’s classical conditioning (1927), this theory posits that autonomic reactions can be conditioned by emotionally significant experiences. For example, if a transgression was previously associated with anxiety, the mention of it during an exam may evoke a conditioned physiological response, even if the examinee tries to remain calm.
2. Orienting Response Theory
Sokolov (1963) introduced the concept of the orienting response, a reflexive reaction to novel or meaningful stimuli. This biological mechanism prompts the body to prepare for a focused reaction—essential for distinguishing between routine and potentially consequential events. During a polygraph, a question perceived as novel, threatening, or personally relevant may provoke a stronger orienting response.
3. Dichotomization Theory
Proposed by Ben-Shakhar (1977), this theory asserts that stimuli are internally categorized as either significant (threatening) or insignificant (neutral). Threat-relevant stimuli provoke sustained attention and slower habituation. In polygraph testing, this translates to more pronounced and consistent physiological reactions to relevant questions.
4. Conflict and Arousal Theories
These models examine how internal psychological conflict—such as guilt, fear of consequences, or concern over moral transgression—can influence arousal levels. The intensity of arousal is linked not only to deception but also to the perceived importance of the stimulus. This variability is crucial in interpreting test data, particularly in distinguishing genuine deception from heightened emotional states due to non-deceptive stressors.
Salience in Repeat Examinees and Non-Naïve Subjects
In practice, non-naïve subjects—those with prior experience undergoing polygraph examinations—may exhibit heightened salience responses due to previous exposure to accusatory contexts or legal consequences. These individuals often demonstrate exaggerated physiological responses, not necessarily due to deception, but from increased stress, trauma recall, or a fear of being misinterpreted.
Thus, examiners must consider the subjective meaning of each question to the examinee, as prior experiences may alter the salience of even neutral-seeming inquiries.
Challenges in Operationalizing Salience
While salience-based theories provide valuable frameworks for understanding polygraph responses, they also highlight several challenges:
-
Subjectivity of Threat Perception: What is salient to one examinee may not be salient to another. Individual differences in emotional sensitivity, past experiences, and situational context complicate the uniform application of these theories.
-
Terminological Confusion: The use of insular jargon within the polygraph community—often referred to as “poly-babble”—can undermine the credibility of the field and obscure communication with the broader scientific and legal communities.
-
Indirect Measurement: Polygraphy does not detect lies per se. It measures physiological indicators—such as skin conductivity, respiration, and cardiovascular changes—in response to questions believed to hold personal relevance or threat. These responses must then be interpreted within a probabilistic framework using established scoring models and normative data.
Conclusion
The integration of psychological theories such as salience, conditioning, and orienting responses into polygraph methodology deepens our understanding of how individuals react under scrutiny. These theories do not merely justify the use of polygraph testing—they inform best practices for question formulation, subject preparation, and result interpretation.
As forensic science continues to evolve, it is imperative that polygraphy adheres to rigorous empirical standards. By grounding polygraph practices in established psychological principles and recognizing the individual variability in salience, examiners can enhance the validity, reliability, and scientific credibility of this investigative tool.
