Abstract
In 2014, Volbert and Steller introduced a revised model of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) that grouped a modified set of content criteria in closer reference to their assumed latent processes, resulting in three dimensions of memory-related, script-deviant and strategy-based criteria. In this model, it is assumed that deceivers try to integrate memory-related criteria—but will not be as good as truth tellers in achieving this—whereas out of strategic considerations they will avoid the expression of the other criteria. The aim of the current study was to test this assumption. A vignette was presented via an online-questionnaire to inquire how participants (n = 135) rate the strategic value of CBCA criteria on a five-point scale. One-sample t-tests showed that participants attribute positive strategic value to most memory-related criteria and negative value to the remaining criteria, except for the criteria self-deprecation and pardoning the perpetrator. Overall, our results corroborated the model's suitability in distinguishing different groups of criteria—some which liars are inclined to integrate and others which liars intend to avoid—and in this way provide useful hints for forensic practitioners in appraising the criteria' diagnostic value.
Highlights
IntroductionThe Empirical Footing of CBCAThe underlying rationale of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) holds that the content of experienced-based accounts is qualitatively higher than the content of fabricated statements (the so-called Undeutsch Hypothesis; Undeutsch, 1967)
The Empirical Footing of CBCAThe underlying rationale of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) holds that the content of experienced-based accounts is qualitatively higher than the content of fabricated statements
The current study demonstrated that CBCA criteria differ in their strategic meaning and that the three-dimensional structure of the revised model of Volbert and Steller (2014) is suitable for representing these differences
Summary
The Empirical Footing of CBCAThe underlying rationale of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) holds that the content of experienced-based accounts is qualitatively higher than the content of fabricated statements (the so-called Undeutsch Hypothesis; Undeutsch, 1967). A multitude of both field and laboratory studies have confirmed that experience-based accounts yield higher content quality than fabricated statements, in this way corroborating the overall validity of CBCA as a truthdetection tool (for recent meta-analyses see Amado et al, 2016; Oberlader et al, 2016). Most of these studies summed up the individual criteria scores to one comprehensive (total) CBCA score, which subsequently served as the relevant variable for further analysis (e.g., Akehurst et al, 2001; Welle et al, 2016).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
