Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN

Glynis Bogaard, Ewout H. Meijer, Aldert Vrij

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

386 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Verbal credibility assessment methods are frequently used in the criminal justice system to investigate the truthfulness of statements. Three of these methods are Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA), Reality Monitoring (RM), and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN). The aim of this study is twofold. First, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CBCA, RM, and especially SCAN. Second, we tested whether giving the interviewee an example of a detailed statement can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of these verbal credibility methods. To test the latter, two groups of participants were requested to write down one true and one fabricated statement about a negative event. Prior to this request, one group received a detailed example statement, whereas the other group received no additional information. Results showed that CBCA and RM scores differed between true and fabricated statements, whereas SCAN scores did not. Giving a detailed example statement did not lead to better discrimination between truth tellers and liars for any of the methods but did lead to the participants producing significantly longer statements. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)151-163
JournalJournal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2014

Keywords

  • Criteria Based Content Analysis
  • Reality Monitoring
  • Scientific Content Analysis
  • verbal lie detection
  • deception detection
  • credibility assessment methods

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Using an example statement increases information but does not increase accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this