Within the scope of judicial decisions, approaches to distinguish between true and fabricated statements have been of particular importance since ancient times. Although methods focusing on "prototypical" deceptive behavior (e.g., psychophysiological phenomena, nonverbal cues) have largely been rejected with regard to validity, content-based techniques constitute a promising approach and are well established within the applied forensic context. The basic idea of this approach is that experience-based and nonexperiencebased statements differ in their content-related quality. In order to test the validity of the most prominent content-based techniques, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Reality Monitoring (RM), we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis on English-and Germanlanguage studies. Based on a variety of decision criteria, 56 studies were included revealing an overall effect size of g = 1.03 (95% confidence interval [0.78, 1.27], Q = 420.06, p < .001, I² = 92.48%, N = 3429). There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of CBCA and RM. Additionally, we investigated a number of moderator variables such as characteristics of participants, statements, and judgment procedures, as well as general study characteristics.Results showed that the application of all CBCA criteria outperformed any incomplete CBCA criteria set. Furthermore, statement classification based on discriminant functions revealed higher discrimination rates than decisions based on sum scores. Finally, unpublished studies showed higher effect sizes than studies published in peer-reviewed journals. All results are discussed in terms of their significance for future research (e.g., developing standardized decision rules) and practical application (e.g., user training, applying complete criteria set).

Content-based techniques for credibility assessment (Criteria-Based Content Analysis [CBCA], Reality Monitoring [RM]) have been shown to distinguish between experience-based and fabricated statements in previous meta-analyses. New simulations raised the question whether these results are reliable revealing that using metaanalytic methods on biased datasets lead to false-positive rates of up to 100%. By assessing the performance of and applying different bias-correcting meta-analytic methods on a set of 71 studies we aimed for more precise effect size estimates. According to the sole bias-correcting meta-analytic method that performed well under a priori specified boundary conditions, CBCA and RM distinguished between experience-based and fabricated statements. However, great heterogeneity limited precise point estimation (i.e., moderate to large effects). In contrast, Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN)-another content-based technique tested-failed to discriminate between truth and lies. It is discussed how the gap between research on and forensic application of content-based credibility assessment may be narrowed.

No abstract

No abstract

Previous studies suggest that the process of desistance from crime is accompanied by a shift from criminal to law-abiding identity and self-efficacy. Against this background and to explain variance in recidivism, we developed direct and indirect measures of law-abiding and criminal identity as well as a direct measure of self-efficacy for law-abiding and criminal behavior. We predicted that 1) a stronger law-abiding identity relative to criminal identity as well as 2) a stronger self-efficacy for law-abiding and a weaker self-efficacy for criminal behavior will correlate with a lower risk to reoffend and will prospectively explain variance in recidivism. We applied the developed measures in a sample of 325 offenders on probation and tested cross-sectional associations with actuarial risk factors at T1. Two to three years later, we tested whether identity and self-efficacy measured at T1 explained variance in recidivism at T2, controlling for actuarial risk factors. Results showed that a stronger law-abiding identity relative to criminal identity as well as a stronger self-efficacy for law-abiding and a weaker self-efficacy for criminal behavior correlated with a lower risk to reoffend (T1). In addition, law-abiding relative to criminal identity prospectively explained variance in recidivism over and beyond actuarial risk factors (T2). The results indicate that the strength of law-abiding identity relative to criminal identity plays a role in persisting in or desisting from criminal behavior. Yet, further research is necessary to identify the causal psychological mechanisms of identity change in the process towards desistance from crime.