Is This Testimony Truthful, Fabricated, or Based on False Memory?

Abstract

In 1989, Steller and Köhnken presented a systematic compilation of content characteristics for distinguishing between truthful and fabricated testimonies (criteria-based content analysis – CBCA) designed to be applied within a more comprehensive overall diagnostic procedure known as statement validity assessment (SVA; Steller, 1989 ). The subsequent 25 years have seen a marked increase in knowledge about the distinction between experience-based and non-experience-based statements. This supports the SVA approach and permits a better explanation of the underlying processes. The rationale of CBCA is that a true statement differs in content quality from a fabricated account because (a) a truth teller can draw on an episodic autobiographical representation containing a multitude of details, whereas a liar has to relate to scripts containing only general details of an event; and (b) a liar is busier with strategic self-presentation than a truth teller. The present article proposes a modified model of content characteristics that pays greater attention than before to these underlying processes. SVA takes into account that content quality is influenced not only by the veracity of a statement but also by other (personal and contextual) variables that need to be considered in the individual credibility assessment. Theoretical analyses and empirical research do not indicate comparable qualitative differences between true statements and those based on false memories. Witnesses giving testimony based on false memories do not fabricate false statements actively, and they make no effort to conceal a deception; they are not deceiving but mistaken. In these cases, a noncritical application of content criteria can lead to false results. To examine the hypothesis that a statement is based on a false memory, it is necessary to focus on the way in which the statement has emerged and evolved.

Using unexpected questions to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter‐based interviews

“…Liars are more likely to include common knowledge details in their statements than truth tellers (Köhnken, 2004;Sporer, 2016;Volbert & Steller, 2014;Vrij, Leal, et al, 2017). Truth tellers, who have personal experiences of an event, are likely to report such unique experiences, and when they do so, the statement is no longer scripted.…”

The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers

“…In brief, the story 3 described a protagonist who is at risk of losing his highly valued job, unless he would be able to deliver a convincing explanation to his boss for his (repeatedly) belated arrival at work. After having read the story outline, 27 CBCA criteria derived from the model of Volbert and Steller (2014) were presented on the questionnaire, with the sequence of criteria presentation being adjusted to the model's structure. For each criterion, we gave a short abstract description illustrated by an example embedded into the story outline.…”

“…As a first step toward inferring the diagnostic value of a criterion, theoretical considerations of what processes govern its emergence loom necessary: Why exactly is a criterion expected to occur in true accounts, but not in fabricated ones? From a psychological perspective, two universal aspects apply to a truth teller but not to a lying person (Volbert and Steller, 2014): Truth tellers report from actual memory, and in doing so are convinced that the event in question had happened as reported. Therefore, in the statement of an honestly reporting person content criteria are likely to occur naturally, as they reflect phenomena associated with genuine memories and feelings of sincerity.…”

“…In 2014, Volbert and Steller introduced a revised CBCA model, which is based on theoretical considerations of what processes govern the emergence of criteria in statements (Volbert and Steller, 2014). The model still distinguishes criteria pointing to the differences in the cognitive processes of liars and truth tellers (cognitive criteria) from criteria referring to the aspects of strategic self-presentation (motivational criteria).…”

“… [C], Cognitive criteria; [M], Motivational criteria .a Volbert and Steller (2014) understand their allocation of specific criteria to be exemplary rather than irrevocably. For illustration purposes, the structure presented in this article thus differs slightly from the version originally presented by the authors: In the original version, a separate category “statement as a whole” addresses criteria that can only be evaluated if the statement is analyzed in its entirety, as opposed to scoring the same criterion multiple times at different parts of the statement (“single characteristics”).…”