Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review

Abstract

A B S T R A C TThe credibility of a testimony is a crucial component of judicial decision-making. Checklists of testimony credibility criteria are extensively used by forensic psychologists to assess the credibility of a testimony, and in many countries they are admitted as valid scientific evidence in a court of law. These checklists are based on the Undeutsch hypothesis asserting that statements derived from the memory of real-life experiences differ significantly in content and quality from fabricated or fictitious accounts. Notwithstanding, there is considerable controversy regarding the degree to which these checklists comply with the legal standards for scientific evidence to be admitted in a court of law (e.g., Daubert standards). In several countries, these checklists are not admitted as valid evidence in court, particularly in view of the inconsistent results reported in the scientific literature. Bearing in mind these issues, a meta-analysis was designed to test the Undeutsch hypothesis using the CBCA Checklist of criteria to discern between memories of self-experienced real-life events and fabricated or fictitious accounts. As the original hypothesis was formulated for populations of children, only quantitative studies with samples of children were considered for this study. In line with the Undeutsch hypothesis, the results showed a significant positive effect size that is generalizable to the total CBCA score, = 0.79. Moreover, a significant positive effect size was observed in each and all of the credibility criteria. In conclusion, the results corroborated the validity of the Undeutsch hypothesis and the CBCA criteria for discriminating between the memory of real self-experienced events and false or invented accounts. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for forensic practice. La hipótesis Undeutsch y el "Criteria Based Content Analysis": una revisión metaanalíticaR E S U M E N Con frecuencia, la evaluación de la fiabilidad de un testimonio se lleva a cabo mediante el uso de sistemas categoriales de análisis de contenido. Concretamente, el instrumento más utilizado para determinar la credibilidad del testimonio es el Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA), el cual se sustenta en la hipótesis Undeutsch, que establece que las memorias de un hecho auto-experimentado difieren en contenido y calidad de las memorias fabricadas o imaginadas. Las opiniones y resultados contradictorios encontrados en la literatura científica respecto al cumplimiento de los criterios judiciales (Daubert standards) así como el abundante número de trabajos existentes sobre la materia, nos llevó a diseñar un meta-análisis para someter a prueba la hipótesis Undeutsch, a través de la validez de los criterios de realidad del CBCA para discriminar entre la memoria de lo auto-experimentado y lo fabricado. Se tomaron aquellos estudios cuantitativos que incluían muestras de menores, esto es, con edades comprendidas entre los 2 y 18 años. En línea con la hipótesis Undeutsch, los resultados mostraron un tamaño del efec...

Self‐Reported Beliefs About Verbal Cues Correlate with Deception‐Detection Performance

“…As expected, participants primarily reported nonverbal cues-most notably gaze aversion and nervous behavior-as useful for detecting deception, replicating our previous study (Bogaard et al, 2016), as well as many others (e.g., Akehurst et al, 1996;Masip & Herrero, 2015;Strömwall et al, 2004;Strömwall & Granhag, 2003;Taylor & Hick, 2007;Vrij et al, 2006;Vrij & Semin, 1996). Although verbal signals were reported to a lesser extent, the cues that were reported (i.e., inconsistencies, details, and coherence) were largely supported by empirical research (Amado et al, 2015;Amado, Arce, Fariña, & Vilariño, 2016;Masip et al, 2005;Oberlader et al, 2016;Vrij, 2005).…”

“…CBCA items were scored on the basis of Amado, Arce, and Fariña (2015), DePaulo et al (2003), and Vrij (Vrij, 2005(Vrij, , 2008b. A CBCA item was scored as diagnostic if the item was significantly more present in truthful statements compared with fabricated statements in more than 65% of the studies included in the meta-analyses of Vrij (2005Vrij ( , 2008b and/or showed an effect size of at least d = 0.50 in Amado et al (2015) and/or a significant difference in DePaulo et al (2003). In total, 10 cues were evaluated as diagnostic of deceit, while evidence for seven items was mixed and hence was evaluated as nondiagnostic.…”

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

“…Complications are more likely to occur in truthful statements than in deceptive statements (Amado, Arce, & Fariña, 2015;Vrij, Fisher, et al, 2017;. Making up complications requires imagination, and liars may not have adequate imagination to make up facts (Vrij, 2008).…”

“…The statement "I can't remember" itself is not a self-handicapping strategy, it is called admitting lack of memory and part of the criteriabased content analysis tool (Amado et al, 2015).…”

Indicadores de calidad de las publicaciones científicas en psicología jurídica

“…Psicología y Derecho aúnan posiciones teóricas, metodológicas y aplicadas para entender los factores propios de las personas, a nivel social, psicológico, conductual, relacional, de salud, entre otros, que afectan o pueden afectar al comportamiento legal de todos los actores que intervienen en el proceso de forma directa como jurados, jueces, peritos, testigos, víctimas, agresores, investigadores, cuerpos de seguridad, o de forma indirecta como grupos de riesgo o la población en general en los estudios relacionados con prevalencia de conductas delictivas, la prevención del riesgo o la influencia de la sociedad, del barrio o de la familia en determinados comportamientos que pueden conducir a un proceso legal (González-Sala, Osca-Lluch, Tortosa y Peñaranda, 2017). Por este motivo, la psicología jurídica tiene un papel fundamental en la toma de decisiones judiciales (Amado, Arce y Fariña, 2015;Amado, Arce, Fariña y Vilariño, 2016;Arce, Fariña y Fraga, 2000) y en la resolución de temas tan lamentables y frecuentes como la violencia doméstica y malos tratos tanto en adultos (Arce, Fariña y Vilariño, 2015; Cala, Trigo y Saavedra, 2016; Contreras y Cano, 2016) como en adolescentes (Álvarez-García, Barreiro-Collazo, Núñez y Dobarro, 2016).…”