Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

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 Finally, unpublished studies showed higher effect sizes than studies published in peer-reviewed journals.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).

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).…”

¿Son los criterios de realidad válidos para clasificar y discernir entre memorias de hechos auto-experimentados y de eventos vistos en vídeo?

“…Primero, la situación no es real por lo que los participantes no actúan como en tal circunstancia (implicación), con efectos directos en los resultados (validez aparente) en la investigación en psicología forense (Fariña, Real, y Arce, 1994). Al respecto, la literatura ha constatado sistemáticamente (ver revisiones meta-analíticas de menores y adultos; Amado et al, 2015Amado et al, , 2016Oberlader et al, 2016) que la capacidad discriminativa y de clasificación de memorias de hechos auto-experimentados de los criterios de realidad del CBCA es significativamente mayor en estudios de campo (casos reales) que en estudios de laboratorio (casos simulados). Segundo, la longitud de la declaración tiene efectos en la productividad de las categorías de contenido (Arce, 2017;Köhnken, 2004), siendo significativamente menor en las memorias autobiográficas que en las reales de eventos de victimización de un delito, y las fabricadas en condiciones experimentales de las fabricadas con propósitos judiciales.…”

“…Si bien, el sistema categorial CBCA no es metódico, dando lugar a una prueba que no sólo no cumple con los criterios científicos exigibles (fiabilidad, validez, criterio de decisión objetivo y estricto y carencia de control de la fidelidad de la aplicación de la medida), sino también procesales y jurisprudenciales (no evalúa la persistencia en el testimonio; la aplicación de la técnica contamina la prueba; no controla los falsos positivosvulneración del principio de presunción de inocencia-) (Arce, 2017). Meta-análisis recientes han encontrado que las categorías de realidad de dicho sistema discriminan significativamente (y, por tanto, clasifican por separado, aunque no todas, y en conjunto), entre memorias de eventos vividos (auto-experimentados) y memorias fabricadas de eventos (no experimentados) en diferentes poblaciones (niños/as y adultos/ as), contextos (e.g., abusos sexuales, violencia doméstica) y condiciones de testimonio (e.g., víctima-denunciante, denunciado, testigos) (Amado, Arce, y Fariña, 2015;Amado, Arce, Fariña, y Vilariño, 2016;Oberlader et al, 2016). En suma, la hipótesis es válida, pero no así el sistema categorial como conjunto.…”

The first direct replication on using verbal credibility assessment for the detection of deceptive intentions

“…In the challenge to tell truth‐tellers from liars, verbal deception detection has emerged as one of the more promising approaches (Oberlader et al, 2016; Vrij, Fisher, & Blank, 2015). Verbal deception detection sets out to identify verbal indicators of deception in statements made about an event.…”

“…Both the cognitive approach and Reality Monitoring agree on the prediction that truthful statements are richer in detail than deceptive statements. There is a body of research on the verbal deception detection approach with meta‐analytical findings suggesting that detail richness can identify liars and truth‐tellers better than chance (Masip, Sporer, Garrido, & Herrero, 2005; Oberlader et al, 2016; Vrij et al, 2015). However, meta‐analyses rely on the quality of the original studies and cannot ascertain whether the individual effects reported in studies are reliable (van Elk et al, 2015).…”