Vrij Aldert, Akehurst Lucy, Soukara Stavroula, Bull Ray
Psychology Department, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Law Hum Behav. 2002 Jun;26(3):261-83. doi: 10.1023/a:1015313120905.
The impact of Veracity, Age, Status (witness or suspect), Coaching (informed or uninformed regarding CBCA), and Social Skills (social anxiety, social adroitness, and self-monitoring) on Criteria-Based Content Analysis scores was examined. Participants (aged 5-6, 10-11, 14-15, and undergraduates) participated in a "rubbing the blackboard" event. In a subsequent interview they told the truth or lied about the event. They were accused of having rubbed the blackboard themselves (suspect condition) or were thought to have witnessed the event (witness condition), and were or were not taught some CBCA criteria prior to the interview. CBCA scores discriminated between liars and truth tellers in children, adults, witnesses, and suspects. However, truth tellers obtained higher CBCA scores than liars only when the liars were uninformed about CBCA. CBCA scores were correlated with social skills. It is argued that thesefindings should caution those who believe that the validity of CBCA has been conclusively demonstrated.
研究了真实性、年龄、身份(证人或嫌疑人)、指导(是否了解基于标准的内容分析[CBCA])以及社交技能(社交焦虑、社交熟练度和自我监控)对基于标准的内容分析得分的影响。参与者(年龄在5 - 6岁、10 - 11岁、14 - 15岁以及大学生)参与了一个“擦黑板”事件。在随后的访谈中,他们就该事件如实相告或说谎。他们被指控自己擦了黑板(嫌疑人情况)或者被认为目睹了该事件(证人情况),并且在访谈前被告知或未被告知一些CBCA标准。CBCA得分能够区分儿童、成人、证人及嫌疑人中的说谎者和说实话者。然而,只有当说谎者不了解CBCA时,说实话者的CBCA得分才高于说谎者。CBCA得分与社交技能相关。有人认为,这些发现应该警示那些认为CBCA的有效性已得到确凿证明的人。