Oberlader Verena A, Naefgen Christoph, Koppehele-Gossel Judith, Quinten Laura, Banse Rainer, Schmidt Alexander F
Department of Psychology, University of Bonn.
Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen.
Law Hum Behav. 2016 Aug;40(4):440-457. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000193. Epub 2016 May 5.
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 nonexperience-based 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 German-language 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 = 3,429). 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 Finally, unpublished studies showed higher effect sizes than studies published in peer-reviewed journals.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). (PsycINFO Database Record
在司法裁决范围内，区分真实陈述与伪造陈述的方法自古就尤为重要。尽管聚焦于“典型”欺骗行为（如心理生理现象、非言语线索）的方法在有效性方面大多遭到摒弃，但基于内容的技术构成了一种有前景的方法，且在应用法医学背景中已得到充分确立。这种方法的基本理念是，基于经验和非基于经验的陈述在与内容相关的质量上存在差异。为了检验最突出的基于内容的技术——基于标准的内容分析（CBCA）和现实监控（RM）的有效性，我们对英语和德语研究进行了全面的元分析。基于多种决策标准，纳入了56项研究，结果显示总体效应量g = 1.03（95%置信区间[0.78, 1.27]，Q = 420.06，p <.001，I² = 92.48%，N = 3429）。CBCA和RM的有效性没有显著差异。此外，我们调查了一些调节变量，如参与者特征、陈述和判断程序，以及一般研究特征。结果表明，应用所有CBCA标准的效果优于任何不完整的CBCA标准集。此外，基于判别函数的陈述分类显示出比基于总分的决策更高的判别率。最后，未发表的研究显示出比同行评审期刊上发表的研究更高的效应量。所有结果都从它们对未来研究（如制定标准化决策规则）和实际应用（如用户培训、应用完整标准集）的意义方面进行了讨论。（PsycINFO数据库记录）
