Maier Benjamin G, Niehaus Susanna, Wachholz Sina, Volbert Renate
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Front Psychol. 2018 Jun 8;9:855. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00855. eCollection 2018.
In 2014, Volbert and Steller introduced a revised model of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) that grouped a modified set of content criteria in closer reference to their assumed latent processes, resulting in three dimensions of and . In this model, it is assumed that deceivers try to integrate memory-related criteria-but will not be as good as truth tellers in achieving this-whereas out of strategic considerations they will avoid the expression of the other criteria. The aim of the current study was to test this assumption. A vignette was presented via an online-questionnaire to inquire how participants ( = 135) rate the strategic value of CBCA criteria on a five-point scale. One-sample -tests showed that participants attribute positive strategic value to most memory-related criteria and negative value to the remaining criteria, except for the criteria and . Overall, our results corroborated the model's suitability in distinguishing different groups of criteria-some which liars are inclined to integrate and others which liars intend to avoid-and in this way provide useful hints for forensic practitioners in appraising the criteria' diagnostic value.
2014年，沃尔伯特和施泰勒引入了一种基于标准的内容分析（CBCA）修订模型，该模型根据一组修改后的内容标准与其假定的潜在过程的紧密关联进行分组，从而形成了三个维度。在这个模型中，假定欺骗者试图整合与记忆相关的标准，但在实现这一点上不如说真话者做得好，而出于战略考虑，他们会避免表达其他标准。本研究的目的是检验这一假设。通过在线问卷呈现了一个小插曲，以询问参与者（n = 135）如何在五点量表上对CBCA标准的战略价值进行评分。单样本t检验表明，参与者对大多数与记忆相关的标准赋予积极的战略价值，对其余标准赋予消极价值，但标准[具体标准未给出]除外。总体而言，我们的结果证实了该模型在区分不同标准组方面的适用性——一些是说谎者倾向于整合的标准，另一些是说谎者打算避免使用的标准——并以此为法医从业者评估标准的诊断价值提供了有用提示。
