Suppr超能文献

从欺骗者角度看测谎仪评估标准的战略意义。

The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers.

作者信息

Maier Benjamin G, Niehaus Susanna, Wachholz Sina, Volbert Renate

机构信息

Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Lucerne, Switzerland.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2018 Jun 8;9:855. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00855. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

5
Detecting ulterior motives from verbal cues in group deliberations.从小组讨论中的言语线索中察觉潜在动机。
Front Psychol. 2023 May 24;14:1166225. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1166225. eCollection 2023.
6
A stability bias effect among deceivers.说谎者中的稳定性偏见效应。
Law Hum Behav. 2017 Dec;41(6):519-529. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000258. Epub 2017 Jul 20.

本文引用的文献

6
Police lie detection accuracy: the effect of lie scenario.警察测谎准确性:测谎情境的影响。
Law Hum Behav. 2009 Dec;33(6):530-8. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9166-4. Epub 2009 Feb 26.
7
Cues to deception.欺骗的线索。
Psychol Bull. 2003 Jan;129(1):74-118. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.
8
Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation.非言语行为与自我呈现。
Psychol Bull. 1992 Mar;111(2):203-243. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.203.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验