What is it about?
The natural evaluators differentiated between true and false statements with somewhat above-chance accuracy, even though error rate was high (38.19 percent). The CBCA technique did discriminate at a better level. However, of the 19 criteria, only one significantly discriminated.
Featured Image
Photo by Austin Ban on Unsplash
Why is it important?
More procedures specifically adapted to the abilities of people with intellectual disabilities are thus required.
Perspectives
In line with other studies (not involving truth tellers/liars with ID), the lay participants could not discriminate between false and true stories at a level to be considered useful in a forensic context, this being one of the reasons why CBCA was developed. The CBCA technique did indeed discriminate at a better level. However, of the 19 criteria, only one (“quantity of details”) was found significant. This criterion, which is present in some lies, also deemed “richness in detail”, has also been identified as potential biases which may lead to incorrect veracity judgements. “Quantity of details” was found in the present study to be significant for people who have ID, even though when truly narrating an event, they tend to give fewer details than the general population.
Antonio L. Manzanero
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Criteria-based Content Analysis in True and Simulated Victims with Intellectual Disability, Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, January 2019, Colegio Oficial de Psicologos de Madrid,
DOI: 10.5093/apj2019a1.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
