Proposing immersive virtual reality scenarios for validating verbal content analysis methods in adult samples

Verbal content analyses to differentiate truthful and fabricated statements, such as the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), are used in lie detection research as well as in practice to assess the credibility of statements in criminal court proceedings. Meta-analyses demonstrate validity of verbal content analyses above chance, but the traditional research paradigms usually lack either ecological or internal validity. The authors discuss the usage of immersive virtual reality scenarios to solve this dilemma, as both types of validity can be increased by this approach. In this integrative review of existing literature on the current use of virtual scenarios in forensic and victimology research, the authors extract strengths and limitations for possible VR studies in the context of verbal content analysis. Furthermore, novel ethical challenges involved are summarized and implications for future studies proposed. Overall, we argue in favor of using virtual reality scenarios to validate methods for verbal content analysis, but also urge to consider ethical limitations regarding unwanted short- and long-term aftereffects.

The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers

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 memory-related, script-deviant and strategy-based criteria. 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 (n = 135) rate the strategic value of CBCA criteria on a five-point scale. One-sample t-tests showed that participants attribute positive strategic value to most memory-related criteria and negative value to the remaining criteria, except for the criteria self-deprecation and pardoning the perpetrator. 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.

Is This Testimony Truthful, Fabricated, or Based on False Memory?

In 1989, Steller and Köhnken presented a systematic compilation of content characteristics for distinguishing between truthful and fabricated testimonies (criteria-based content analysis – CBCA) designed to be applied within a more comprehensive overall diagnostic procedure known as statement validity assessment (SVA; Steller, 1989 ). The subsequent 25 years have seen a marked increase in knowledge about the distinction between experience-based and non-experience-based statements. This supports the SVA approach and permits a better explanation of the underlying processes. The rationale of CBCA is that a true statement differs in content quality from a fabricated account because (a) a truth teller can draw on an episodic autobiographical representation containing a multitude of details, whereas a liar has to relate to scripts containing only general details of an event; and (b) a liar is busier with strategic self-presentation than a truth teller. The present article proposes a modified model of content characteristics that pays greater attention than before to these underlying processes. SVA takes into account that content quality is influenced not only by the veracity of a statement but also by other (personal and contextual) variables that need to be considered in the individual credibility assessment. Theoretical analyses and empirical research do not indicate comparable qualitative differences between true statements and those based on false memories. Witnesses giving testimony based on false memories do not fabricate false statements actively, and they make no effort to conceal a deception; they are not deceiving but mistaken. In these cases, a noncritical application of content criteria can lead to false results. To examine the hypothesis that a statement is based on a false memory, it is necessary to focus on the way in which the statement has emerged and evolved.