The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers

• Main Authors: Benjamin G. Maier, Susanna Niehaus, Sina Wachholz, Renate Volbert
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-06-01
• Series: Frontiers in Psychology
• Subjects: criteria-based content analysis; strategic self-presentation; content-related deception strategies; beliefs about verbal cues of deception; primary vs. secondary deception; cognitive vs. motivational component
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00855/full

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.