Meta-Analyses on the Validity of Verbal Tools for Credibility Assessment

Since ancient times, approaches to distinguish between true and deceptive statements have been of particular importance in the context of court decisions. However, the applicability of most psychophysiological or behavioral measures of deception is critically discussed. Verbal tools for credibility assessment, nonetheless, are widely used. They rest on the assumption that the quality of statements that are experience-based differs from the quality of fabricated accounts. In order to test the validity of two prominent procedures, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Reality Monitoring (RM), a random-effects meta-analysis (REMA) was conducted on 52 English- and German-language studies in Meta-Analysis 1. The REMA revealed a large point estimate with moderate to large effect sizes in the confidence interval. This finding applied for both CBCA and RM, despite the fact that (1) there was a high level of heterogeneity between studies that could not be resolved by moderator analyses and, (2) it cannot be ruled out that effect size estimates are biased and thus verbal tools for credibility assessment only work to a smaller extent. However, a recent simulation study cast doubt on these findings: It showed that the meta-analytic methods used in Meta-Analysis 1 lead to false-positive rates of up to 100% if data sets are biased. To test the robustness of previous findings, a reanalysis with different bias-correcting meta-analytic methods was conducted on an updated set of 71 studies in Meta-Analysis 2. The overall effect size estimates ranged from a null effect to conventionally large effect sizes. Taking into account specific strengths and limitations of each meta-analytic method, results indicated that CBCA and RM distinguish between experience-based and fabricated statements with moderate to large effect sizes. In contrast, the Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) – a third verbal tool for credibility assessment that was also tested in the updated data set of Meta-Analysis 2 – did not discriminate between truth and lies and should thus not be used in practice

Die deutsche Version der Offender Group Reconviction Scale, Version 3 (OGRS 3)

Die Offender Group Reconviction Scale, Version 3 (OGRS 3) ist ein aktuarisches Kriminalprognoseinstrument zur Einschätzung des allgemeinen Rückfallrisikos während eines einjährigen bzw. zweijährigen Nachbeobachtungszeitraums. Die englischsprachige Originalversion der OGRS 3 (Francis et al. 2007; Howard et al. 2009; National Offender Management Service 2009) wurde in Großbritannien auf der Basis einer Normierungsstichprobe von über 79 000 Personen entwickelt und wird dort seit 2008 routinemäßig in der Bewährungshilfe eingesetzt. Die OGRS 3 umfasst sechs Items zu verschiedenen soziodemografischen Parametern, zur strafrechtlichen Vorbelastung und zum aktuellen Hauptdelikt. Sie eignet sich für männliche sowie weibliche straffällig gewordene Personen und ist unabhängig von der Art des Indexdeliktes einsetzbar. Mit diesem BM-Online-Band wird die offizielle deutsche Übersetzung der OGRS 3 für die praktische Anwendung zur Verfügung gestellt. Ergänzend dazu kann ein Excel-basiertes Berechnungs-Tool (Stand: 13.01.2022) zur Unterstützung der Anwendung der OGRS 3 in deutscher Sprache heruntergeladen werden, mit dem eine automatisierte Berechnung der OGRS 3-Risikowerte vorgenommen werden kann

Development of a Cued Pro- and Antisaccade Paradigm: An Indirect Measure to Explore Automatic Components of Sexual Interest

We developed a cued pro- and antisaccade paradigm (CPAP) to explore automatic components of sexual interest. Heterosexual participants (n = 32 women, n = 25 men) had to perform fast eye movements towards and away from sexually relevant or irrelevant stimuli across a congruent (i.e. prosaccade towards sexually relevant stimuli, antisaccade away from sexually irrelevant stimuli) and an incongruent condition (i.e. prosaccade towards sexually irrelevant stimuli, antisaccade away from sexually relevant stimuli). We hypothesized that pro- and antisaccade performance would be influenced by the sexual interest-specific relevance of the presented stimulus (i.e., nude female or male stimulus) and the instructed task (i.e., pro- or antisaccade) and, thus, differ meaningfully between conditions. Results for prosaccades towards sexually relevant stimuli in the congruent condition showed that error rates were lower and latencies were shorter compared with prosaccades towards sexually irrelevant stimuli in the incongruent condition, but only for male participants. In addition, error rates for antisaccades away from sexually irrelevant stimuli in the congruent condition were lower than for antisaccades away from sexually relevant stimuli in the incongruent condition, for both female and male participants. Latencies of antisaccades, however, did not differ between conditions. In comparison with established indirect sexual interest paradigms, the CPAP benefits from measuring highly automated processes less prone to deliberate control. To this end, the CPAP could be applied to explore the interplay of early automatic and deliberate components of sexual information processing

Bias is persistent - Sequencing case information does not protect against contextual bias in criminal risk assessment

A large body of research indicates that bias is an inherent phenomenon of human information processing, also present in the psychological forensic assessment, for example, in credibility or criminal risk assessment. However, research on effective debiasing strategies is still in its infancy. Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LUS-E, Dror & Kukucka, 2021) is an information management protocol designed to reduce bias based on task-irrelevant context information. Inspired by LSU-E we ran a preregistrated experimental study to test, first, if task-irrelevant information introduces bias in criminal risk assessment, and second, if such bias could be reduced by sequencing case information. We collected data of 308 informed lay participants instructed to apply an empirical-actuarial risk scale based on a case vignette. Results showed that task-irrelevant information biased risk assessment. Yet, sequencing case information did not protect against it. Considering various boundary conditions, we discuss challenges to mitigate the biasing effect of task-irrelevant information

Law-abiding versus criminal identity and self-efficacy: A quantitative approach to unravel psychological factors supporting desistance from crime

Previous studies suggest that the process of becoming desistant from crime is accompanied by a shift from criminal to law-abiding identity and by the development of self-efficacy for law-abiding behavior. Utilizing direct (self-report) and indirect (Implicit Association Test; IAT) measures of both variables we predicted that a) a stronger law-abiding relative to criminal identity and a stronger/weaker self-efficacy for law-abiding/criminal behavior will correlate with less previous criminal involvement at T1 and b) will prospectively explain variance in desistance two to three years later at T2. Results from a sample of late adolescent and adult offenders on probation largely confirmed cross-sectional associations with previous criminal involvement at T1 (N = 325). Univariately, self-reported and latency-based measured identity for law-abiding relative to criminal behavior explained variance in (survival time until) recidivism at T2 as opposed to self-efficacy for law-abiding or criminal behavior. Multivariately, self-reported law-abiding relative to criminal identity explained variance in survival time until recidivism over and beyond actuarial risk factors at T2. Further analyses showed that actuarial risk factors increasingly overestimated the risk to reoffend as the strength of law-abiding relative to criminal identity increased. The findings indicate that the strength of law-abiding relative to criminal identity plays a role in persisting in or desisting from criminal behavior. Yet, further research is necessary to identify the causal psychological mechanisms of identity change in the process towards desistance from crime

Die deutsche Version der Offender Group Reconviction Scale, Version 3 (OGRS 3)

Die Offender Group Reconviction Scale, Version 3 (OGRS 3) ist ein aktuarisches Kriminalprognoseinstrument zur Einschätzung des allgemeinen Rückfallrisikos während eines einjährigen bzw. zweijährigen Nachbeobachtungszeitraums. Die englischsprachige Originalversion der OGRS 3 (Francis et al. 2007; Howard et al. 2009; National Offender Management Service 2009) wurde in Großbritannien auf der Basis einer Normierungsstichprobe von über 79 000 Personen entwickelt und wird dort seit 2008 routinemäßig in der Bewährungshilfe eingesetzt. Die OGRS 3 umfasst sechs Items zu verschiedenen soziodemografischen Parametern, zur strafrechtlichen Vorbelastung und zum aktuellen Hauptdelikt. Sie eignet sich für männliche sowie weibliche straffällig gewordene Personen und ist unabhängig von der Art des Indexdeliktes einsetzbar. Mit diesem BM-Online-Band wird die offizielle deutsche Übersetzung der OGRS 3 für die praktische Anwendung zur Verfügung gestellt. Ergänzend dazu kann ein Excel-basiertes Berechnungs-Tool (Stand: 13.01.2022) zur Unterstützung der Anwendung der OGRS 3 in deutscher Sprache heruntergeladen werden, mit dem eine automatisierte Berechnung der OGRS 3-Risikowerte vorgenommen werden kann

Validity of Content-Based Techniques to Distinguish True and Fabricated Statements: A Meta-Analysis

Within the scope of judicial decisions, approaches to distinguish between true and fabricated statements have been of particular importance since ancient times. Although methods focusing on “prototypical” deceptive behavior (e.g., psychophysiological phenomena, nonverbal cues) have largely been rejected with regard to validity, content-based techniques constitute a promising approach and are well established within the applied forensic context. The basic idea of this approach is that experience-based and non-experience-based statements differ in their content-related quality. In order to test the validity of the most prominent content-based techniques, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Reality Monitoring (RM), we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis on English- and German-language studies. Based on a variety of decision criteria, 56 studies were included revealing an overall effect size of g = 1.03 (95% CI [0.78, 1.27], Q = 420.06, p < .001, I² = 92.48%, N = 3429). There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of CBCA and RM. Additionally, we investigated a number of moderator variables such as characteristics of participants, statements, and judgment procedures, as well as general study characteristics. Results showed that the application of all CBCA criteria outperformed any incomplete CBCA criteria set. Furthermore, statement classification based on discriminant functions revealed higher discrimination rates than decisions based on sum scores. Finally, unpublished studies showed higher effect sizes than studies published in peer-reviewed journals. All results are discussed in terms of their significance for future research (e.g., developing standardized decision rules) and practical application (e.g., user training, applying complete criteria set)