Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (2) (remove)
Criteria-Based Content Analysis (Steller & Kohnken, 1989) is part of a method used for assessing the credibility of witness statements. One underlying assumption of CBCA is that deceivers will leave out certain contents that they believe will damage their self-image. Recent studies on content-related deceptive strategies of children and adults support this assumption. Nevertheless, results concerning certain motivation-related contents (self-deprecation, pardoning the perpetrator) were inconsistent with this assumption. However, previous studies have dealt with issues other than sexual offense and therefore were of limited external validity concerning specific forensic issues. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of content characteristics with regard to false statements in rape cases. Female non-student adults (N = 120) were given a standardized questionnaire which targeted participants' content- related deception strategies. Results show differences in the strategic value of content characteristics. Moreover, strategies of deception seem to strongly depend on the type of event assessed
Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.