Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology (한국심리학회지:법)

Korean Association of Psychology and Law (한국법심리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Is it true?: A Meta-analysis on the Efficacy of CBCA in Detecting Truths

그 말은 진실일까?: CBCA의 진실 탐지 효용성에 대한 메타분석적 고찰

  • Received : 2021.07.14
  • Published : 2021.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) is utilized in criminal investigations and the court to assess the credibility of given statements. During this procedure, the criteria for Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) are used to evaluate whether statements include the characteristics reflecting actual experiences about the event in question. Various studies had been conducted on the efficacy (classification rates) of CBCA criteria, yet the consistency of the findings was not investigated. In the current study, a meta-analysis was conducted with Korean CBCA studies reported from 2004 to 2020 (a total of fourteen studies). As a result, the total score of CBCA was found to successfully discriminate truth and fabrication. A significant positive (+) effect size was found with four criteria (3, 4, 10, and 12), all of which are classified as cognitive criteria. However, contrary to the underlying assumption for CBCA, criterion 18, classified as one of the motivational criteria, showed a significant negative (-) effect size. Meanwhile, moderator analyses were possible for eleven criteria (2~9, 12, 13, 15) and the results showed the significant effects of potential moderator variables such as the gender and status of the participants, study types and designs, number of raters, and publication status. The current results suggests that more careful attention is required to each criterion-especially the cognitive criteria-rather than the total CBCA score as well as the possible moderator effects in order to assess truthfulness of the statements. The implication, limitations, and suggestions for future studies were discussed.

진술의 진실성을 평가하는 절차인 진술타당도분석(Statement Validity Analysis: SVA)은 국내외 범죄 수사와 법정 상황에서 활용되고 있다. SVA 절차 중 내용분석 단계에서는 준거기반내용분석(Criteria-Based Content Analysis: CBCA) 준거를 사용하여 진술에서 실제 경험에 기반하였을 때 나타나는 특징들이 현출되는지를 평가한다. CBCA 준거의 변별력과 효과크기에 대한 국내 연구는 다양한 패러다임으로 이루어졌지만, 그 연구 결과들의 일관성은 여전히 검증되지 않았다. 이에 본 연구에서는 국내에서 관련 연구가 시작된 2004년부터 2020년까지 수행된 CBCA 준거 관련 연구들(14개의 연구자료)에 대한 메타분석을 실시하였다. 연구결과, CBCA 총점이 진실과 작화를 성공적으로 변별해내고 있었다. 준거별로는, 네 개의 준거(3번, 4번, 10번, 12번; 모두 인지적 준거)에서 정적(+)인 효과크기가 유의미했다. 그러나 18번 준거(동기적 준거)는 CBCA의 기본 가정과는 반대로, 효과크기가 부적(-)으로 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 조절효과분석이 가능한 열한 개의 준거(2번~9번, 12번, 13번, 15번) 각각에 대해 잠재적 조절변인의 영향을 살펴본 결과, 일부 준거들에 대하여 진술인의 성별 및 신분, 연구 유형 및 설계, 사건 유형, 평가자 수, 출판 여부의 조절효과가 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 본 연구결과는 진실여부를 타당하게 판단하기 위해서는 CBCA 총점보다는 세부 준거, 특히 인지적 준거에 초점을 맞추는 것이 중요하며, 잠재적 조절변인의 영향 가능성 또한 중요하게 고려해야 함을 시사한다. 관련하여 본 연구의 의의, 제한점 및 추후 연구 방향에 대해 논하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 경찰청 (2017). 진술분석전문가 의견 작성 매뉴얼. 서울: 경찰청.
  2. 고은영, 채규만 (2011). 성폭력 피해 아동의 진술에 대한 준거기반 내용분석의 활용 가능성 연구. 한국범죄심리연구, 7, 5-22.
  3. 김미영 (2016). 진술분석 절차에 관한 연구. 경기대학교대학원 박사학위논문.
  4. 김현정 (2009). 성폭력 피해 아동의 진술 신빙성 평가도구의 상대적 유용성 비교. 경기대학교대학원 박사학위논문.
  5. 김현정 (2010). CBCA와 RM을 이용한 성폭력 피해 아동의 진술 신빙성 평가. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 15(3), 355-379.
  6. 신우종 (2015). 체계적 고찰과 메타분석의 개요. Hanyang Med Review, 35(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.7599/hmr.2015.35.1.9
  7. 윤대중 (2019). 통합적 심리증거 수사기법의 효율성에 대한 사례연구. 충남대학교대학원 박사학위논문.
  8. 윤여훈 (2008). 아동들의 가해.피해 진술에 대한 준거기반 내용분석의 타당성 연구. 강원대학교대학원 석사학위논문.
  9. 이미선 (2018). 비밀을 이야기 하지 않는 아동의 진술특성: 준거기반내용분석 (CBCA)을 중심으로. 피해자학연구, 26(3), 71-95.
  10. 이수정 (2010). 아동 성폭력 패해 진술에 대한 신빙성 분석도구들의 타당도 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 24(2), 105- 116. https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2010.24.2.006
  11. 이수정, 유진옥 (2010). 지적장애인 성폭력 피해자의 진술 특성에 대한 실증연구. 한국경찰연구, 9(2), 161-184.
  12. 정의철, 이창호 (2017). 아동학대 사건에 대한 뉴스 프레임 분석과 대안 모색: 평택 아동학대 사건을 중심으로. 한국방송학보, 31(2), 77-108.
  13. 조은경 (2004). 성폭력 피해 아동의 진술 타당도 분석 및 활용방안에 관한 연구. 한국형사정책연구원 연구총서.
  14. 홍성열 (2007). 진술분석기법의 타당성연구. 대검찰청용역연구과제.
  15. 홍세희 (2013). 메타분석의 이론과 적용. 서울: 에스앤엠 리서치 그룹.
  16. 황성동 (2014). 알기 쉬운 메타분석의 이해. 서울: 학지사.
  17. Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Farina, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and criteria-based content analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
  18. Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Farina, F., & Vilarino, M. (2016). Criteria-Based content analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
  19. Akehurst, L., Kohnken, G., & Hofer, E. (2001). Content credibility of accounts derived from live and video presentations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532501168208
  20. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). An introduction to meta-analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  21. Boychuk, T. (1991). Criteria-Based Content Analysis of children's statements about sexual abuse: A field-based validation study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
  22. Esplin, P. W., Boychuk, T., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). A field validity study of Criteria-Based Content Analysis of children's statements in sexual abuse cases. Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Credibility Assessment, Maratea, Italy.
  23. Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Masip, J., & Blandon-Gitlin, I. (2017). Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of Criteria-based Content Analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 819-834. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000426
  24. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
  25. Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational psychology interactive, 3(2), 1-5.
  26. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53
  27. Kohnken, G. (1996). Social psychology and the law. In G. R. Semin and K. Fiedler (eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 257-82). London: Sage.
  28. Kohnken, G. (1999). Statement validity assessment. preconference programme of applied courses "Ases ing credibility", organised by the European Asociation of Psychology and Law, Dublin, Ireland.
  29. Kohnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the 'detection of the truth'. In P. A. Granhag & L. A. Stromwall (Eds.), Deception detection in forensic contexts (pp. 41-63). Cambrige, England: Cambrige University Press.
  30. Kohnken, G., Schimossek, E., Aschermann, E., & Hofer, E. (1995). The cognitive interview and the assessment of the credibility of adults' statements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.6.671
  31. Merckelbach, H. (2004). Telling a good story: Fantasy proneness and the quality of fabricated memories. Personality and Individual Dif erences, 37, 1371-1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.007
  32. Oberlader, V. A. (2019). Meta-analyses on the validity of verbal tools for credibility assessment (doctoral dissertation). Bonn, Germany: University of Bonn.
  33. Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 440-457. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000193
  34. Oberlader, V. A., Quinten, L., Banse, R., Volbert, R., Schmidt, A. F., & Schonbrodt, F. D. (2021). Validity of content-based techniques for credibility assessment: How telling is an extended meta-analysis taking research bias into account?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 393-410. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3776
  35. Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498980
  36. Raskin, D. C., Esplin, F. W., & Horowitz, S. (1991). Investigative interviews and assessment of children in sexual abuse cases (Unpublished manuscript). University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.(as cited in Oberlader, 2005).
  37. Roma, P., San Martini, P., Sabatello, U., Tatarelli, R., & Ferracuti, S. (2011). Validity of criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) at trial in free-narrative interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 613-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.04.004
  38. Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J. C. (1997). The usefulness of the Criteria-Based Content Analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 705-737. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.705
  39. Santtila, P., Roppola, H., Runtti, M., & Niemi, P. (2000). Assessment of child witness statements using Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA): The effects of age, verbal ability, and interviewer's emotional style. Psychology, Crime and Law, 6(3), 159-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160008409802
  40. Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 773-786. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2087
  41. Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less travelled road to truth: verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373-397. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199710)11:5<373::AID-ACP461>3.0.CO;2-0
  42. Sporer, S. L., Manzanero, A. L., & Masip, J. (2021). Optimizing CBCA and RM research: recommendations for analyzing and reporting data on content cues to deception. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1757097
  43. Steller, M. (1989). Recent developments in statement analysis. In Credibility assessment (pp. 135-154). Springer, Dordrecht.
  44. Steller, M., & Kohnken, G. (1989). Statement analysis: Credibility assessment of children's testimonies in sexual abuse cases. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). New York: Springer.
  45. Trankell, A. (1972). Reliability of evidence. Stockholm, Sweden: Beckmans.
  46. Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der glaubhaftigkeit von aussagen. Handbuch der psychologie, 11, 26-181.
  47. Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of statement reality analysis. In Credibility assessment (pp. 101-119). Springer, Dordrecht.
  48. Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3
  49. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit; Pitfall and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons, LTD.
  50. Vrij, A. (2019). Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 160-167. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3457
  51. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and human behavior, 26(3), 261-283. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015313120905
  52. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behavior in children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30, 8-mentary: Is this child fabricating? Reactions to a new assessment technique. In J. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections: Implications for eyewitness testimony (pp. 168-171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  53. 부산지방법원 동부지원 2019.12.10. 선고 2019 고합141, 2019전고8(병합) 판결.
  54. 인천지방법원 부천지원 2019.01.11. 선고 2018 고합143, 2018전고11(병합) 판결.
  55. 서울고등법원 2020.01.30. 선고 2019노630, 2019전노44(병합), 2019보노19(병합) 판결.
  56. 대법원 2020.05.14. 선고 2020도2433 판결.