¿Son los criterios de realidad válidos para clasificar y discernir entre memorias de hechos auto-experimentados y de eventos vistos en vídeo?

  1. Andrea Monteiro
  2. María José Vázquez
  3. Dolores Seijo
  4. Ramón Arce
Revista:
Revista iberoamericana de psicología y salud

ISSN: 2171-2069

Ano de publicación: 2018

Volume: 9

Número: 2

Páxinas: 149-160

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.23923/J.RIPS.2018.02.020 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Revista iberoamericana de psicología y salud

Resumo

Statement content analysis based on reality criteria (Undeutsch hypothesis) has revealed as a valid instrument to discriminate between memories of self-experienced events (real-life) and fabricated memories of accounts. Nevertheless, much of the available scientific evidence provides from experiments where real-life memories were substituted by memories of events seen video (non-experienced). As for knowing if reality criteria do discriminate between self-experienced memories and fabricated memories of events seen in a video, the testimony of 30 adult participants was obtained about an autobiographic event (self-experienced) and about of an event seen on video (fabricated). The results showed that the total CBCA (Criteria-Based Content Analysis) criteria, as well as several reality criteria discriminated between both memories in line with the Undeutsch hypothesis. Nonetheless, other reality criteria did not discriminate, were unproductive or discriminated against the hypothesis. A similar pattern of outcomes was found for the classification rate of the selfexperienced memory. The implications of the results for forensic practice are discussed.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

En conclusión, si bien la hipótesis Undeutsch es válida para discernir (y clasificar) entre memorias de hechos auto-experimentados y fabricadas de hechos (Amado et al., 2015, 2016; Oberlader et al., 2016), incluidas aquellas basadas en hechos visionados en vídeo (este estudio), la técnica derivada de la misma de referencia, el SVA, que incluye el análisis de contenido basado en los criterios de realidad del CBCA, no cumple con el criterio (Arce, 2017) Futura investigación debería profundizar más en la capacidad discriminativa y de clasificación de los criterios de realidad entre memorias de hechos auto-experimentados y fabricadas de hechos basadas en el visionado de los mismos (no experimentados), especialmente abordándola con diseños de investigación que confronten las limitaciones apuntadas al presente estudio.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Amado, B. G., Arce, R., y Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
  • Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F., y Vilariño, M. (2016). Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A metaanalytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16, 201-210. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
  • American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales (DSM-V). Madrid, España: Panamericana.
  • Arce, R. (2017). Análisis de contenido de las declaraciones de testigos: Evaluación de la validez científica y judicial de la hipótesis y la prueba forense [Content analysis of the witness statements: Evaluation of the scientific and judicial validity of the hypothesis and the forensic proof]. Acción Psicológica, 14, 171-190. https://doi.org/10.5944/ ap.14.2.21347
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., y Fraga, A. (2000). Género y formación de juicios en un caso de violación [Gender and juror judgment making in a case of rape]. Psicothema, 12, 623-628. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.com/ pdf/381.pdf
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., y Novo, M. (2015). Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22, 769-777. https://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1073191114558111
  • Boccaccini, M. T. (2002). What do we really know about witness preparation? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(12), 161-189. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bsl.472
  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. https://doi. org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2a. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Dando, C. J., y Oxburgh, G. E. (2016). Empathy in the field: Towards a taxonomy of empathic communication in information gathering interviews with suspected sex offenders. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8, 27-33. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.10.001
  • Fariña, F., Arce, R., y Novo, M. (2002). Heurístico de anclaje en las decisiones judiciales [Anchorage in judicial decision making]. Psicothema, 14, 39-46. Recuperado de http:// www.psicothema.com/pdf/684.pdf
  • Fariña, F., Arce, R., Vilariño, M., y Novo, M. (2014). Assessment of the standard forensic procedure for the evaluation of psychological injury in intimate-partner violence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, e32, 1-10. https://dx.doi. org/10.1017/sjp.2014.30
  • Fariña, F., Arce, R., y Real, S. (1994). Ruedas de identificación: De la simulación y la realidad. Psicothema, 6, 395-402. Recuperado de http:// www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=935
  • Fariña, F., Redondo, L., Seijo, D., Novo, M., y Arce, R. (2017). A meta-analytic review of the MMPI validity scales and indexes to detect defensiveness in custody evaluations. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 17, 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.02.002
  • Fisher, R. P., y Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
  • Gödert, H. W., Gamer, M., Rill, H. G., y Vossel, G. (2005). Statement Validity Assessment: Inter rater reliability of Criteria Based Content Analysis in the mock crime paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 225-245. https:// doi.org/10.1348/135532505X52680
  • Kaplan, M. F., y Anderson, N. H. (1973). Information integration theory and reinforcement theory as approaches to interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 301-312. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035112
  • Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the detection of the truth. En P. A. Granhag y L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 41-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511490071.003
  • Lee, Z., Klaver, J. R., y Hart, S. D. (2008). Psychopathy and verbal indicators of deception in offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 73-84. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160701423738
  • May, L., y Granhag, P. A. (2016). Using the Scharfftechnique to elicit information: How to effectively establish the “illusion of knowing it all”? European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8, 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejpal.2016.02.001
  • Novo, M., Herbón, J., y Amado, B. G. (2016). Género y victimización: Efectos en la evaluación de la violencia psicológica sutil y manifiesta, apego adulto y tácticas de resolución de conflictos [Victimization and gender: Effects in the evaluation of subtle and overt violence, adult attachment and conflict resolution tactics]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 7, 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rips.2016.05.002
  • Novo, M., y Seijo, D. (2010). Judicial judgementmaking and legal criteria of testimonial credibility. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2, 91-115. Recuperado de http://sepjf.webs.uvigo.es/ index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_ download&gid=26&Itemid=110&lang=en
  • Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., y Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 440. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000193
  • Ostrom, T. M., Werner, C., y Saks, M. J. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors’ presumptions of guilt or innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 436-450. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.436
  • Pearse, J., y Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996). Police interviewing techniques at two south London police stations. Psychology, Crime and Law, 3, 63-74. https://doi. org/10.1080/10683169608409795
  • Salgado, J. F. (2018). Transforming the Area under the Normal Curve (AUC) into Cohen’s d, Pearson’sr pb, Odds-Ratio, and Natural Log Odds-Ratio: Two Conversion Tables. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 10, 35-47. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018a5
  • Steller, M. (1989). Recent developments in statement analysis. En J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 135-154). Dordrecht, Holanda: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Steller, M., y Böhm, C. (2006). 50 años de jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo alemán sobre psicología del testimonio. Balance y perspectiva. En T. Fabian, C. Böhm, y J. Romero (Eds.), Nuevos caminos y conceptos en la psicología jurídica (pp. 53-77). Berlín, Alemania: Lit Verlag.
  • Steller, M., y Köhnken, G. (1989). CriteriaBased Content Analysis. En D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
  • Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der glaubhaftigkeit von zeugenaussagenn [La evaluación de la credibilidad de los testigos]. En U. Undeutsch (Ed.), Handbuch der psychologie, Vol. II: Forensische psychologie (pp. 26-181). Göttingen, Alemania: Verlag für Psychologie.
  • Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of statement reality analysis. En J. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 101-119). Dordrech, Hollanda: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2a. ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., y Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979007-9103-y
  • Walsh, D. W., y Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? An analysis of the taped interview performance of benefit fraud investigators within the DWP. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X157179
  • Wicker, A. W. (1975). An application of the multitrait-multimethod logic to the reliability of observational records. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 575-579. https://dx.doi. org/10.1177/014616727500100405
Fonte de datos: Dialnet