Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Verbal credibility assessment encompasses several methods used to evaluate the credibility of statements by examining their content. In two experiments, we tested to what extent these methods are sensitive to contextual bias. Four statements were presented, although their context was manipulated by confronting raters with extra-domain information that either enhanced or diminished the credibility of the statements. In Experiment 1, 32 police officers analysed the statements using scientific content analysis. In Experiment 2, 128 undergraduates analysed the statements using criteria derived from criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring or scientific content analysis. Results showed that all three methods were equally vulnerable to contextual bias.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)79-90
JournalApplied Cognitive Psychology
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Cite this

@article{cd5c21a787c246d98465c340ebc093f5,
title = "Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis",
abstract = "Verbal credibility assessment encompasses several methods used to evaluate the credibility of statements by examining their content. In two experiments, we tested to what extent these methods are sensitive to contextual bias. Four statements were presented, although their context was manipulated by confronting raters with extra-domain information that either enhanced or diminished the credibility of the statements. In Experiment 1, 32 police officers analysed the statements using scientific content analysis. In Experiment 2, 128 undergraduates analysed the statements using criteria derived from criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring or scientific content analysis. Results showed that all three methods were equally vulnerable to contextual bias.",
author = "G. Bogaard and Ewout Meijer and A. Vrij and N.J. Broers and H. Merckelbach",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/acp.2959",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "79--90",
journal = "Applied Cognitive Psychology",
issn = "0888-4080",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis

AU - Bogaard, G.

AU - Meijer, Ewout

AU - Vrij, A.

AU - Broers, N.J.

AU - Merckelbach, H.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Verbal credibility assessment encompasses several methods used to evaluate the credibility of statements by examining their content. In two experiments, we tested to what extent these methods are sensitive to contextual bias. Four statements were presented, although their context was manipulated by confronting raters with extra-domain information that either enhanced or diminished the credibility of the statements. In Experiment 1, 32 police officers analysed the statements using scientific content analysis. In Experiment 2, 128 undergraduates analysed the statements using criteria derived from criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring or scientific content analysis. Results showed that all three methods were equally vulnerable to contextual bias.

AB - Verbal credibility assessment encompasses several methods used to evaluate the credibility of statements by examining their content. In two experiments, we tested to what extent these methods are sensitive to contextual bias. Four statements were presented, although their context was manipulated by confronting raters with extra-domain information that either enhanced or diminished the credibility of the statements. In Experiment 1, 32 police officers analysed the statements using scientific content analysis. In Experiment 2, 128 undergraduates analysed the statements using criteria derived from criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring or scientific content analysis. Results showed that all three methods were equally vulnerable to contextual bias.

U2 - 10.1002/acp.2959

DO - 10.1002/acp.2959

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 79

EP - 90

JO - Applied Cognitive Psychology

JF - Applied Cognitive Psychology

SN - 0888-4080

IS - 1

ER -