Coaching and Deception Let Me Inform You How to Tell a Convincing Story: CBCA and Reality Monitoring Scores as a Function of Age, Coaching and Deception

The first aim of this experiment was to examine whether being informed about a method of detecting deception called Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) would increase participants' CBCA scores when deceptive so that they might then be classified as truthful. The second aim was to investigate whether Reality Monitoring could be used as an alternative tool for verbal lie detection. The third aim was to examine whether participants' social skills (social anxiety, self monitoring and social adroitness) affected their CBCA scores. Participants (aged 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and undergraduates) participated in a "rubbing the blackboard" event. In a subsequent interview they told the truth or lied about the event, after they were or were not taught some CBCA criteria. Truth tellers obtained higher CBCA scores than liars, and those who were informed about CBCA obtained higher scores than those who were not, except for the 6-8-year-olds. CBCA scores were also significantly correlated with social skills. Finally, Reality Monitoring was a useful alternative to CBCA for distinguishing between liars and truth tellers. Coaching and Deception 1 Let Me Inform You How to Tell a Convincing Story: CBCA and Reality Monitoring Scores as a Function of Age, Coaching and Deception To date, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) -a systematic assessment of the credibility of written statementsis probably the most popular instrument to assess the veracity of written statements (Vrij, 2000). CBCA is a systematic assessment of the credibility of written statements. Steller and Köhnken (1989) compiled a list of 19 criteria which had been used in such assessments. CBCA is based on the hypothesis, originally stated by Undeutsch (1967), that a statement derived from memory of an actual experience differs in content and quality from a statement based on invention or fantasy. This is known as the Undeutsch Hypothesis (Steller, 1989). The presence of each criterion strengthens the hypothesis that the account is based on genuine personal experience. Köhnken (1989, 1996, 1999, 2002) presented theoretical support for the Undeutsch hypothesis and proposed that both cognitive and motivational factors influence CBCA scores. With regard to cognitive factors, it is assumed that, compared to those who fabricate a story, someone who actually experienced an event would be able to produce descriptions about this event which include more CBCA criteria, as some criteria (unstructured production, contextual embedding, reproduction of speech, unusual details, etc.) are believed to be very difficult for people to fabricate. Other criteria are more likely to occur in truthful statements for motivational reasons. Truthful persons will not be as much concerned with impression management as will deceivers. Compared to truth tellers, deceivers would be more keen to try to construct a report which they believe will make a credible impression on others, and will leave out information which, in their view, will damage their image of being a truthful person (Köhnken, 1999). As a result, a truthful person's statement is more likely to contain information that is inconsistent with the beliefs/stereotypes that people have concerning truth Coaching and Deception 2 telling. The CBCA list includes several so-called "contrary-to stereotype" criteria (term adapted from Ruby & Brigham (1998)): "spontaneous corrections", "admitting lack of memory", "raising doubts about one's own testimony", etc.. CBCA was developed to evaluate statements from children. Many authors still describe CBCA as a technique solely developed to evaluate statements made by children in sexual offense trials (Honts, 1994; Horowitz, Lamb, Esplin, Boychuk, Krispin, & ReiterLavery, 1997). Others, however, advocate the additional use of the technique to evaluate the testimonies of adults (Köhnken, Schimossek, Aschermann, & Höfer, 1995; Porter & Yuille, 1996; Ruby & Brigham, 1997; Steller & Köhnken, 1989). These authors have pointed out that the underlying Undeutsch hypothesis is not restricted to children. The latter point of view has received some empirical support to date. Significantly higher CBCA scores for truth tellers than for liars have not only been found in studies with children witnesses (for example, Akehurst, Köhnken, & Höfer, 2001; Lamb, Sternberg, Esplin, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Hovav, 1997a, b; Lamers-Winkelman & Buffing, 1996; Tye, Amato, Honts, Kevitt, & Peters, 1999; Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara, & Bull, 2002; Winkel & Vrij, 1995) but also in studies with adult witnesses (for example, Akehurst et al., 2001; Höfer, Akehurst, & Metzger, 1996; Köhnken et al., 1995; Landry & Brigham, 1992; Porter & Yuille, 1996; Ruby & Brigham, 1998; Sporer, 1997; Vrij, Edward, & Bull, 2001a, b; Vrij et al., 2002; Zaparniuk, Yuille, & Taylor, 1995). In the present study it was predicted that CBCA scores would be significantly higher for truth tellers than for liars in both adult statements and child statements (Hypothesis 1). It was further predicted that there would be a linear relationship between age and CBCA scores: the older the participants, the higher their CBCA score (Hypothesis 2). Theoretically, Hypothesis 2 could be explained in several ways. Cognitive abilities and command of language develop throughout childhood, making it gradually easier to provide detailed and rich accounts of what has been witnessed (Davies, 1991, 1994). Also, children are probably Coaching and Deception 3 less aware and/or less concerned with impression management than adults (Flavell, Botkin, Fry, Wright, & Jarvis, 1968; Vrij, 2002). Positive correlations between CBCA scores and age have been found in numerous studies before (see Vrij, in press, for an overview of these