The use of alternative scenarios in assessing the reliability of victims’ statements

References

• Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Arbiyah, N., Otgaar, H., & Rassin, E. (2021). Are victim or eyewitness statements credible? Several ways to check them. In-Mind, 46. https://www.in-mind.org/article/are-victim-or-eyewitness-statements-credible-several-ways-to-check-them
   Google Scholar
• Association of Forensic Science Providers (AFSP). (2009). Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science & Justice, 49(3), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, P. R., Marcus, D. K., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2008). Is there an allegiance effect for assessment instruments? Actuarial risk assessment as an exemplar. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 15(4), 346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2008.00147.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Lindsay, D. S., & Hagen, L. (2009). Criteria-based content analysis of true and suggested accounts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(August 2008), 901–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1504
   Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., Broers, N. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2014). Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: Criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dandurand, F., Shultz, T., & Onishi, K. (2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K., Belton, I. K., & Mandel, D. R. (2019). The “analysis of competing hypotheses” in intelligence analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodier, O., & Denault, V. (2018). The Griffiths question map: A forensic tool for expert witnesses’ assessments of witnesses and victims’ statements. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(1), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in blind justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engel, C., & Glöckner, A. (2013). Role-induced bias in court: An experimental analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finley, A., & Penningroth, S. (2015). Online versus in-lab: Pros and cons of an online prospective memory experiment. In A. M. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (pp. 135–161). Nova.
   Google Scholar
• Gowensmith, W. N., & McCallum, K. E. (2019). Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the least biased of them all? Dangers and potential solutions regarding bias in forensic psychological evaluations. South African Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246319835117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, R. L. (2019). Forensic confirmation bias: Is consider-the-opposite an affective debiasing strategy [Master thesis]. Washburn University Repository. https://wuir.washburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10425/1962/Griffith%2C%20Rebecca%20-%202019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
   Google Scholar
• Hardwicke, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E. (2021, April 23). Preregistration: A pragmatic tool to increase transparency, reduce bias, and calibrate confidence in scientific research. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/d7bcu
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, R. J. (1999). Analysis of competing hypotheses. In Psychology of intelligence analysis (pp. 95–110). CQ Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-008-9080-9
   Google Scholar
• Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’. The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts, 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490071.003
   Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maegherman, E., Ask, K., Horselenberg, R., & van Koppen, P. J. (2021). Test of the analysis of competing hypotheses in legal decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson, K. (n.d.). Interpreting Cohen’s d effect size: An interactive visualization. Retrieved November 10, 2022, from https://rpsychologist.com/cohend/
   Google Scholar
• McAuliff, B. D., & Arter, J. L. (2016). Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand. Law and Human Behavior, 40(5), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munder, T., Gerger, H., Trelle, S., & Barth, J. (2011). Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: A meta-analysis the allegiance bias hypothesis: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy Research Research, 21(6), 670–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2011.602752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2015). Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Johnson, J. T., & Janke, C. (2008). Does interrater (dis) agreement on psychopathy checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations? Law and Human Behavior, 32(4), 352–362. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., Meeks, M., Woods, C., & Tussey, C. (2009). Rater (dis) agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(1), 19–53. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, B. (2009). Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otgaar, H., Arbiyah, N., & Mangiulli, I. (2020). The toolbox of memory experts working as expert witnesses. In R. Horselenberg, V. Van Koppen, & J. De Keijser (Eds.), Bakens in de rechtspsychologie: Liber amicorum voor peter van koppen (pp. 477–488). Boom criminologie.
   Google Scholar
• Otgaar, H., de Ruiter, C., Howe, M. L., Hoetmer, L., & van Reekum, P. (2017). A case concerning children’s false memories of abuse: Recommendations regarding expert witness work. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(3), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1230924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (1959). The propensity interpretation of probability. The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, 10(37), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/X.37.25
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Keagan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Rassin, E. (2018). Reducing tunnel vision with a pen-and-paper tool for the weighting of criminal evidence. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichel, P. (2017). Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach (7th ed.). Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020). Allegiance bias in statement reliability evaluations is not eliminated by falsification instructions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228(3), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steller, M., & Kohnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based statement analysis. In D. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Thase, M. (1999). Commentary. What is the investigator allegiance effect and what should we do about it? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/6.1.113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Koppen, P. J., & Mackor, A. R. (2019). A scenario approach to the simonshaven case. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12429
   Google Scholar
• Volbert, R., & Steller, M. (2014). Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory? Credibility assessment 25 years after steller and köhnken (1989). European Psychologist, https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000200
   Google Scholar
• Vredeveldt, A., van Rosmalen, E. A. J., van Koppen, P., Dror, I. E., & Otgaar, H. (2022). Legal psychologists as experts: Guidelines for minimizing bias. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2114476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Kneller, W., & Mann, S. (2000). The effect of informing liars about criteria-based content analysis on their ability to deceive CBCA-raters. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532500167976
   Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar