Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies.

By Aldert Vrij. 2005

408 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Gender Studies, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e3372aabe422414222a4b2e504f5a0f2c4fb930d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Gender Studies

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. (2007, background): “Some researchers also believe (as does the first author) that verbal content analysis may provide better tools to discriminate truthful from falsified statements (Sporer, 1997, 2004; Vrij, 2005).”
‘Look into my eyes’: can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? (2010, background): “Describing events in detail is typically more cognitively challenging for liars than for truth tellers (Köhnken, 1996, 2004; Vrij, 2005, 2008).”
Exploring Liars' Strategies for Creating Deceptive Reports (2013, background): “…1989) and reality monitoring (RM; Johnson & Raye, 1981) both rely at least to some extent on liars’ reports containing fewer sensory, contextual, and affective details than truth tellers’ reports (for reviews see Masip, Sporer, Garrido, & Herrero, 2005; Ruby & Brigham, 1997; and Vrij, 2005).”
The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence (2005, positive): “…the currently well-known criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) (see Sporer, 1983, 1997; Steller and Ko¨hnken, 1989; Steller and Boychuk, 1992; Honts, 1994; Lamb et al ., 1997; Ruby and Brigham, 1997; Vrij and Akehurst, 1998; Garrido and Masip, 2001; Vrij, 2000, 2002; Raskin and Esplin, 1991a,b).”
Identification of fraudulent financial statements using linguistic credibility analysis (2011, methodology): “Prominent theories and methods for analyzing deceptive discourse include Content-Based Criteria Analysis (CBCA) [54], Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) [17], Reality Monitoring (RM) [28], Management Obfuscation Hypothesis [6], Information Manipulation Theory (IMT) [42], Interpersonal Deception Theo”
Interrogating to detect deception and truth : effects of strategic use of evidence (2005, background): “Apart from refraining from providing details out of lack of knowledge, liars may do so to avoid being disproved (Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2005).”
Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective (2017, methodology): “The motivation of deception detection originates from forensic psychology (i.e., Undeutsch Hypothesis) [82] and various forensic tools including Criteria-based Content Analysis [84] and Scientiﬁc-based Content Analysis [45] have been developed.”
Criminal versus HUMINT Interrogations: The Importance of Psychological Science to Improving Interrogative Practice (2010, positive): “The most promising indicators of deception appear to involve cognitive or story-based cues (see Köhnken, 2004; Sporer, 2004; Vrij, 2005).”
Nonverbal Dominance Versus Verbal Accuracy in Lie Detection (2008, background): “(See Vrij, 2005, 2008, for reviews of CBCA research and Masip, Sporer, Garrido, & Herrero, 2005; Sporer, 2004; Vrij, 2008, for reviews of RM research.)”
Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review (2015, methodology): “These differences in research paradigms imply more credibility criteria are observed in field studies than in experimental ones (Vrij, 2005).”