Contraste de la Efectividad del CBCA en la Evaluación de la Credibilidad en Casos de Violencia de Género

Bibliographic Data

ID15343889
AuthorsRamón Arce Fernández (0000-0002-5622-3022, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, corresponding author), Francisca Fariña Rivera (0000-0002-7652-0948, Universidade de Vigo), Manuel Vilariño Vázquez (0000-0001-8212-3319, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela), Manuel Vilariño
Year2010
Volume19
Issue2
Pages109-119
Publication date2010-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychosocial Intervention (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1132-0559 • E-ISSN: 2173-4712
PublisherColegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid (PUBLISHER • ES)
DOI10.5093/in2010v19n2a2
OpenAlexW2060549383
LanguageES
Citations received2
References cited8

Archival data reveal that in Spain the conviction rate for cases of gender violence is approximately 70%, whereas the conviction rate for other crimes is in the region of 90%. This dysfunction arises from a multiplicity of factors, chiefly the lack of evidence. As most gender violence occurs within the privacy of the home, the burden of proof rests exclusively or primarily on the victim’s testimony. Testimonies admitted in a court of law are often corroborated by circumstantial evidence (e.g., legal criteria of plausibility), and in particular the psychological report on testimonial credibility that plays a critical role in verdict outcome. An archive study of cases of gender violence revealed that psychological reports were admitted in 20% of the cases reviewed. Although Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA; Steller and Köhnken, 1994) is not valid for legal contexts, it has been observed to be the standard procedure for the evaluation of testimonial credibility in the archive cases of gender violence under review. Thus, a study involving 50 women (25 real victims and 25 feigners of gender violence) was undertaken to assess the efficacy of this procedure for the discrimination of real victims from feigners. The results reveal that real testimonies contained more reality criteria than faked testimonies. Nevertheless, the procedure, in line with the demands of forensic evidence in terms of the unacceptability of false positives (i.e., feigned case classed as real), erroneously detected 44% of real testimonies as false negatives (i.e., detected real case as feigned). The results are discussed in terms of the practical implications for forensic psychology

Advertising · Circumstantial evidence · Conviction · Credibility · False positive paradox · Political science · Testimonial · Verdict · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Law · Memory Processes and Influences · Psychology · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access