바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.34 No.2
Citation Share

The Effect of Presuming Guilt in Assessing Credibility of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2020, v.34 no.2, pp.37-53
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2020.34.2.003

(2020). The Effect of Presuming Guilt in Assessing Credibility of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 34(2), 37-53, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2020.34.2.003
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of evaluators’ presumption of guilty/innocent conviction of child sexual abuse cases on assessing credibility of allegedly abused child victims’ statements with CBCA(Criteria-Based Content Analysis). Total 44 CBCA　experts and non-experts participated in the experiment. A half of them were provided with evidence tending to prove the suspect’s guilt, whereas the other half were provided with evidence of presumably not guilt, before they evaluated the existing 19 CBCA criteria and statement credibility and suspicion in general with the same case. The results showed that the guilt-biased group had significantly higher total CBCA scores than the innocent-biased group did, with higher scores in Criterion1(logical consistency) and Criterion4(reported accurately but not understood). The expert group evaluated significantly more CBCA criteria existed than the non-expert group but there was no significant interaction effect of guilty/innocent presumption and their expertise. Lastly, this study discussed cognitive bias possibly related when assessing credibility of child sexual abuse allegation and ways of reducing the potential for biased judgements.

keywords
인지적 편향, 진술분석, CBCA, 진술분석전문가, 유죄심증, Conformation bias, Statement Validity Assessment, CBCA, expert, guilt-bias

Reference

1.

경찰청 (2018). 진술분석가 의견 작성 매뉴얼. 경찰청.

2.

김민희, 이승진 (2018). 아동 및 장애인 대상 조사역량 강화를 위한 기초 연구: 경찰 조사관의 수사면담 교육 및 제도 만족도를 중심으로. 경찰학연구, 18(4), 83-115.

3.

김정혜 (2015). 장애여성 성폭력 범죄에 대한 법원의판단 연구: 지적장애여성 성폭력 판결을 중심으로. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.

4.

김청택, 최인철 (2010). 법정의사결정에서의 판사들의 인지편향. 서울대학교 법학 51(4), 317-345.

5.

박광배, 김상준, 한미영 (2005). 가상적인 재판쟁점에서의 현역판사의 판단과 모의배심의집단판단에 대한 인지적 방략의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 11(1), 59-84.

6.

박노섭, 조은경, 이미선 (2013). 성폭력 근절 관련 대책의 개선방안. 경찰청.

7.

박종선 (2013). 전문가 의견조회의 성과와 발전방안: 판․검사 설문조사를 중심으로. 형사법의 신동향, 41, 86-117.

8.

여성아동피해중앙지원단 (2011). 아동 성폭력 피해 관련 국내외 판례 분석. 여성아동피해중앙지원단.

9.

이미선 (2018). 성폭력 피해아동 진술신빙성 판단에 있어서 평가자간 신뢰도: 진술분석 전문가 집단을 대상으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회및 성격, 32(2), 67-83.

10.

이수정 (2009). 아동 대상 성범죄 조사절차의미비점 및 개선방안 연구: 진술타당성분석(Statement Validity Analysis)의 형사사법적 활용가능성. 한국경찰연구, 8(3), 141-172.

11.

한유화, 박광배 (2016). 한국의 진술분석 활용현황: 서유럽 국가와의 비교. 한국심리학회지:법, 7(3), 137-156.

12.

Anson, D. A., Golding, S. L., & Gully, K. J. (1993). Child sexual abuse allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 17(3), 331-341.

13.

Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(1), 3-12.

14.

Dror, I. E., & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(4), 600.

15.

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.

16.

Dror, I. E., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51(4), 204-208.

17.

Frank, M. G., Feeley, T. H., Paolantonio, N., &Servoss, T. J. (2004). Individual and small group accuracy in judging truthful and deceptive communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 45-59.

18.

Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J., & Wistrich, A. Inside the Judicial Mind’ (2001). Cornell Law Review, 86, 777.

19.

Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2002). Judging by Heuristic-Cognitive Illusions in Judicial Decision Making. Judicature, 86, 44.

20.

Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (2002). Inside the jury. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

21.

Herman, S. (2005). Improving decision making in forensic child sexual abuse evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 29(1), 87.

22.

Hershkowitz, I., Fisher, S., Lamb, M. E., &Horowitz, D. (2007). Improving credibility assessment in child sexual abuse allegations: The role of the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(2), 99-110.

23.

Horner, T. M., Guyer, M. J., & Kalter, N. M. (1993). Clinical expertise and the assessment of child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(5), 925-933.

24.

Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and human behavior, 27(2), 187-203.

25.

Kerstholt, J. H., Paashuis, R., & Sjerps, M. (2007). Shoe print examinations: effects of expectation, complexity and experience. Forensic science international, 165(1), 30-34.

26.

Kerstholt, J., Eikelboom, A., Dijkman, T., Stoel, R., Hermsen, R., & van Leuven, B. (2010). Does suggestive information cause a confirmation bias in bullet comparisons?. Forensic science international, 198(1-3), 138-142.

27.

Köhnken, G., & Steller, M. (1988). The evaluation of the credibility of child witness statements in the German procedural system. Issues in Criminological & Legal Psychology.

28.

Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization:The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(11), 2098.

29.

Mazzoni, G., & Ambrosio, K. (2003). L’analisi del resoconto testimoniale in bambini: impiego del metodo di analisi del contenuto CBCA in bambini di 7 anni. Disponibile online:http://www.psicologiagiuridica.com/numero, 20006.

30.

Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He's guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and human behavior, 26(5), 469-480.

31.

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.

32.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

33.

Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and human behavior, 40(4), 440-457.

34.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(2), 189.

35.

Podlas, K. (2006). The CSI effect and other forensic fictions. Loy. LA Ent. L. Rev., 27, 87.

36.

Powell, M. B., Hughes‐Scholes, C. H., & Sharman, S. J. (2012). Skill in interviewing reduces confirmation bias. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9(2), 126-134.

37.

Rachlinski, J. J. (2000). Heuristics and biases in the courts: ignorance or adaptation. Or. L. Rev., 79, 61.

38.

Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J. C. (1998). Can Criteria-Based Content Analysis distinguish between true and false statements of African-American speakers?. Law and Human Behavior, 22(4), 369-388.

39.

Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 3-41.

40.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.

41.

Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and human behavior, 26(3), 261-283.

42.

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.

43.

Waddell, B. D., Roberto, M. A., & Yoon, S. (2013). Uncovering hidden profiles: advocacy in team decision making. Management Decision, 51(2), 321-340.

44.

Wigmore, J. H. (1923). A treatise on the Anglo-American system of evidence in trials at common law: Including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United States and Canada (Vol. 3). Little, Brown.

45.

Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. (1989). Analysis of the statements of victims, witnesses and suspects. In Credibility assessment (pp. 175-191). Springer, Dordrecht.

46.

Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2018). Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 1.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy