Criteria‐based content analysis of true and suggested accounts of events

Abstract Worldwide, the criteria‐based content analysis (CBCA) is probably the most widely used veracity assessment technique for discriminating between accounts of true and fabricated events. In this study, two experiments examined the effectiveness of the CBCA for discriminating between accounts of true events and suggested events believed to be true. In Experiment 1, CBCA‐trained judges evaluated participants' accounts of true and suggestively planted childhood events. In Experiment 2, judges analysed accounts of recent events that were experimentally manipulated to be a (a) true experience, (b) false experience believed to be true and (c) deliberately fabricated experience. In both experiments CBCA scores were significantly higher for accounts of true events than suggested events. However, this difference was not significant for participants classified as experiencing ‘full’ memories for the suggested event. Self‐report memory measures supported the findings of the CBCA analyses. Taken together these results suggest that the CBCA discriminative power is greatly constrained. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.