政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/130596
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50926736      Online Users : 904
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130596


    Title: 語言分析方法於兒童被害人刑事證詞之應用
    Authors: 陳瑋絃
    Chen, Wei-Hsien
    Contributors: 何賴傑
    Her, Lai-Jier
    陳瑋絃
    Chen, Wei-Hsien
    Keywords: 兒童證人
    兒童證詞
    標準內容分析
    語文探索與字詞計算
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2020-07-01 13:51:35 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 兒童於法庭上作為證人提供證詞常見於性侵案件或家暴案件之中，該等案 件的特徵為發生地經常為較私密、封閉的空間，故可呈堂之證據本極為有限。實 務傳統上對此等案件之事實認定常仰賴之生物採樣及心理鑑定，但若非於案發當 時立即進行採證，還原案件真實之機率將隨著時間的流失而降低。事實上，實務 中不乏出現受害兒童於受害當下並未即時表達或甚至無法理解其權利已遭受侵 害，未向他人即時求助而喪失採證先機的情形。綜上之原因造成兒童供詞常為審 判中之關鍵性證據，但以往實務也常見以兒童偵查中與審判中指控非完全一致為 由，進而拒絕採信，徒生許多爭議。
    雖然兒童證詞具備特殊性，但我國對於兒童證詞於證據法上之定位未有相 關明文規定或系統性調整，對證詞內容本身也鮮少有研究，尤其在兒童證詞之 證明力的判斷上更是欠缺明確判斷依據。對此，本文將介紹針對兒童證詞可信 度的相關科學方法研究──標準內容分析(CBCA)、語文探索與字詞計算(LIWC)， 兩者皆以兒童證詞內容中語言特徵為研究重點。縱然目前上揭科學方法可能受 到測試者年齡、是否被誘導、心理障礙和語言發展的因素的影響，尚非完美無 瑕，但考量到上述缺失或許能透過較為嚴格的供詞取得程序作為補救辦法，仍 值得我國司法與社會相關單位借鏡與參考。本文希望透過介紹語言分析方法評 估兒童被害人供詞的可能性，希望能供日後相關司法實務人員多一項工具來斟 酌評估兒童被害人所為證詞之證明力。
    Reference: ㄧ、中文資料

    (ㄧ)專書
    1. 李宇明，兒童語言的發展，武漢華中師範大學出版社，頁108，2004年。
    2. 林崇德，發展心理學，東華書局出版社，1998 年 5 月。
    3. 林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法(上)，七版，2013年9月。
    4. 張瑋心，美國兒少性侵案件實務審判研究，元照出版社，2017年1月。
    5. 彭南元，兒童及家事法專題研究，2006年11月。
    6. 鄭紅麗，說謊心理學，中國輕工業出版社，2005年1月。

    (二)期刊論文
    1. 王兆鵬，證人指證之瑕疵及防制，台大法學論叢，28卷2期，頁231，1999年。
    2. 司法官第 57 期橋頭學習組院檢學習心得分享──性侵案件中說不出口的夢魘，司法新聲，125期，頁88-99，2018年1月。
    3. 向燕，論性侵兒童案件中被害人陳述的審查判斷，環球法律評論，6期，頁141-142，2018年。
    4. 朱朝亮，法庭遠距視訊與對質詰問，檢察新論，18期，頁99-107，2015年7月。
    5. 朱朝亮，鑑定報告之證據容許性要件，月旦法學教室，150期，頁27-29，2015年3月。
    6. 余習德，李明，夏新懿，朱一奕，高定國，兒童時間言語的發生與發展，學
    前教育研究，290 期，頁 58-60，2019年。
    7. 余新兵，證人證言可信度評價的語篇信息成分分析途徑，重慶交通大學學報，
    19卷3期，頁122-124，2019 年6月。
    8. 吳巡龍，科學證據與測謊的證據能力，月旦法學教室，38 期，頁95-96，2005年12月。
    9. 吳統雄，態度與行為研究的信度與效度:理論、應用、反省，民意學術專刊，103頁 29-53，1985 年。
    10. 吳景欽，性侵害案件中以被害人供述為唯一證據的正當性探討，軍法專刊，56卷2期，頁 87-104，2010年4月。
    11. 吳嵩、金盛華、蔡頠、李紹顓，基於語言內容的謊言識別，心理科學進展，20期，頁457-466，2012年3月。
    12. 吳維雅，「你相不相信孩子」?──論兒童性侵害案件中之兒童證人及專家
    證人兼評台灣高等法院92年少連上訴字第218號刑事判決，檢察新論，頁131-151，2007年1月。
    13. 李佳玟，司法詢問員的證據法問題(四)，法務通訊，2973期，頁3-5，2019年10月。
    14. 李榮耕，證人能力與幼童證人──最高院 100 臺上 6816 判決，台灣法學雜
    誌，194 期，頁 173-178，2012 年 2 月。
    15. 李榮耕，證人能力與幼童證人──最高院 100 臺上 6816 判決，台灣法學雜
    誌，194 期，頁 173-178，2012 年 2 月。
    16. 李慧瑜，性侵害案件兒童證人於刑事訴訟之相關問題—淺談美國法之理論與
    實務，法務部司法官訓練所，法學研究報告合輯司法官 47 期，頁 2327，2008
    年。
    17. 杜金榜，法律語篇樹狀信息結構研究，現代外語，30 卷 1 期，頁 43，2007年2月。
    18. 姚婷婷，四到六歲幼兒詞彙和水平會話能力的相關性研究，南京師範大學出
    版社，頁 36-40，2015 年。
    19. 施俊堯，科學鑑定證據憑信性之探討-以 DNA 鑑定證據為例，東吳法律學
    報，21 卷 4 期，頁 207-274，2010 年 4 月。
    20. 英國 Ray Bull 教授講授兒少及脆弱被害人證詞之證據力，司法週刊，第 1988期，4 版，2020 年 1 月。
    21. 高瑱娟、尤素芬，我國司法詢問員制度之源起及現況，社區發展季刊，162 期，頁91，2018年6月。
    22. 張瑋心，兒童被害人兼證人之司法權利──聯合國文件之啟思，軍法專刊，
    60 卷 4 期，頁 79-111，2014 年 8 月。
    23. 張瑋心，專家證人──司法語言學家，軍法專刊，60 卷 5 期，頁 153-174， 2014年10月。
    24. 張瑋心，論性侵案件「兒童被害人證言可信性」之檢驗，司法新聲，102 期， 頁 71-88，2012 年 4 月。
    25. 郭紫棋，林穎慧，被性侵害未成年被害人司法保護體系的完善──基於台灣 地區台北市性侵害案件一站式服务之啟示，人民檢查，14 期，頁 40，2018 年。
    26. 陳慧女、林明傑，兒童性侵案件中的專家證人與兒童作證，社區發展季刊， 103 期，頁 212-224，2003 年。
    27. 彭南元，兒童性侵害案件中兒童證人及專家鑑定之研究──對最高法院八十 八年度臺上字第三七七四號判決之評析，律師雜誌，253 期，頁 38-56，2000 年10月。
    28. 彭南元，兒童性侵害案件中兒童證人及專家鑑定之研究─對最高法院八十八 年度臺上字第三七七四號判決之評析，律師雜誌，253 期，頁 38-56，2000 年10月。
    29. 黃金蘭，Cindy K. Chung，Natalie Hui，林以正，謝亦泰，Ben C. P. Lam， 程威銓，Michael H. Bond，James W. Pennebaker，中文版「語文探索與字詞 計算」詞典之建立，中華心理學刊，54 卷 2 期，頁 185-201，2012 年。
    30. 楊雲驊，補強證據──以性侵案件為例，法務通訊，2854 期，頁 3-6，2017 年6月。
    31. 賈文宇，Daubert 判準的當前發展與臺灣證據法制可借鏡之處，萬國法律雜 誌，216 期，頁 15-23，2017 年 12 月。
    32. 鄭芬蘭、黃秋華、楊晴閔，幼兒欺騙行為形成機制之分析研究，台中教育大 學學報，20 卷 2 期，頁 81-106，2006 年。
    33. 鄭瑞隆，NICHD 司法詢問技術於兒少性侵害案件之運用，刑事政策與犯罪 防治研究論文集，頁 274-275，2017 年。
    34. 簡方毅，談測謊之證據能力，司法新聲，司法官 47 期學員，頁 2473。
    35. 闕士超、金孟華，兒童妨害性自主案件中司法詢問員之定位──兼論我國引
    進兒童倡議中心之可能性(上)，萬國法律，220 期，頁 102-118，2018 年 8月。
    36. 羅鼎程，石純宜，王家琳，邱悅貞，性侵害案件減少被害人重複陳述作業方
    案之反思，社區發展季刊，165 期，頁 168-180，2019 年 3 月。
    37. 蘇凱平，自白與補強證據之證明力成反比?──評最高法院 107 年度台上字
    第 4321 號刑事判決，月旦裁判時報，87 期，頁 57-65，2019 年 9 月。

    (三) 學位論文
    1. 白佳渝，兒童性侵害案件量刑之研究，國立臺北大學犯罪學研究所碩士論文，
    頁 19，2010 年。
    2. 吳冠陵，成人角色.詢問語調及問題類型對幼兒欺騙行為表現之影響，國立臺
    南大學幼兒教育學系碩士班論文，2011 年。
    3. 吳冠陵，成人角色詢問語調及問題類型對幼兒欺騙行為表現之影響，國立台
    南大學幼兒教育學系碩士論文，2012 年。
    4. 林宏嘉，性侵害案件被害兒童供述證據之研究，國防大學管理學院法律學系
    碩士論文，2016 年 6 月。
    5. 林志潔，證言之證據能力與證明力──以避免誤判與保障人權為中心，國立
    台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2000 年。
    6. 徐國超，意在言外?──以口語化行為徵候進行『測謊鑑定前篩試驗』之可
    行性，臺北大學犯罪學研究所碩士論文，2011 年 1 月。
    7. 張碧川，兒童語言習得計算模型研究，北京郵電大學博士研究生學位論文，
    2012年10月。
    8. 張錦麗，台灣地區「性侵害被害人減少重複陳述方案」之行動研究，國立暨
    南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系研究所博士論文，2005 年。
    9. 許潔怡，刑事訴訟程序中兒童證言之研究──以證言可信度為中心，國立成
    功大學法律研究所碩士論文，2008 年 2 月。
    10. 陳怡潔，刑事審判中補強法則之研究，國立成功大學法律學系碩士班刑法組
    碩士論文，2013 年 6 月。
    11. 陳柏鈞，性侵害被害人之訊問與詰問，政大法律研究所碩士論文，2007 年。
    12. 溫翎佑，司法詢問員制度應用於兒童性侵害案件之實證研究，中央警察大學
    警察政策研究所博士論文，頁 148-158，2019 年 1 月。
    13. 楊先明，零到五歲漢語兒童語言發展的認知研究，武漢大學博士學位論文，
    2010 年。

    (四) 網際網路
    1. 中國英漢語比較研究會法律語言學專業委員會，語篇信息理論介紹，參考網 址:https://flyy.gdufs.edu.cn/info/1138/1706.htm(最後瀏覽日:2020/6/6)。
    2. 司法訪談與NICHD訪談程序，兒童少年權益網，參考網址: https://www.cylaw.org.tw/about/advocacy/11/287 (最後瀏覽日:2020/6/6)。
    3. 高越、李蕾、師智啟、檀敏璐、徐易，誰是小偷—測謊儀及DIA語篇分析輔 助破案，中國英漢語比較研究會法律語言學專業委員會，參考網址: https://flyy.gdufs.edu.cn/info/1064/1668.htm(最後瀏覽日:2020/6/6)。
    4. 高雄市政府社會局，網路資料: https://socbu.kcg.gov.tw/index.php?prog=2&b_id=11&m_id=89&s_id=450(最後 瀏覽日:2020/6/6)。
    5. 聯合國兒童權利公約，網址: https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/crc_front/index.php?action=content&uuid=1c9b5a5a-dfbc- 4206-a205-4b6c2802aeb1(最後瀏覽日:2020/6/6)。

    (五)其他
    1. 中央警察大學，文字供述內容分析技術初探研究，行政院內政部警政署刑事
    警察局委託研究報告，2014 年 12 月。
    2. 吳林源，黃國平，鍾枚珊，行車事故鑑定委員於司法佐證之探討，九十六年
    道路交通安全與執法研討會，頁 31-32，2007 年 9 月。
    3. 林志潔，性別友善訴訟環境之建構─以性騷擾性侵害被害人保護為中心，行
    政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期末報告，頁 24-25，2012 年 10 月。
    4. 黃金蘭，台灣版語文探索與字詞計算(TW-LIWC)字典檔之修訂與信效度檢驗，行政院院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期末報告，2011 年。
    5. 趙儀珊，兒童證人司法訪談概說，性侵害案件早期鑑定及對智能障礙兒童之
    詢問技巧研討會，2015年5月。

    二、外文資料

    (ㄧ)專書
    1. A. Strömwal Leif, Assessing reliability by analysing the verbal content: the case of Sweden, in Forensic Psychology In Context: Nordic and Internationals Approaches 264-280 (P.A. Granhag ed. 2010).
    2. Aldert Vrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities (2d ed. 2008).
    3. Andreas Kapardis, David P. Farrington, The psychology of crime, Policing and Courts 139(2016).
    4. Barry S. Cooper, Dorothee Griesel, Marguerite Ternes, Applied Issues in Investigative Interviewing, Eyewitness Memory, and Credibility Assessment 95(2013).
    5. Ceci, S. J., Bruck, M, Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony (1995).
    6. Darren Haddad, Sharon Walter, Roy Ratley, Megan Smith, Investigation and Evaluation of Voice Stress Analysis Technology 1-2 (2002).
    7. Dorothee Griesel, Marguerite Ternes, Domenica Schraml, Barry S. Cooper, John C. Yuille, The ABC’s of CBCA: Verbal Credibility Assessment in Practice, In Investigative Interviewing, Eyewitness Memory, and Credibility Assessment 300, 293-323 (Barry S. Cooper, Dorothee Griesel, Marguerite Ternes eds. 2013).
    8. Faller, Kathleen Coulborn, Disclosure Failures: Statistics, Characteristics, and Strategies to Address Them, in Forensic Interviews Regarding Child Sexual Abuse: A Guide to Evidence-Based Practice 125,126, 123-139 (William T. O`Donohue, Matthew Fanetti eds. 2016).
    9. Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview (1992).
    10. Jean Piaget, The Language and Thought of the Child (1926).
    11. Jones, D., & McQuiston, M., Interviewing the sexually abused child (1989).
    12. Kevin Colwell, Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman, Jacquelyn Fede, Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception: An Example of the New Paradigm of Differential Recall Enhancement in Applied Issues, in Investigative Interviewing, Eyewitness Memory, and Credibility Assessment 261, 259-291(Barry S. Cooper, Dorothee
    Griesel, Marguerite Ternes eds. 2013).
    13. Kohenken G., Behavioral correlates of statement credibility: theories, paradigms,
    and results, In Criminal Behavior and the Justice System: Psychological
    Perspectives 271-89 (H Wegener, F Leosel, J Haisch. eds. 1989).
    14. Megan J. Smith, Child Sexual Abuse: Issues and Challenges (2008).
    15. Michel Hersen, Jay C. Thomas, Handbook of Clinical Interviewing With Children(2007).
    16. Neil Brewer, Kipling D. Williams, Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective (2005).
    17. Patricia J. Brooks, Vera Kempe, Encyclopedia of Language Development (2015).
    18. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Francis, M. E., Operator’s manual--Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2007 (2007).
    19. Pezdek, K., Taylor, J., Discriminating between accounts of true and false events. In False-memory creation in children and adults: Theory, research, and implications 69-91(D. F. Bjorklund ed. 2000).
    20. Sarah Kulkofsky, Credible but inaccurate: Can Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) distinguish true and false memories? In Child Sexual Abuse: Issues and Challenges 25, 21-42 (Megan J. Smith. ed. 2008)
    21. Steller,M., Recent Developments in Statement Analysis, In Credibility Assessment 135, 135-154 (John C. Yuille ed. 1989).
    22. Tom I. Richardson, Marsha V. Williams, Child Abuse and Violence 11-12 (2008).
    23. van Koppen, Peter, Penrod, Steven D., Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Justice:
    Psychological Perspectives 295(2003).
    24. Volbert, R., van der Zanden, R., Sexual knowledge and behavior of children up to 12 years: What is age-appropriate? In Graham Davies, Sally Lloyd-Bostock, In Psychology, Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in research and practice 198, 198-216(Mary McMurran, Clare Wilson eds. 1996).
    25. William T. O`Donohue, Matthew Fanetti, Forensic Interviews Regarding Child Sexual Abuse: A Guide to Evidence-Based Practice (2015).

    (二)期刊文章
    1. Amina Memon, Christian A. Meissner, Joanne Fraser, The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years, 16 Psychology Public Policy and Law 343, 340-372(2010).
    2. Andre Kehn, Jennifer M. Gray, Narina L. Nunez, Hearsay Testimony: Protecting the Needs of Children at the Expense of the Defendant`s Right to a Fair Trial, 7 Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 59, 60-64(2007).
    3. Andrews, S. J., Lamb, M. E., Lawyers’ Question Repetition and Children’s Responses in Scottish Criminal Courts, 25 Psychology, Crime & Law 1022,1008-1027(2019).
    4. Antonio L. Manzanero, M. Teresa Scott, Rocío Vallet, Javier Aróztegui, Ray Bull,Criteria-based Content Analysis in True and Simulated Victims with Intellectual
    Disability, 29 Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 55, 55-60(2019).
    5. Bárbara G. Amado, Ramón Arce, Francisca Farin ̃a, Manuel Vilarin ̃o, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review, 16 International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 307, 201-210(2016).
    6. Blandón-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Lindsay, D. S., Hagen, L., Criteria-based content analysis of true and suggested accounts of events, 23 Applied Cognitive Psychology 911, 901–17(2009).
    7. Brady MS, Poole DA, Warren AR, Jones HR, Young children`s responses to yes-no questions: Patterns and problems, 3 Applied Developmental Science 47, 47-57(1999).
    8. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Hembrooke, H., The nature of children’s true and false narratives, 22 Developmental Review 546, 520–554(2002).
    9. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Hembrooke, H., The nature of children’s true and false narratives, 22 Developmental Review 546, 520–554(2002).
    10. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., The Suggestibility of Young Children, 6 Current Directions in Psychological Science 77, 75-79(1997).
    11. Carol S. Larson et al., Sexual Abuse of Children: Recommendations and Analysis,4 The Future of Children: Sexual Abuse of Children 17, 17-19 (1994).
    12. Ceci, S. J., Ross, D. F., Toglia, M. P., Suggestibility In Children’S Memory: Psycholegal Implications, 116 Journal of Experimental Psychology 38(1987);
    Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Hembrooke, H., Reliability And Credibility Of Young Children’s Reports: From Research To Policy And Practice, 53 American Psychology 136, 136-51(1998).
    13. Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K., Memon, A., Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility, 16 Applied Cognitive Psychology 290, 287–300(2002).
    14. Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C. K., Memon, A., Taylor, L., Prewett, J., Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): An integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception, 4 Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 169, 167–180(2008).
    15. Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., Michlik, P., Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth-tellers: How liars attempt to convince, 24 American Journal of Forensic Psychology 86, 73–90(2006).
    16. Craig, R. A., Scheibe, R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., Dodd, D. H., Interviewer questions and content analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 77–85(1999).
    17. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Cues to deception, 129 Psychological Bulletin 75, 74-118(2003).
    18. Driscoll, L.N., A validity assessment of written statements from suspects in criminal investigations using the Scan technique, 17 Police Studies 77, 77-88 (1994).
    19. Eric Rassin, Criteria Based Content Analysis: The Less Scientific Road to Truth, 7 Expert Evidence 265, 265-278(2000).
    20. Eva Alisic, Revathi N. Krishna, Megan L. Robbins, Matthias R. Mehl, A Comparison of Parent and Child Narratives of Children’s Recovery From
    Trauma, 35 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 228, 224-235(2016).
    21. Fanetti, M. N., O’Donohue, W. T., Bradley, A. R., A method for evaluating child forensic interviews, 24 American Journal of Forensic Psychology 5, 5–
    27(2006).
    22. Galit Nahari, Tzachi Ashkenazi, Ronald P. Fisher, Pär-Anders Granhag, Irit Hershkowitz, Jaume Masip, Ewout H. Meijer, Zvi Nisin, Nadav Sarid, Paul J. Taylor, Bruno Verschuere, Aldert Vrij, Language of lies: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research, 24 legal and criminological psychology, 8-9, 1-23(2019).
    23. Goodman GS, Taub EP, Jones DP, England P, Port LK, Rudy L, Prado L., Testifying in criminal court: emotional effects on child sexual assault victims, 57 Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 143, 1-161(1992).
    24. Guy C. M. Skinner, Samantha J. Andrews, Michael E. Lamb, The disclosure of alleged child sexual abuse: an investigation of criminal court transcripts from Scotland, 25 Psychology, Crime & Law 460, 459-481(2019).
    25. Ida Welle, Michel Berclaz, Marie-Josée Lacasa, Gérard Niveau, Gérard Niveau, A call to improve the validity of criterion-based content analysis (CBCA): Results from a field-based study including 60 children`s statements of sexual abuse, 43 Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 111, 111-119(2016).
    26. Iris Blandon-Gitlin, Kathy Pezdek, Martha Rogers, Laura Brodie, Detecting Deception in Children: An Experimental Study of the Effect of Event Familiarity on CBCA Ratings, 29 Law and Human Behavior 195, 187-97(2005).
    27. J.B. Meixner, S.S. Diamond, The hidden Daubert factor: How judges use error rates in assessing scientific evidence, 2014 Wisconsin law review 1063, 1063-1133(2014).
    28. Jabbar, M., Overcoming Daubert`s shortcomings in criminal trials: Making the error rate the primary factor in Daubert`s validity inquiry, 85 New York University Law Review 2061, 2034–2064(2010).
    29. Joanne Arciuli, David Mallard, Gina Villar, Um, I can tell you`re lying : Linguistic markers of deception versus truth-telling in speech, 31 Applied Psycholinguistics 401, 406-407(2010).
    30. John E. B. Myers, Expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse, 17 Child Abuse & Neglect 175, 175-185(1993).
    31. Johnson, M.K., Raye, C.L., Reality Monitoring, 88 Psychological Rev. 67, 67-85(1981).
    32. Jonas Schemmel, Benjamin Maier, Renate Volbert, Verbal Baselining: Within-Subject Consistency of CBCA Scores across Different Truthful and Fabricated Accounts, 12 The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 35, 35-42(2020).
    33. Katharine A. Tillman, Tyler Marghetis, DavidBarner, Mahesh Srinivasan, Today is tomorrow’s yesterday: Children’s acquisition of deictic time words, 92 Cognitive Psychology 93, 87-100(2017).
    34. Katja Erdmann, Renate Volbert, Claudia Boehm, Children report suggested events even when interviewed in a non-suggestive manner: What are its implications for credibility assessment, 18 Applied Cognitive Psychology 601, 589-611(2004).
    35. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., Horowitz, D, A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with ch ildren: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol, 31 Child abuse & neglect 1021, 1201-31(2007). A Vrij, W. Kneller, S. Mann, The effect of informing liars about Criteria-Based Content Analysis on their ability to deceive CBCA-raters, 5 Legal and Criminological Psychology 57, 57–70(2000).
    36. Lucy Akehurst, Sarah Manton, Sabine Quandte, Careful Calculation or a Leap of Faith? A Field Study of the Translation of CBCA Ratings to Final Credibility Judgements, 25 Applied Cognitive Psychology 250, 236-43(2011).
    37. Lyon, T. D., New Wave In Children’s Suggestibility Research: A Critique, 84 Cornell L. Rev. 1004, 1004-1087(1999).
    38. Matthew L. Newman, James W. Pennebaker, Diane S. Berry, Jane M. Richards, Lying Words: Predicting Deception From Linguistic Styles, Personality & social psychology bulletin 666, 665-675(2003).
    39. Megan P.Y. Sim, Michael E. Lamb, Children`s disclosure of child sexual abuse: how motivational factors affect linguistic categories related to deception
    detection, 19 Psychology, Crime & Law 649, 649-660(2013).
    40. Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW, Horowitz D., Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims, 24 Child Abuse& Neglect 733, 733-52(2000).
    41. Paolo Roma, Pietro San Martini, Ugo Sabatello, Roberto Tatarelli, Validity of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) at trial in free-narrative interviews, 35
    Child abuse & neglect 613, 613-620 (2011).
    42. Par Anders Granhag, Leif A. Strömwall, Sara Landström, Children recalling an event repeatedly: Effects on RM and CBCA scores, 11 Legal and Criminological Psychology 94, 81-98(2006).
    43. Pennebaker, J. W., Mayne, T. J., Francis, M. E., Linguistic predictors of adaptive
    bereavement, 72 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 863, 863-871(1997).
    44. Pezdek, K., Morrow, A., Blandon-Gitlin, I., Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Saywitz, K. J., Brodie, L., Detecting deception in children: Event familiarity affects criterion- based content analysis ratings, 89 Journal of Applied Psychology 124, 119-126(2004).
    45. Powell, M. B., Jones, C. H., Campbell, C., A comparison of preschoolers ` recall of experienced versus non-experienced events across multiple interviews, 17 Applied Cognitive Psychology 949, 935-52(2003).
    46. Principe GF, Guiliano S, Root C., Rumor mongering and remembering: How rumors originating in children’s inferences can affect memory, 99 Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 135, 135-55(2008).
    47. Ramon Arce, Francisca Fariña, Psychological evidence in court on statement credibility, psychological injury, and malingering: The Global Evaluation System (GES), 26 Papeles del Psicologo 70, 59-77(2005).
    48. Ross, D.F., Warren, A.R., McGough, L.S., Forward: Hearsay testimony in trials involving child witnesses, 5 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 251, 251-254(1999)
    49. Ruby, C. L, Brigham, J. C., Tk, The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations: A critical review, 3 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 705, 705-737(1997).
    50. Rude, S., Gortner, E. M. Pennebaker, J., Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students, 18 Cognition & Emotion 1121, 1121-1133(2004).
    51. Santilla, P., Roppola, H., Runtti, M., Nemi, P., Assessment of child witness statements using criteria-based content analysis (CBCA): The effects of age, verbal ability, and interviewer’s emotional style, 6 Psychology, Crime, & Law 159, 159-179(2000).
    52. Shanna Mary Williams, Victoria Talwar, R. C. L. Lindsay, Nicholas Bala, Kang Lee, Is the Truth in Your Words? Distinguishing Children’s Deceptive and Truthful Statements, 2014 Journal of Criminology 3, 1-9(2014).
    53. Skillicorn, D.B. and Little, A., Patterns of word use for deception in testimony, 9 Security Informatics 34, 25-39(2010).
    54. Stephen J. Ceci, Elizabeth F Loftus, Michelle D. Leichtman, Maggie Bruck, The Possible Role of Source Misattributions in the Creation of False Beliefs Among Preschoolers, 42 International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 341, 304-20(1994).
    55. Stirman, S. W., Pennebaker, J. W., Word use in the poetry of suicidal and nonsuicidal poets, 63 Psychosomatic Medicine 518, 517-522(2001).
    56. Strömwall, L. A., Bengtsson, L., Leander, L., Granhag, P. A., Assessing children’s statements: The impact of a repeated experience on CBCA and RM ratings. 18 Applied Cognitive Psychology 653, 653-68(2004).
    57. Timothy W. Armistead, The detection of deception by linguistic means: Unresolved issues of validity, usefulness and epistemology, Policing: 35 Police Strategies & Management, 313, 304-26 (2012).
    58. Tommaso Fornaciari, Massimo Poesio, Automatic deception detection in Italian court cases, 21 Artificial Intelligence and Law 319, 303-340(2013).
    59. Valerie Hauch, Siegfried L. Sporer, Jaume Masip, Iris Blandon-Gitlin, Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of Criteria-Based Content Analysis, 29 Psychological Assessment 828, 819-834(2017).
    60. Volbert, R., Steller, M., Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory, Credibility Assessment 25 Years After Steller and Köhnken, 19 European Psychologist 214, 207-220(2014).
    61. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., Bull, R., Detecting deceit via analyses of
    verbal and nonverbal behavior in children and adults, 30 Human Communication Research 21, 8-41(2004).
    62. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., Bull, R., Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching and social skills on CBCA scores, 26 Law and Human Behavior 261, 261-283(2002).
    63. Vrij, A., Criteria-based content analysis: a qualitative review of the first 37 studies, 11 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3, 3-41 (2005).
    64. Wagner, H.L., On measuring performance in category judgment studies of nonverbal behavior, 17 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 3, 3-28(1993).
    65. Wakefield, H., Underwager, R., Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody disputes, 14 Behavioral Sciences & the Law 269, 269-286(1991).
    66. William O’Donohue, Lorraine T. Benuto, Olga Cirlugea , Analyzing Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: Further Considerations, 2014 Journal of Forensic
    Psychology Practice 238, 237-45(2014).
    67. William O’Donohue, Lorraine T. Benuto, Olga Cirlugea, Analyzing Child Sexual Abuse Allegations, 13 Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 299, 296-314(2013)

    (三)網際網路
    1. Gestmin SGPS Sa v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited [2013] EWHC 3560, at https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff75760d03e7f57eab7df (last visited 6/6/2020).
    2. Louis Kiefer, Defense Considerations in the Child as Witness in Allegations of Sexual Abuse, Part I. Witnesses in General: How We Measure Credibility, at http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/ j1_1_1.htm#en3r (last visited 6/6/2020).
    3. Mark L. Howe, Lauren M. Knott, The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409058/ (last visited 6/6/2020).
    4. Martha L. Rogers, Review of the Current Status of the Use of Statement Validity Analysis Procedures in Sex Abuse Cases in the United States, The Institute for Psychological Therapies at http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_2_2.htm(last visited
    6/6/2020).
    5. Ott M., Choi Y., Cardie C., Hancock J. T., Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination, in Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 309, 309-19(2011) at http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2002512 (last visited 6/6/2020).
    6. Pérez-Rosas V., Mihalcea R., Cross-cultural deception detection 440-45(2014) at https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P14-2072.pdf (last visited 6/6/2020).
    7. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services，Child Protective Services Handbook，at https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/default.asp(lastvisted 6/6/2020).
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    105652002
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105652002
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202000623
    Appears in Collections:[Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    200201.pdf1617KbAdobe PDF20View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback