ch 7 (MT 2)

Question 1

*What was the McMartin Case? What happened + why?

Answer 1

-100s of children claimed abuse
-7 teachers accused of satanic rituals
-children were first interviewed by parents (highly suggestive) leading to more
-interviewed at Children’s Institute International (also v suggestive techniques)

Question 2

*what are 5 factors that increase child witness suggestibility?

Answer 2

1. leading questions
2. repeated suggestive interviews
3. imagination retrieval techniques
4. influence of authority figure
5. influence of peers

Question 3

*What is the Principe + Ceci (2002) Archaeological Dig Study?

Answer 3

-Dr Diggs “accidentally” spilled a drink on treasure map during class exercise
-witness condition: took part + observed exercise
-classmate condition: peers of witnesses who didn’t observe the exercise
-children exposed to peer influence were as likely to report observing the accident as children who actually observed it

Question 4

*what is the Sam Stone (Leichtman and Ceci, 1995) study?

Answer 4

-Sam Stone visited daycare for 2 mins + final interview 10wks later
1. stereotype condition: repeated suggestions BEFORE the visit that Sam was clumsy
–> virtually no false allegations in response to open prompts / false allegations made in response to closed questions (1/3 of 3-4yos, 1/6 of 5-6yos)

2. suggestion condition: repeated suggestions AFER the visit that damaged book + teddy bear
   -high rates of false allegations
   -open prompts: 21% of 3-4yos, 14% of 5-6yos
   -closed Qs: 53% of 3-4yos, 38% of 5-6yos
3. stereotype + suggestion: repeated suggestions before + after
   -highest false allegation rates
4. control condition: no suggestions
   -virtually no false allegations

Question 5

*What are 7 indicators that a child witness isn’t highly suggestible?

Answer 5

1. provides descriptive narratives
2. assertive personality
3. corrects interviewer
4. seeks clarification
5. answers no to Y/N questions
6. selective in MC questions
7. answers “I don’t know” to Wh-questions

Question 6

*what are pros and cons of interviewing children repeatedly?

Answer 6

-pros:
-reminiscence
-inoculate against forgetting
-may increase resistance to questions

-cons:
-if interviews are suggestive, may heighten the suggestibility effect
-if interviews are closed questions, may reduce accuracy

Question 7

*What is the NICHD Protocol? What does it encourage + discourage?

Answer 7

-investigative interviewing method designed for child witnesses by National Institute of Child Health + Human Development
-3 phases
-encourages open ended Qs/prompts
-discourages closed + leading Qs

Question 8

*what are the 4 types of prompts used in the NICHD protocol? Give examples of each. (essay)

Answer 8

1. facilitator: nonsuggestive prompt that cues child to continue w ongoing response (eg “okay” “yes” “uh huh” “so he hit you”)
2. invitation: open ended req that child recall info abt the incident (“tell me everything that happened” “tell me more about that”)
3. cued invitation: incorporate a prev mentioned detail to prompt further recall (eg “you mentioned ____, tell me more/then what happened?)
4. directive: cue recall prompt that focuses child’s attention on info already mentioned + requests additional specific info using wh-questions (eg what color was that shirt? where/when did that happen?)

Question 9

*Name + describe the 10 stages of the NICDH protocol (essay)

Answer 9

PHASE 1: PRE-SUBSTANTIVE
1. introduction - create a relaxed, supportive environment (“I’m a police officer - part of my job is to talk to children about things that have happened to them”)
2. ground rules - a) tell child they can say I don’t know/ask for clarification, etc; b) an oath to tell the truth, and c) an explicit statement that the interviewer doesn’t know what happened
3. rapport (“tell me about things you like to do”)
4. practice interview (“I heard it was your birthday a couple weeks ago, tell me everything that happened”)

PHASE 2: SUBSTANTIVE
5. transition - multiple repeated prompts, may ask more direct Qs (“I want to talk about why you’re here today; tell me why you think you’re here today; I heard you _____ , tell me what you talked about; did someone hit you?”)
6. investigate incidents: asks incident-specific Qs, investigate incidents (“then what happened?; you mentioned ____, tell me more”)
7. focused Qs (“when you told me about ____, you mentioned ____. did something happen to your clothes?”)
8. Disclosure info: (“tell me what happened after the last time she hit you; does anyone else know what happened?; tell me everything you can about how dad found out”)

PHASE 3: CLOSING
9. closure: thank them, ask if there’s anything else, depending on age contact info
10. neutral topic: reduce stress (eg “what are you going to do today after you leave?”)

Question 10

*how many cases of child sexual offence involve repeated incidents? Why are these children seen as less credible? what are the best practices around this?

Answer 10

-~50%
-details can be confused across events
-conduct practice interview about a neutral topic + in the actual interview, ask about an instance the child remembers well

Question 11

*How were child witnesses seen in court historically?

Answer 11

-historically, distrusting of children (common law premised on unreliability of SA claims + need for evidence made prosecutions difficult)
-children had to demonstrate credibility
-limited accommodations for children

Question 12

*what is the complaint doctrine? when was it discontinued?

Answer 12

-required a victim (all ages) to complain at first available opportunity
-esp problematic for child witnesses - up to 2/3 delay reporting abuse
-discontinued in 1983

Question 13

*Compare approaches to child competency inquiry historically and currently

Answer 13

-historically:
-child must demonstrate capacity to testify
-take an oath + answer (v abstract) Qs about it
-had to promise to tell the truth + answer inappropriate Qs about it (eg meaning of truth)

-currently:
-presumed to have capacity to testify (burden on party who challenges competency)
-no oath, just promise to tell the truth (no Qs about the meaning of oath/truth)
-viewed as competent if they can understand + respond to simple Qs abt past events

Question 14

*Explain the Child Competency Study (Talwar, Lee, Bala, Lindsay, 2002) and its results

Answer 14

-3-7yos left alone w a toy + told not to peek
-experimenter returned + encouraged children to either discuss the concept of truth OR promise to tell the truth
-then asked if they peeked
-only promise to tell the truth increased truth telling
-children found to have good conceptual knowledge of truth, but had no effect on telling truth

Question 15

*what are 6 factors that influence perceptions of child witness credibility?

Answer 15

-confidence
-consistency
-unbiased interview
-powerful language
-articulacy
-acknowledgement of memory failures

-anticipatory + testimonial stress both assoc w MH problems in children

Question 16

what are examples of testimonial aids for children and why/when might they be used? what are pros and cons?

Answer 16

-closed circuit television (CCTV) - allows court to see testimony while child + defense + prosecuting attorneys in other room
-testifying behind a screen
-having a support person in the courtroom
-lessen trauma of testifying, increase accuracy
-however, decrease perceived credibility
-generally allowed if the person is <18

Question 17

4. Should Closed Qs ever be used in a forensic interview w a child?

Answer 17

Generally discouraged, should only be used if some central details are missing after repeated unsuccessful attempts to elicit info from open Qs

Question 18

what is recovered memory?

Answer 18

reporting that:
-abuse was witnessed / experienced years (even decades) earlier, and
-the memory was previously inaccessible

Question 19

What is the Susan Nason case? What reasoning did Eileen give for waiting to report?

Answer 19

-body of Susan found in 1969
-20yrs later, friend Eileen Franklin reported account of her dad George Franklin killing Susan: said she and her father saw him walking, offered her a ride – then took them to the forest and assaulted then killed her
-led to his conviction - hypnosis wasn’t disclosed
-Eileen said she waited to report bc father threatened her + the memory was repressed
-conviction overturned 5yrs later
-Eileen’s credibility - later accused her dad of another murder

Question 20

what is repression?

Answer 20

-process proposed by Freud - experiences are so painful they are actively pushed outside of conscious awareness

Question 21

what is recovered memory therapy?

Answer 21

-techniques to bring repressed memories into consciousness
-eg guided imagery (imagining scenarios suggested by therapist), dream interpretation, hypnosis

Question 22

2 explanations for recovered memories

Answer 22

1. memories are repressed, pushed into unconscious and can be brought back
2. memories are false – suggested by memory psychologists; memories are “planted”

Question 23

what is the Rich False Memory Paradigm? (Loftus)

Answer 23

-first, ask family member about a real memory that someone experienced in childhood
-recount this memory to participant with false details included
-ask participant if they recall the event or not
-if it is, ask for details; if not, use retrieval techniques
-if they still don’t remember, repeat the procedure

Question 24

what are 2 examples of the Rich false memory paradigm?

Answer 24

-Loftus + Pickrell (‘95)
-29% of participants report a false memory of being lost in the mall when asked abt 4 memories (3 were real)

Wade, Garry, Read, Lindsay (2001): using fake photos + guided imagery to recall childhood “memory”
-50% reported a false memory:
-30% reported a partial false memory (feelings, who was present, etc, but not memories of the balloon ride)
-20% full false memory: reported memories of ride + added details

Question 25

What’s the rule for deciding if a Q qualifies as an open ended?

Answer 25

If the question can be answered completely with 1-3 words, it’s not an open question.