Children & the Law Flashcards
1
Q
children as witnesses: background
A
- Many issues have to do with child maltreatment
- 1980s-90s: several controversial cases in which children alleged abuse (ex. McMartin pre-school)
- At the time, very little scientific evidence on children’s testimony
- These cases led to increased research
2
Q
suggestibility (and its issues with children)
A
- The notion that memory is fallible and can be influenced
- Children may be particularly susceptible
- Memory less good in general
- Issues with source memory (where do you remember that piece of information from? -> is it from your actual experience, or from being questioned about it?)
- – Source memory study: number of source errors is much larger for younger children
3
Q
interviewer bias
A
- When interviewers hold “a priori” beliefs (a previously-held belief) about the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event -> can influence the interview
- Ex. Chester the Janitor study
- Ex. Surprise Party study
4
Q
interviewer bias: Chester the Janitor Study
A
- Some kids saw janitor clean toys, others saw him play with them and were told to keep it a secret
- Kids interviewed using 3 different interview techniques -> incriminating, exculpating (excusing him; opposite of incriminating), neutral
- Incriminating style increases reports of playing (even in cleaning condition); vice versa for exculpating (even in playing condition)
5
Q
interviewer bias: Surprise Party Study
A
- Visitors came to pre-school and had a birthday party with ¾ of kids; ¼ just did art with them
- Trained social workers who were blind to all conditions interviewed 4 kids (3 from party, 1 from art) -> said all kids had gone to party
- After interviewing 3 kids that went to party, they had built up an expectation and may have structured their interview accordingly
- Demonstrates unintentional interview bias based on what they’ve heard from others
6
Q
why can children’s testimony be unreliable?
A
- suggestibility
- interviewer bias
- suggestive interviewing techniques
7
Q
suggestive interviewing techniques
A
- open-ended vs. specific questions
- repeating interviews/questions
- forced confabulation
- stereotype induction
- non-verbal props
- peer contamination
8
Q
suggestive interviewing: open-ended vs. specific questions
A
- Open-ended (What happened?)
- Specific (ex. Did this happen? Did he touch you here or here?)
- Specific/yes or no/forced choice questions are more likely to lead to inaccurate self-report
9
Q
suggestive interviewing: repeating interviews/questions
A
- Repeating questions leads to more inaccuracy -> feel like the first answer they gave must have been wrong since they’re getting asked again
- Repeating interviews leads to issues with source memories (ex. pre-schooler true/false events study)
10
Q
suggestive interviewing: forced confabulation
A
- Forcing child to provide an answer
- Ie. If a kid says “I’m not sure”, interviewer says “Just guess – give me your best answer”
- If you force a child to come up with an incorrect answer, it makes it more likely for them to later believe it
- Ex. Summer camp study
11
Q
suggestive interviewing: stereotype induction
A
- Inserting negative characteristics about someone into the conversation
- Ex. TA comes into class, does a bunch of random stuff, and eventually takes off sweatshirt -> asks a kid to help
- Kids interviewed in either neutral way (ie. “Tell me what he did?”) vs. Incriminating way (ie. “He’s not supposed to do that”)
- Later asked questions about false memories (ie. “Did he touch another kid?”)
- Those interviewed in an incriminating way (establishing negative stereotype) much more likely to agree with those false statements
12
Q
suggestive interviewing: non-verbal props
A
- Using toys or dolls to have children act out what happened (used to circumvent potential issues with language in young children)
- More inaccuracy when using these dolls
- Perhaps because they’re anatomically correct dolls, and children are simply intrigued by the genitalia because it’s different than dolls they’d have at home
- Drawing seems to be okay, especially amongst older kids
13
Q
repeating interviews: pre-school true/false memory study
A
- Study questioned preschoolers about true positive events (good things that really happened), true negative events (bad things that really happened), false positive events (good things that didn’t happen), and false negative events (bad things that didn’t really happen) 5x, measured assent (how often kids went along with it)
- True positive: accurate
- False positive: fairly accurate
- False positive: initially don’t assent, but eventually do after repeat interviews
- False negative: initially don’t really assent, but eventually do after repeat interviews
14
Q
forced confabulation: summer camp study
A
- Watched video of someone at summer camp, he didn’t steal anything during the video, but interviewers asked about it -> some kids in forced confabulation condition, some not
- When questioned again a week later, those who had been forced to confabulate showed more beliefs that it had happened in the video (esp. Young children)
15
Q
better interview procedures
A
- NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol
- Set up rules: “it’s okay to say I don’t know”, “it’s okay to say you don’t remember”
- Practice interviews where kids are given questions they don’t know answers to so they can practice saying “I don’t know”, and so rapport can be built
- Starting with open-ended questions (ie. “Tell me about what happened”) and doing as many as possible before moving to directed questions (ie. “When did that happen?”), then moving to suggestive questions (ie. “Were your clothes on when that happened?”)
- Videotape interviews to be able to measure interviewer bias
