week 11 Flashcards

Question

Julian Varendonck (1911)

Answer 1

Working on a murder case in Belgium – evaluate evidence form two girls aged 8 and 10. Initially claimed no knowledge Under highly suggestive questioning they eventually gave a description of the murderer matched one of their fathers. Devised simple experiments using the same style of suggestive questioning. What colour is the (known) teacher's beard?” 7-year-olds Majority stated black, 2 did not answer. 8-year-olds 19/20 stated a colour Reality - He has no beard. Man spoke with class for 5 minutes whilst wearing a hat Asked which hand he held his hat in (he didn’t) 17 – right, 7 – left, only 3 said he didn’t hold it. “When are we going to give up, in all civilised countries, listening to children in courts of law?” (1911, p.136) For decades this study convinced everyone that children's testimony was not reliable. The simple design of the studies and the fact it fitted with the idea of children being not capable.

Answer 2

young children are often central figures in court actions” (Ornstein et al., 1992, p.49) 1980s allegations of child abuse flooded the courts (Poole & Lamb, 1998) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (Home Office, 1999) in section 53 states that: “at every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence” as long as a person is able to understand questions put to him as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood”. No lower limit, Judge decides based on honesty, memory, suggestibility, communication

Answer 3

Selective encoding Encode less details than adults and different details Variations in memory strength Stronger memories easier to retrieve, children’s memories may have weaker traces Memory distortions Post-event information blended with original memory Retrieval difficulties Children may require external support to access memories

Answer 4

Marin et al. (1979) 6-, 9-, 13-year olds and adults Witnessed staged argument between two people Unexpected free recall test “what can you remember?” 20 objective questions, e.g. “Did the man have a beard?” Photo identification (from set of 6) Age effects noted in free recall but not in objective questions or photo identification Age-related change in number of items recalled 6 year olds 1-2 items, adults 7-8. Youngest children offered little information in free recall, but what they did remember tended to be accurate Adults said more but more errors No difference in ID task Children as good as adults if questions non-biased.

Answer 5

Research suggests younger children more suggestible. Findings mainly from lab studies – children interviewed once. Does not relate to real-world scenarios – repeated questioning over time.

Answer 6

3- to 6-year olds Target event – ‘Sam Stone’ visiting class 2 minute visit during story time. Sam said hello to teacher, commented briefly on story. Walked around classroom once. Left waving goodbye. New interviewer Asked what happened when Sam visited. Asked if they ‘heard something’ about the book. Asked whether they saw Sam rip the book. If yes, ‘you didn’t really see him do this, did you?’ Conclusions Children can be suggestible Acknowledge ‘fake event’ Acknowledge they saw ‘fake event’ Even when probed maintain answer Younger children more suggestible than older Pre and post event information can harm recall When combined impact on recall greatest Some children elaborated in great detail Makes events sound more feasible. Videos of children’s accounts of Sam’s visit shown to adults. One accurate One very elaborate story One said he ripped book and made teddy dirty Accurate recall rated least credible

Answer 7

Implications for testimony: Closed yes/no questions are particularly problematic for young children. They may attempt to answer a question they do not understand. Safer to use open-ended questions.

Answer 8

Encode less information about events, meaning ‘gaps’ are filled in with suggestive questioning (Miller & Seier, 1994) . Or information only weakly encoded. Source monitoring difficulties (Roberts, 2000). Did info come from event or question after event? E.g. did he have a red shirt? Remember shirt as red at later questioning.

Answer 9

Authority of interviewer Tempted to guess if limited range of answers, i.e. yes/no, see research on nonsensical questions as well Repetition If a child is asked same question again may assume it is because their first answer was incorrect – change response (Moston, 1987; Fivush et al., 2002) Desire to please

Answer 10

Individual differences are evident Demographic variables Gender (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005), culture (Melinder et al., 2005) Cognitive variables Intelligence (Bettenay et al. 2015), autobiographical narrative skills (Kulkofsky & Klemfuss, 2008) ToM (Bright-Paul et al., 2008), EF (Caprin et al, 2016) Emotional Anxiety (Almerigogna et al., 2007), mental health (Eisen et al., 2007), adverse experiences/maltreatment ( Curci et al., 2017)

Answer 11

Step-wise technique (ABE, 2022) Funnel approach Informal setting Rapport building (+ telling children okay to say I don’t know, check truth v lies) Free recall phase Questioning phase General (wh questions) to specific, no forced choice Do not repeat Closure

Answer 12

Cognitive interview (CI) (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) Memory retrieval superior when overlap between encoding and retrieval environments (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) Rapport building Free recall (memory-jogging methods) Context reinstatement Report all Change order Change perspective Questioning Phase Closure

Answer 13

Mixed results CI > correct recall than step-wise (Holliday, 2003) Some reported > error recall with CI (Memon et al., 1997) CI > person/action details than step-wise (Memon et al., 1997) General consensus adapted CI superior in respect of enhancing correct recall Context reinstatement most useful for young children (Memon & Bull, 1991) Young children may find changing order and perspective cognitively challenging (Holliday, 2003)