Childrens Suggestibility

1
Childrens Suggestibility

• Prepared by Ryan Dickson
• and
• Rhyannon Bemis

2
Interviewing Children

• How do adults structure conversations with
  children in regards to their memories?
• Probes and prompts to assist child as to what
  info is appropriate to report
• Structure the interaction around scripted
  knowledge
• Repeat questions if response unsatisfactory
• Reward children for appropriate responses
• Guiding children back to topic if they begin to
  express unrelated thoughts

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
3
Interviewing Children

• How do children perceive their role in
  conversations with adults?
• Children attempt to make their answers consistent
  with what they perceive to be the belief/desire
  of the questioner
• Children perceive adult conversation partners as
  cooperative and truthful their questions as
  necessarily logical and have a correct answer

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
4
Interviewer Bias

• Interviewer bias a priori beliefs about the
  occurrence of certain events
• Interview is structured to elicit statements from
  a child consistent with beliefs
• Only confirmatory evidence sought and
  inconsistent info is not challenged
• Questions that may elicit inconsistent info are
  avoided, or if such info is provided, interviewer
  quickly moves on or disregards
• Open ended questions avoided for more direct
  confirmatory questions

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
5
Interviewer Bias

• Stereotype inducement interviewer provides info
  to child consistent with a particular bias (e.g.,
  you know that Kelly is a bad person dont you?)
• Selective reinforcement of info consistent with
  bias (nodding head, smiling), or ignoring
  inconsistent info

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
6
Interviewer Bias

• Simon Says (Ceci, Leichtman, White, in press)
• Preschoolers play game of Simon Says
• Interviewer given report of event that was either
  accurate or inaccurate both told that report
  reflects what may have occurred
• One month later, children interviewed as to what
  actually occurred
• Interviewer given accurate info
• Children accurately reported 93 of events

7
Interviewer Bias

• Simon Says (Ceci, Leichtman, White, in press)
• Interviewer given inaccurate info
• 34 of 3-4 year olds and 18 of 5-6 year olds
  corroborated false beliefs (non-events) held by
  interviewer
• Interviewer kept notes, and two months later
  second interviewer (given notes) questioned
  children
• Children continued to endorse false beliefs
  (non-events) of interviewer and did so with
  increasing confidence

8
Interviewer Bias

• Class Visit (Pettit, Fegan, Howie, 1990)
• Class visit by park ranger and children
  questioned two weeks later
• Interviewers provided with either full accurate
  knowledge of event, inaccurate info, or no info
  and asked to find out what happened (told to
  avoid leading questions)
• 30 of all questions turned out to be leading
  half of these were misleading
• Overall, children agreed with 41 of misleading
  questions and those questioned by misled
  interviewer provided the most inaccurate info

9
Interviewer Bias

• Chester the Molester/Chester the Cleaner
  (Clarke-Stewart, Thompson, Lepore, 1989)
• 5 and 6 year olds interacted with Chester
• Chester either
• Cleaned dolls and other toys (This doll is
  dirty, I better clean it)
• Handled dolls roughly and in a abusive way (I
  like to play with dolls. I like to spray them in
  the face with water)
• Children then questioned (same day) by
  interviewers who were either
• Accusatory of Chester
• Exculpatory of Chester
• Neutral

10
Interviewer Bias

• Chester the Molester/Chester the Cleaner
  (Clarke-Stewart, Thompson, Lepore, 1989)
• After first interview, children asked open ended
  question as to event, specific factual questions,
  and interpretive questions (Was the janitor
  doing his job or was he just being bad?)
• Second interviewer either contradicted or
  reinforced the bias of first interviewer
• Finally interviewed by parents

11
Interviewer Bias

• Chester the Molester/Chester the Cleaner
  (Clarke-Stewart, Thompson, Lepore, 1989)
• When questioned by neutral or consistent (matched
  event child experienced) interviewer
• Children were both accurate and consistent with
  particular Chester script
• When questioned by interviewer who held
  contradictory belief
• 75 of childrens responses conformed to beliefs
  of interviewer
• 90 answered interpretive questions consistent
  with interviewers belief (not with what actually
  occurred)

12
Interviewer Bias

• Chester the Molester/Chester the Cleaner
  (Clarke-Stewart, Thompson, Lepore, 1989)
• Responses to parents consistent with interviewer
  bias
• Occurred for interpretive questions and factual
  questions (20 made factual errors in the
  direction of interviewer bias even though
  interviewer never misled in regards to these
  questions)
• Results of these studies suggest children can be
  accurate, but not when an interviewer holds a
  belief that is inconsistent with childs
  experience

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
13
Stereotype Induction

• Stereotype induction refers to an interviewers
  attempt to transmit a certain characterization of
  a person or event (that person does bad things
  e.g., Chester)
• Dale Study (Lepore Sesco, 1994)
• 4-6 year olds played games with Dale
• Dale played with toys and asked children to help
  him take off his sweater
• For ½ children, interviewer took neutral stance
  on reported info
• For ½, interviewer reinterpreted info in an
  incriminating manner (He wasnt supposed to do
  or say that. That was bad. What else did he do?)

14
Stereotype Induction

• All children then asked a series of yes/no
  questions about event
• Children in incriminating condition gave many
  more inaccurate responses
• Errors predominately related to Dale as being a
  bad person
• 1/3 of these children also embellished their
  incorrect responses (some he kissed on the
  lips) always in a negative incriminating
  direction
• When interviewed a week later, these children
  continued to respond inaccurately and continued
  to embellish
• Children in incriminating condition also more
  likely to make spontaneous negative assertions
  about Dale (did bad things. and intended to be
  bad, fool around, and not do his job)

15
Interviewer Bias (Michaels Case)

• Q Do you think that Kelly was not good when she
  was hurting you all?
• A Wasnt hurting me. I like her.
• Q I cant hear you, you got to look at me when
  you talk to me. Now when Kelly was bothering kids
  in the music room
• A I got socks off
• Q Did she make anybody else take their clothes
  off in the music room?
• A No.
• Q Yes?
• A No
• Q Did Kelly ever make you kiss her on the butt?
• A No.
• Q Did Kelly ever say Ill tell you what. When
  did Kelly say these words? Piss, shit, sugar?
• A Piss, shit, sugar?
• Q Yeah, when did she say that, what did you have
  to do in order for her to say that?
• A I didnt say that.
• Q I know, she said it, but what did you have to
  do?

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
16
Repeated Questioning (across interviews)

• Child witnesses are questioned, on average, 12
  times during the course of investigation
  (probably an underestimate parents, friends,
  counselors also question children)
• Advantages of multiple interviews
• Adults and children often recall new details with
  repeated (open ended) tellings
• Chance to rehearse memories less forgetting over
  time
• Disadvantages of multiple interviews
• Adults and children recall more inaccurate info
  (most apparent in children)
• Forgetting increases over delay

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
17
Repeated Questioning (across interviews)

• Delay Study (Poole White, 1993)
• Adults and children (6-10 years) observe event
  and are questioned immediately after
• Participants questioned again 2 years later
• Compared to adults, children provided many more
  inaccurate details in response to open ended
  questions
• Responses to direct (yes/no) questions were at
  chance
• 21 confused which actors performed particular
  actions

18
Repeated Questioning (across interviews)

• Repeated Misinformation (Bruck, Ceci, Francouer,
  Barr, 1995)
• 5 year olds visit pediatrician
• Male Dr. gave each child a physical, oral polio
  vaccine, and an inoculation Female nurse talked
  with child about poster, read child a story, and
  gave child treats
• One year later, children reinterviewed 4 times
  over the course of a month
• During first 3 interviews, some children falsely
  reminded that male Dr. talked about poster, read
  story, and gave treats whereas female nurse gave
  inoculation and vaccine other children not given
  misleading info

19
Repeated Questioning (across interviews)

• Repeated Misinformation (Bruck, Ceci, Francouer,
  Barr, 1995)
• Fourth and final interview
• Children not given misleading info were highly
  accurate
• Misled children were highly inaccurate
• More than half incorporated misleading info into
  memory report (reversing Dr./nurse roles)
• 38 included non-suggested info into their
  reports. This info was, however, script related
  reported that female nurse carried out other
  procedures (checked their ears, nose) consistent
  with the idea that she was the one filling the
  role of Dr. and examining them

20
Repeated Questioning (across interviews)

• Repeated Misinformation (Bruck, Ceci, Francouer,
  Barr, 1995)
• Children given shot
• Immediately after shot, given pain affirming
  feedback (it hurt), pain denying feedback (did
  not hurt) or neutral feedback (its over)
• Children interviewed one week later showed no
  differences in their recall of shot, pain, or
  crying
• However, when different children were brought
  back a year after shot and given misleading info
  (over 3 interviews)
• Children given pain denying feedback reported
  less pain and crying compared to those given
  neutral feedback

21
Repeated Questions (within interview)

• Adults, 4, 6, and 8 year olds witnessed ambiguous
  event
• 1/2 interviewed immediately after event and one
  week later
• 1/2 interviewed only once, a week later
• All questions asked three times within interviews
• Repeated open ended questions had little impact
  on responses
• 4 year olds more likely than other groups to
  change their answer to repeated yes/no questions
  (both w/in and across interviews)
• Children more likely to speculate when asked a
  specific question about information they had no
  knowledge of
• For both children and adults, responses became
  more confident (used fewer qualifiers) with
  repeated questioning

22
Repeated Questions

• Repeating a question may signal to children that
  their initial answer was unacceptable
• Repeating questions may decrease childrens
  accuracy when conducted by biased interviewer
• Younger children most prone to change answer when
  repeatedly questioned
• Responses become more confident with repeated
  questioning

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
23
Repeated Questions (Michaels Case)

• P Did she touch you with a spoon?
• C No.
• P No? Okay. Did you like it when she touched you
  with the spoon?
• C No.
• P No? Why not?
• C I dont know.
• P You dont know?
• C No.
• P What did you say to Kelly when she touched
  you?
• C I dont like that.

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
24
Peer Pressure

• Effects of telling children that their peers have
  already told or that child can help their
  friends by telling (understudied)
• Class Visit (Pettit, Fegan, Howie, 1990)
• Seven children absent on the day the park ranger
  visited class
• When questioned two weeks later, 6 of 7 reported
  that they had in fact been present
• Other researchers (Pynoos Nader, 1989) have
  found that children will invent elaborate
  narratives for events they were not a part of,
  presumably because they do not want to be left out

25
Peer Pressure (Michaels Case)

• Investigator to child
• All the other friends I talked to told me
  everything that happened. 29C told me. 32C told
  me, 14C told me And now its your turn to tell.
  You dont want to be left out, do you?
• Boy, Id hate to tell your friends that you
  didnt want to help me.

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
26
Status

• Children recognize the high status of adults and
  are more willing to comply with their wishes
  compared to peers
• 4 year olds played game with a babysitter (Tobey
  Goodman, 1992)
• 11 days later, half met a police officer (half
  didnt) who told them that he was concerned
  something bad might have happened to them and
  that the babysitter may have done bad things.
• Asked to remember everything they could of event

27
Status

• Children who met police officer gave fewer
  accurate statements and more inaccurate
  statements
• 2 of the 13 children in police condition
  embellished considerably
• Girl I think the babysitter had a gun and was
  going to kill me.
• Boy I fell down, I got lost, I got hurt on my
  legs, and I cut my ears.

28
Status (Michaels Case)

• Interviewer to child
• Im a policeman, if you were a bad girl, I would
  punish you wouldnt I? Police can punish bad
  people.
• After we finish here, depending on how much you
  guys help me today, Im going to introduce you to
  one of the men who arrested Kelly and put her in
  Jail

Ceci and Bruck, 1998
29
(No Transcript)