issues of suggestibility & court

Issues of Suggestibility &

Court

© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.

Overview

• What is suggestibility?• Research – past & present• Lessons Learned• Preparing for court• Defending your interview


Suggestibility

Traditional definition:

“…the extent to which individuals come to accept and subsequently incorporate post-event information into their memory recollections…”

ALTHOUGH…

(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)


“…there are many instances in which suggestibility reduces report accuracy not through actual changes in memory

but merely because children may acquiesce to false suggestions made

by the interviewer…”

Suggestibility(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)


Some of the Research on Suggestibility

FIRST WAVE RESEARCH


• Pairs of 4 & 7yo children were left in a trailer with an unfamiliar adult.

– One child played Simon Says, was photographed dressed in a clown suit, and thumb-wrestled with the adult

– Another child watched this interaction

• 10 - 12 days later, the children were individually asked open-ended, direct, and misleading questions about the event

FIRST WAVE RESEARCHClown Study (Rudy & Goodman, 1991)


FIRST WAVE RESEARCHClown Study (Rudy & Goodman, 1991)

Findings:– Misleading, abuse related

questions resulted in only one false abuse “report”

• A 4YO observer falsely confirmed that he and the participant were spanked


• 72 girls ages 5 and 7– standard check-up + vaginal and anal exam– standard non-genital check-up + scoliosis exam

• Children questioned after 1 or 4 weeks– free recall, direct, and misleading questions including

some abuse related: “How many times did the doctor kiss

you?” – anatomical dolls were also used

FIRST WAVE RESEARCH Physical Exam Study (Saywitz, Goodman, & Moan, 1991)


FIRST WAVE RESEARCH Physical Exam Study (Saywitz, Goodman, & Moan, 1991)

FindingsGenital exam group: – genital/anal touch frequently unreported in free recall– more children reported with direct questionsScoliosis exam group: – no false reports from 7YOs – no false reports in response to free recall– 5YOs

• direct questions = three commission errors • misleading, abuse related questions = four errors


Effects of Stereotyping & Suggestive Questions

SECOND WAVE RESEARCH


176 three to six-year-old children • Four groups • “Sam Stone” has visited classroom

Suggestion Group: • Shown evidence (ripped book & soiled teddy bear)• Repeated interviews using forced-choice, suppositional,

and misleading questions– “Who ripped the book?…Who do you think might have…”– “When Sam got the bear dirty, was he wearing long or short

pants?”

SECOND WAVE RESEARCH Sam Stone Study (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)


Stereotype Group: • Prior to visit, children were told of 12 different stereotyping

events:– Sam was was very clumsy – Sam broke things that belonged to others

Stereotype & Suggestion Group: • Both suggestive questions after Sam’s visit and the

stereotyped messages prior

SAM STONE STUDY (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)



Control Group: • No stereotypes or suggestive questions were

used until the final interview

Event:• 2 minute classroom visit from “Sam Stone”

– Sam was not clumsy nor did he break anything– Sam was introduced, commented on a story, walked

around, and left

• All children were repeatedly interviewed


Findings:• No false reports when control group asked to tell

about Sam’s visit

• Despite multiple manipulation techniques, children overall were more accurate than not

• Age 3-4 less accurate (72%) than 5-6 (86%)

• Stereotypes (83%), suggestive questions (72%), and multiple techniques (64%) diminished accuracy



SECOND WAVE RESEARCH Mousetrap Study #1 (Ceci, Huffman, & Smith, 1994)

• 96 children ages three to six• Children were interviewed seven times• Instructions:

– Real vs. fictitious events– Remember what “really” happened

• Fictitious events: – Hand caught in a mousetrap– Hot air balloon ride


Findings• Accurate recollection of real events

• By the final (seventh) interview:– 34% of the children assented to fictitious

events– 66% of children did not assent

• No effect was found for repeated interviews

MOUSETRAP STUDY(Ceci, Huffman, & Smith, 1994)


• 48 children age three to six

• Interviewed once a week for eleven weeks about eight real and fictitious events

• Fictional events:– Falling off a tricycle and getting stitches– Hot air balloon ride– Waiting for a bus– Observing another child waiting for the bus

SECOND WAVE RESEARCH“Picture-in-the-Head” Game

(Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)


• Instructed to practice picturing events • Mislead to believe events were real and happened

when they were very little• Asked to make a picture in their head of the

fictitious event and tell what they saw• Prompted with questions • At 12th session, new interviewer told of first

interviewer’s mistake - events not real• Children then asked to recall only real events

“Picture-in-the-Head” Game


Findings• First 11 weeks:

– Assents to the negative false event (falling off a tricycle and getting stitches)• 31% age 3-4 • 28% age 5-6

• 12th week: – Assents to the negative false event

• 28% age 3-4 • 23% age 5-6

“Picture-in-the-Head” Game (Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)


• Children were more likely to assent to neutral or positive events

• Some children flip-flopped back and forth between assent and denial from one interview to the next

“Picture-in-the-Head” Game (Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)


Is the research applicable?(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005; Reed, 1996)

• 1990s Research• Different Than Forensic Interviews:

• Research does not mirror real-life forensic interviews of children

• “Analogue studies

• “Misleading: is not a unidimensional phenomenon”

• Highly scripted interviews

• Repeatedly interviewed

• Highly suggestive techniques


Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)

• Gilstrap & Ceci research is more similar current best practice- Interviews not scripted

- Adult questions/behaviors influenced by child behaviors

- Sequential analysis – past research only analyzed child behaviors


Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)

Research Study:• Forty-one children ages 3 to7 years old

interviewed by forty-one experienced interviewers

• Staged event that included magician visit to children’s classroom

• Interviewers instructed to interview child like they would in field


Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility… (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)

Findings

• Child denial, not child acquiescence, more likely to be followed with suggestive questions

• Leading questions were likely to be followed by denial, not acquiescence

– Exception when adults introduced inaccurate information = acquiescence


Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility… (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)

Findings

• Child behavior not affected by interviewer behavior

• Child’s own behavior, not the use of leading questions, was more related to acquiescence

• Child behavior predicts child behavior more than adult behavior


Suggestibility & Forensic Interview

(Wood & Garven, 2000)

• Improper Interviewing has potential to elicit false allegations• Suggestiveness• Influence• Reinforcement• Removal from direct experience


Suggestibility & Forensic Interview


• Clumsy Interviewing is not as risky

• Forensic interviewer missing one or more of basic skills

• Disclosure more likely to be judged unreliable

• May impact legal & child protection action


Kelly Michaels Case Example

Q: Did Kelly ever do anything to you with a knife that hurt you?

A: No.Q: Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a spoon?A: No.Q: Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a knife?A: No.Q: Okay. What about a wooden spoon?A: No.Q: “Why don’t you show me how you think a little girl can be

hurt by the fork” And “Why don’t you show me what Kelly did with the big wooden spoon.”

Bruck & Ceci, 1995


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

“Researchers have concentrated much energy on determining the conditions under

which children lie. Yet, what interviewers most need to know are the conditions that

foster truth.” (Steward et al., 1993)


REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Reed, 1996; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)

Non-Threatening Atmosphere• Informal, private, free of distractions,

comfortable, and child-friendly

• Children who feel anxious or intimidated are more susceptible to being misled

• Focus on rapport building to make child comfortable


REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Reed, 1996; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)

Limit Number of Interviews• Prevent repeating misleading information• Decrease stress on children• Coordinate with your MDT


Maintain an Open Mind• Refrain from forming preconceived ideas• Avoid negative stereotyping of the alleged

perpetrator • Test alternative hypotheses

• Do not criticize children’s answers – “Are you sure?”– “You don’t really mean…”

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Reed, 1996)


Maintaining an Open Mind What Affects Our Perspective?

• Profession- Social workers find children more credible than

police and school personnel (Hicks & Tite, 1998)

- CPS and mental health professionals are less likely to perceive allegations as “false” (Everson et al., 1996)

- Professional affiliation strongly associated with judgment

Social workers more likely than psychologists and counselors to believe cases had “merit” (Shumaker, 2000, as cited in Herman, 2005)



• Gender?- Females find children more credible than males

(Hicks & Tite, 1998; Jackson & Nuttall, 1993)

- Gender does not affect views (Everson et al., 1996)

• Personal history- Professionals who are survivors are more likely

to believe allegations than others (Jackson & Nuttall, 1993)



(Everson et al., 1996)• Age of Victim

- Professionals found adolescent females the least credible

- Males and younger children believed to be more credible than females and adolescents

• Characteristics of professionals- Professionals handling more cases in the prior

year were less likely to believe the report was false


Be Supportive & Reassuring• Increases resistance to misleading questions• Warm, friendly interviewer demeanor is best • Pay attention to your nonverbal cues• “Children tend to be more suggestible when

they perceive the interviewer to be authoritarian, unfriendly, or intimidating.” (Reed, 1996)

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Wood & Garven, 2000; Davis & Bottoms, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002;

Goodman et al., 1991; Reed, 1996; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)


REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)

Coercion, threats, and selectivereinforcement are inappropriate

• “That’s right, isn’t it?”

• “We can have a break when you tell me___.”

• “I think something happened to you.”

• “Your brother told me what your cousin did, now it’s your turn.”


Minimize Direct QuestioningLEAST SUGGESTIVE

Free RecallFocused RecallMultiple Choice

Yes/No“Mis”Leading

MOST SUGGESTIVE

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITYWood & Garven, 2000; Lamb et al., 2003


RESEARCH SAYS• Sometimes questions have to be very

direct to facilitate reporting

“Did you tell someone you were touched on one of those parts?”

(Steward, et al., 1993; Saywitz et al., 1991)

Remember to continue to offer opportunities for narrative


REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000)

• Encourage Narrative

– Encourage child to use their own words to describe experiences

– Avoid interrupting the child’s statements

– Save specific questions


• Initially Focus on Central Elements

- Suggestion less likely with well-remembered events

- Acquiescence to suggestion more likely with weak event memory

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Ceci & Bruck, 1999)


• Limit Repeated Questions- Within interview

Likely to have an effect for kids under 6 Belief that their initial answers were wrong When necessary, rephrasing is

recommended

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Lyon, 2002; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Reed, 1996)


• Limit Repeated Questions

INTERVIEW TIPUse interview instructions:

“I may have asked you this already, but I don’t remember.”

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Lyon, 2002; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Reed, 1996)


• Do Not Mislead Children - Children defer to adults’ perceptions

- Children comply with adult expectations

- Children shouldn’t be “tested” with misleading info.

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Lyon, 2002; Saywitz, Goodman & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Reed, 1996)


Encourage Children Not to Guess • Belief that the questions demand an answer

versus “I don’t know”

• Belief that “not knowing” is a failure

• Topics are too difficult to discuss

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Reed, 1996)


INTERVIEW TIP• Use interview instructions:

– “It’s okay to say, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t remember.’”

– “It’s okay to correct me if I make a mistake.”– “It’s okay to tell me that you don’t want to talk.”

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Reed, 1996)


REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY Wood & Garven, 2000

Avoid fantasy• Do not allow children to speculate

• Do not encourage the child to pretend or engage in imaginative play

• Do not use toys or puppets


Avoid Developmental Stereotypes• Suggestibility is not a trait

• Related to situational factors

• Vulnerability to suggestion is a matter of degree; even adults can be suggestible

• Preschoolers can be as accurate as older children and can recall significant, forensically relevant information

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Lyon, 2001; Myers, 1994; Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)


Avoid Developmental Stereotypes• Do not over-generalize suggestibility of “children”:

– children under age five appear most vulnerable– school age children less susceptible – 10 to 12 YO, no more suggestible than adults

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Lyon, 2001; Myers, 1994; Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)


Ask Developmentally Appropriate Questions

• Misunderstanding can be common

• May attempt to answer questions not understood

• Inability to source monitor makes a child vulnerable to incorporating false suggestions

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Wood & Garven, 2000)


Ask Developmentally Appropriate Questions• Young children may have limited ability to respond

to free recall questions

• Focus inquiry when necessary BUT…

• Invite narrative when you can

• Use words and sentences children understand

REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Wood & Garven, 2000)


REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Wood & Garven, 2000)

Interviewer Characteristics– Ability to successfully establish and maintain

rapport throughout interview– Comfort with a variety children– On-going training– Incorporate feedback


Court Testimony Preparation (Giles, 2012)

• Have a protocol

• Be able to describe your protocol and how you why you followed it in this case

• Be prepared to explain when and why you deviated from the protocol


Court Testimony Preparation

• Review recording of interview and look for the following:

– Did the child correct you and/or acknowledge when you heard something correctly or incorrectly?

– Did the child ask questions and/or ask for clarification?

– Did the child state when they did not know the answer to a question or did not remember?


Court TestimonyCommon Areas of Inquiry

Q: How is the free-recall memory of a young child different from that of an older child?

A: Less well developed.

Q: How does the lack of a fully developed free-recall memory impact the accuracy of a child’s testimony?

A: Generally no effect, unless inappropriate techniques are used.



Q: What can be done during an interview to help a child remember his/her experience?

A: Sensory questions; give context/triggers; use tools: dolls, diagrams, drawings.



Q: When children make errors in reporting their experience, what kinds of errors are they more likely to make?

A: Omission (Zehnder Fischer, 2001)

Q: At what age are children found to be no more suggestible than adults?

A: 10-11 years old (Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)


Court Testimony (Wood & Garven, 2000)

If attacked in court for making errors during an interview…

• Distinguish between clumsy and improper interview techniques– “Improper interviewing can increase the

probability that a child will make false allegations. However, clumsy interviewing by itself does not usually have such an effect”



“…research dictates that practical decisions in the field will still be made on the basis of

imperfect information. Practitioners cannot cede these difficult decisions

to researchers in laboratories. In each case interviewers need to weigh the

merits and drawbacks of the options available to them at a given point in time.”

(Saywitz and Lyon, 2002)

Issues of Suggestibility… Remember the Child First Doctrine


Questions?

• What is suggestibility?• Research – past & present• Lessons Learned• Preparing for court• Defending your interview

issues of suggestibility & court

Documents