Children's definitions of the truth and their competency as witnesses in legal proceedings.

Abstract

Young children's competency as witnesses in legal proceedings has been debated during the past several years. This has been due in part to greater emphasis on prosecuting perpetrators of child sexual abuse and the consequent increase in the number of children being asked to testify at the trial of their alleged abusers. Little basic research has been done on one component of competency: children's definitions of the truth and lies. In this article, federal and state rules of evidence and case law regarding children's competency are reviewed. Previous investigations of children's definitions of lies are then presented, followed by a description of a more recent experiment. The results of this experiment suggest that children do have definitions of the truth in one regard that make it appropriate for them to be considered competent witnesses. The results also raise concerns about young children's eyewitness ability.

Young children’s competency to take the oath: Effects of task, maltreatment, and age.

“…If a child can correctly label whether T/F statements are the “truth” and endorse the goodness of “truth,” then he or she can competently promise to be truthful. Although prior research has not found differences in children’s understanding of “truth” vs. “lie,” (e.g., Haugaard et al, 1991), Lyon, Carrick, et al (2008) found that 3- to 5-year-old children were better at using the word “truth” to assert or deny the factuality and goodness or badness of statements than they were at using the word “lie.”…”

“…Research has suggested that this basic understanding first appears during the preschool years. Children as young as 4 years exhibit above-chance performance on tasks requiring them to understand that “truth” refers to factual statements and “lies” to counter-factual statements (Bussey, 1992; Haugaard, Reppucci, Laird, & Nauful, 1991; Strichartz & Burton, 1990; Wimmer, Gruber, & Perner, 1984), as well as tasks requiring them to recognize that “truth” is more virtuous than “lies” (Bussey, 1992; Peterson, Peterson, & Seeto, 1983). …”

“…Unfortunately, most prior research concerning truth and lie has tested predominantly Caucasian children (Haugaard et al, 1991), often from middle- and upper-middle class backgrounds (Bussey, 1992; Lyon, Carrick, et al, 2008). It is therefore unclear whether the aforementioned findings generalize to child witness populations, who are more diverse, both in terms of ethnic background and socioeconomic status (SES).…”

Does valence matter? Effects of negativity on children’s early understanding of the truth and lies

“…At the same time, practical interest was growing in a different context; concerns were being raised about children's competency in legal settings where children are often required to demonstrate an understanding of the truth and lies in order to qualify as testimonially competent (Lyon, 2011). Researchers began to test methods of assessing children's understanding of the truth and lies in legally relevant manners (Haugaard, Reppucci, Laird, & Nauful, 1991; Lyon, Carrick, & Quas, in press; Lyon & Saywitz, 1999; Lyon, Saywitz, Kaplan, & Dorado, 2001). …”

Assessing children's competency to take the oath in court: The influence of question type on children's accuracy.

“…These experimental manipulations likely understate the difficulties, because the children were not testifying in actual cases, in which the subject would most likely involve victimization, and the defendant would most likely be a familiar adult. Furthermore, most of the research on children’s truth–lie competency has examined children predominantly from middle- to upper-class backgrounds (e.g., Bussey, 1992; Haugaard, Reppucci, Laird, & Nauful, 1991; Talwar et al, 2002), whereas a substantial percentage of abused children appearing in court will be from lower-class backgrounds and suffer from language delays (Lyon & Saywitz, 1999). …”