“I Only Want to Know What You Know”: The Use of Orienting Messages During Forensic Interviews and Their Effects on Child Behavior

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to evaluate orienting messages within the CornerHouse Forensic Interview Protocol in two formats: provided both at the outset and as needed throughout the interview compared to previous practice in which orienting messages were provided only as the opportunity arose. Through the content analysis of 120 videotaped forensic interviews and corresponding case files in which children were interviewed for sexual abuse allegations, results suggest that the use of orienting messages both at the beginning and as needed lead to significantly more autonomous responses from children, that use of more orienting messages was significantly related to more autonomous responses from children, and that the specific orienting messages of "can't/won't say" and "ask me a question" significantly predict more autonomous responses among children. Implications for practice include the use of orienting messages as a way to provide a respectful and safe experience for children participating in forensic interviews.

Cinsel İstismar Mağduru Çocuklarla Adli Görüşme ve Önemi

“…Studies show that some factors affect the process of taking/giving statements during forensic interviews. These factors are; a) orienting messages or rules that will facilitate the interview process at the beginning of the interview process (Anderson, Anderson, & Krippner, 2016), b) individual characteristics of the interviewer and the child (e.g., age, gender, emotional state of the child, developmental stage of the child), socio-cultural awareness of the interviewer), and c) the style and quality of the interview techniques used during the interview (Newman & Roberts, 2014;Anderson et al, 2014).…”

The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children: A synthesis and call for research

“…For example, the RATAC protocol (developed by CornerHouse, an abuse evaluation center) advocated instruction only as problems arose during interviews, citing the time it takes to deliver ground rules (during which children could become inattentive), young children's lack of understanding of the instructions, and weak evidence for the effectiveness of instruction, as limitations of a discrete interview phase (Anderson et al, 2010; see also Russell, 2006). (CornerHouse recently began to include "orienting messages" at the beginning of interviews with reinforcing comments as issues arise; Anderson, 2013, Anderson, 2014. The StepWise Guidelines (Yuille et al, 2009) also encouraged interviewers to reinforce use of the rules when children show desired behaviors during the course of an interview (e.g., "… that's good, Mary.…”

“…These were identified as (a) information about interviewer naiveté (Lyon, 2010;Powell & Lancaster, 2003;Saywitz & Camparo, 2014); (b) instructions to correct the interviewer when a mistake had been made (Anderson, 2014;Lamb et al, 2007;Lyon, 2010;Saywitz & Camparo, 2014); (c) a caution that sometimes questions may be repeated (Powell & Lancaster, 2003;Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992); and instructions to tell the interviewer when the child (d) does not understand (Anderson, 2014;Lamb et al, 2007;Lyon, 2010;Powell & Lancaster, 2003;Saywitz & Camparo, 2014) and (e) does not know the answer (Anderson, 2014;Lamb et al, 2007;Lyon, 2010;Powell & Lancaster, 2003;Saywitz et al, 1992;Saywitz & Camparo, 2014). We then sought research associated with these rules by searching PsychInfo and Google Scholar for "ground rules," "interview instructions" and words used during delivery of the rules ("naïve," "I wasn't there," "make a mistake," "correct me," "questions [may be] repeated," "don't know," "don't understand").…”