Imprecision About Body Mechanics When Child Witnesses Are Questioned About Sexual Abuse

Abstract

In child sexual abuse cases, a central part of the child’s testimony is their description of the abuse episode. However, it is often difficult for children to describe the body mechanics of abuse, and miscommunications are likely to occur. In the present study, we examined questions about the mechanics of abuse in trial transcripts ( N = 63) to identify sources of miscommunication ( N = 130) between attorneys and children (5–12 years old, M age at trial = 9.44, SD = 1.97). We found that both attorneys and children used imprecise language, which led to miscommunication. Specifically, the imprecise use of sexual terminology and the word “touch,” polarity items, broad open-ended questions, anaphora and elliptical questions, and “how” questions led to imprecision in attorneys’ questions. Imprecise attorney questions often elicited underinformative answers from children, including misinterpretations of the grain size (i.e., level of detail) requested. In response to these underinformative answers, attorneys at times asked highly focused and leading questions, which led to further miscommunications. Implications and recommendations for future research on how best to elicit details about the mechanics of abuse from children are discussed.

Suppositional Wh-Questions About Perceptions, Conversations, and actions are More Productive than Paired Yes-No Questions when Questioning Maltreated Children

“…This may underestimate the false “no” problem when children are questioned about maltreatment. Second, we combined the negative polarity item “any” with the vague term “thing” in the paired yes–no questions (e.g., “Did you see anything?”), and this likely increased children’s rejection rate (Heritage et al, 2007; Sullivan et al, 2021). Future work can tease apart the various aspects of yes–no questions that pull for “no” responses.…”

“…Yes–no questions that contain “polarity items” may be particularly likely to pull for false “no” responses. Examining trial transcripts of 5- to 12-year-old children testifying in child sexual abuse cases, Sullivan and colleagues (2021) identified miscommunications between the attorney and child regarding the body mechanics of abuse. In one-third of the miscommunications, attorneys initially failed to elicit abuse information using vague terms such as “some,” “any,” and “ever” (e.g., “Did something happen to you in the bathroom?”), also known as “polarity items.”…”

Elaborations and Denials in Children’s Responses to Yes–No Any/Some Questions in Forensic Interviews

“…Although changing "any" to "some" largely solved the problem in Heritage and colleagues' study (2007), questions with "some" may still be problematic because of vagueness, particularly when they are asked of children. Examining attorney-child interactions in court, Sullivan et al (2022) found that miscommunications frequently involved attorneys' use of yes-no any/some questions: children initially answered "no" and then subsequently answered more specific questions in ways that contradicted their initial denial. Sullivan et al (2022) suggest that both "some" and "any" questions are often vague, making it difficult for children to search their memory for specific details.…”

Children's underextended understanding of touch.

“…In addition, interviewers often use touch to introduce the abuse topic when asking screening questions. Researchers studying children’s reports of experienced touch have observed children often deny touch (Bruck, 2009; Quas & Schaaf, 2002; Sullivan et al, 2022), and surmise this could be partially attributable to children having underextended definitions of touch . Children may initially understand touch as referring only to manual touch, thus excluding nonmanual touch and touching with an object.…”

“…Walker (2013) related a case in which the child disclosed touching of the breasts, and when asked by police “Did he touch you anywhere else?” responded “no,” but later disclosed genital–genital contact: “the child explained that touching was ‘with fingers’” (p. 136). In a field study examining 5- to 12-year-old children questioned about sexual abuse in criminal trials, Sullivan et al (2022) found that questions about touch accounted for 18% of miscommunications, that is, exchanges in which children were inconsistent, uninformative, or insufficiently detailed.…”