Suggestibility and Individual Differences in Typically Developing and Intellectually Disabled Children *

Applied Cognitive Psychology

et al. 2013

Self Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Cross-examination of children with and without intellectual disability 2 Permanent repository link: AbstractThe present study assessed how children with a range of cognitive abilities fared during a mock cross-examination. Ninety children (aged 4 to 11 years; 18 with intellectual disabilities [ID], 13 with borderline intellectual disabilities [BID], and 59 who were typically developing [TD]) witnessed a staged event, participated in an initial forensic interview (a few days later), and were cross-examined by a barrister-in-training (ten months later). During cross-examination, 98% of all children changed at least one response from their initial interview when challenged. However, group differences in performance (total number of changed responses, 'resistance' to challenges), controlling for age and memory for event details, were not significant or did not prove reliable at the level of individual group contrasts. Overall, little robust evidence for group differences in performance on crossexamination could be identified, and memory for event details was the most reliable predictor of performance. Keywords: Child witnesses; cross-examination; intellectual disabilitiesCross-examination of children with and without intellectual disability 3 Cross-examination of children with and without intellectual disabilitiesIn an adversarial system of justice such as that of the UK, Australia and the USA, there is a strong emphasis on oral testimony from witnesses about the facts of a disputed case (Ellison, 2001). In court, following the presentation of direct evidence by the prosecution (testimony from the victim, witness or defendant), cross-examination is undertaken by opposing counsel to challenge the reliability of a witness's evidence and, ostensibly, to search for the truth (Wellman, 1986;Yarmey, 1979). Effective cross-examination highlights inconsistencies in witness testimony. Yet the techniques employed to do this, such as pressing the witness to change their response (Zajac, Gross & Hayne, 2003), accusing the witness of lying (Davies, Henderson & Seymour, 1997;Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2009;Spencer, 2012), repetitive and complex questioning (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2012;Zajac, 2009) and deliberately setting the sequence of questioning to confuse the witness (Glissan, 1991) are, in reality, concerned with discrediting a witness (Henderson, 2002). The demands on a witness to produce reliable oral evidence, often many months or even years, after an event are high, and witnesses find the process stressful, aggressive and anxiety provoking (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2009Zajac, 2009 However, the questions (and questioning style) used during cross-examination often run counter to available research/protocols, and the use of ABE guidelines does not extend to the process of cross-examination. In fact, legal professionals show considerable resistance to proposals to alter cross-examination procedures (see Spence...

Section: Cross‐examination Of Children With and Without Intellectual mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐examination: The Testimony of Children With and Without Intellectual Disabilities

Bettenay

Ridley

Applied Cognitive Psychology

et al. 2013

Self Cite

“…One such individual difference is suggestibility. Leading questions in witness interviews are known to result in suggestible responses (for reviews, see Bruck & Melnyk, ; London, Henry, Conradt & Corser, ). Cross‐examination is a witness interview, and as defence counsel's aim is to cast doubt on the witness's evidence by putting forward an alternative case (that of the defendant), questions are routinely framed so that the expected answer is implied, and the witness may accept the suggestion in their response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dividing participants into one of three groups (typically developing, moderate ID or borderline ID), no significant group differences as a function of ID were observed. Studies of suggestibility and IQ in children, using a variety of suggestibility measures including the GSS, have found mild to moderate relationships (see London et al, , for a review). Finally, including memory for unchallenged details allowed us to assess whether memory for the event at the time of cross‐examination was significantly related to cross‐examination performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changed Responses Under Cross‐examination: The Role of Anxiety and Individual Differences in Child Witnesses

Bettenay

Ridley

Applied Cognitive Psychology

et al. 2015

Self Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link CROSS-EXAMINATION CHILDREN, ANXIETY, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 AbstractThe present study explored whether levels of anxiety, and a range of individual differences measures (age, IQ, and suggestibility), could predict performance during crossexamination questioning. Eighty-three children (aged 4-11 years) witnessed a staged event before being interviewed (3-6 days later) and cross-examined (ten months later). Results demonstrated that cross-examination induced a significant rise in anxiety levels. Further, recall of unchallenged details (based on children's initial testimony, which they reviewed prior to cross-examination) and anxiety levels were the only significant predictors of crossexamination performance. Further research is needed to explore the inter-relationship between anxiety and other individual difference measures on cross-examination performance, and to determine how to alleviate the anxiety of child witnesses (to enable them to achieve their best evidence in court). Preparation to ensure children understand the importance of attending to the recording of their original evidence may improve children's resilience under cross-examination and reduce anxiety levels.

“…Historically, child witnesses were thought to be inherently unreliable (Odegard & Toglia, 2013), but the consensus now is that even developmentally young children provide at least some accurate information if interviewed appropriately (Bull, 2010;. As children develop, the amount and accuracy of their recall increases (Brown & Lamb, 2015;Odegard & Toglia, 2013), and their suggestibility declines (London, Henry, Conradt, & Corser, 2013). The most reliable evidence from child witnesses is obtained using free recall and open questions (Brown & Lamb, 2015;Bull, 2010;), which appears to maximise their recall without compromising accuracy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do measures of memory, language, and attention predict eyewitness memory in children with and without autism?

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

Messer

Wilcock

et al. 2017

Background and aims: There are few investigations of the relationship between cognitive abilities (memory, language, and attention) and children's eyewitness performance in typically developing children, and even fewer in children on the autism spectrum. Such investigations are important to identify key cognitive processes underlying eyewitness recall, and assess how predictive such measures are compared to intelligence, diagnostic group status (autism or typically developing) and age. Methods: A total of 272 children (162 boys, 110 girls) of age 76 months to 142 months (M ¼ 105 months) took part in this investigation: 71 children with autism and 201 children with typical development. The children saw a staged event involving a minor mock crime and were asked about what they had witnessed in an immediate Brief Interview. This focused on free recall, included a small number of open-ended questions, and was designed to resemble an initial evidence gathering statement taken by police officers arriving at a crime scene. Children were also given standardised tests of intelligence, memory, language, and attention. Results & conclusions: Despite the autism group recalling significantly fewer items of correct information than the typically developing group at Brief Interview, both groups were equally accurate in their recall: 89% of details recalled by the typically developing group and 87% of the details recalled by the autism group were correct. To explore the relationship between Brief Interview performance and the cognitive variables, alongside age, diagnostic group status and non-verbal intelligence quotient, multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, with Brief Interview performance as the dependant variable. Age and diagnostic group status were significant predictors of correct recall, whereas non-verbal intelligence was less important. After age, non-verbal intelligence, and diagnostic group status had been accounted for, the only cognitive variables that were significant predictors of Brief Interview performance were measures of memory (specifically, memory for faces and memory for stories). There was little evidence of there being differences between the autism and typically developing groups in the way the cognitive variables predicted the Brief Interview. Implications: The findings provide reassurance that age -the most straightforward information to which all relevant criminal justice professionals have access -provides a helpful indication of eyewitness performance. The accuracy of prediction can be improved by knowing the child's diagnostic status (i.e. whether the child is on the autism spectrum), and further still by using more specific assessments (namely memory for faces and memory for stories), possibly via the input of a trained professional. Importantly, the findings also confirm that whilst children with autism may recall less information than typically developing children, the information they do recall is just as accurate.