Cross-examination may be more detrimental to repeated-event children than single-event children

ABSTRACT

Cross-examination is detrimental to the consistency and accuracy of children’s reports and a re-direct interview may rehabilitate accuracy. We compared the effects of cross-examination on reports provided by single-event and repeated-event children. Children participated in one or five magic shows. One week later they were interviewed in a supportive manner (Interview 1). Next, a different interviewer cross-examined half the children or asked the other children all questions again (Interview 2). Finally, the initial interviewer re-directed the children by re-asking questions in a supportive manner (Interview 3). When defined narrowly (the instance children were asked to describe), cross-examination was more detrimental to single-event children and the re-direct interview rehabilitated correct responses for all children. When defined broadly (experienced details), cross-examination was more detrimental to repeated-event children and the re-direct did not rehabilitate correct responses for repeated-event children. Therefore when performance was off the floor, cross-examination was more detrimental to repeated-event children. The changes that repeated-event children make under cross-examination are explained by cognitive factors and social influences Ost et al., [2016]. Recall, verbatim memory and remembered narratives. In G. Oxburgh (Ed.), Communication in investigative and legal contexts: Integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement (pp. 39–54). Wiley Blackwell).

KEYWORDS:

• Children
• event frequency
• cross-examination
• social influence
• memory distortion

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the many children, parents, teachers, and school administrators for their support of this research. We are also immensely grateful to the many undergraduate students who assisted with data collection. Thank you to Dylan Patterson and Lee Vargen who were involved in many aspects of this research. This research is supported by funding to the 1st author, Patricia I. Coburn (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Graduate Scholarship, GXSO122) as well as the 2nd author, Deborah A. Connolly (Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2013-0291)).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Age effects and information have been submitted as supplemental materials for interested readers (Tables S1 and S2).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: [Grant Number Canadian Graduate Scholarship GXSO122,Insight Grant 435-2013-0291].