Issues of Suggestibility &
Court
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Overview
• What is suggestibility?
• Research – past & present
• Lessons Learned
• Preparing for court
• Defending your interview
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Suggestibility
Traditional definition:
“…the extent to which individuals come to accept and subsequently incorporate post-event information into their memory recollections…”
ALTHOUGH…
(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
“…there are many instances in which suggestibility reduces report accuracy not through actual changes in memory
but merely because children may acquiesce to false suggestions made
by the interviewer…”
Suggestibility(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Some of the Research on Suggestibility
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• Pairs of 4 & 7yo children were left in a trailer with an unfamiliar adult.
– One child played Simon Says, was photographed dressed in a clown suit, and thumb-wrestled with the adult
– Another child watched this interaction
• 10 - 12 days later, the children were individually asked open-ended, direct, and misleading questions about the event
FIRST WAVE RESEARCHClown Study (Rudy & Goodman, 1991)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
FIRST WAVE RESEARCHClown Study (Rudy & Goodman, 1991)
Findings:– Misleading, abuse related
questions resulted in only one false abuse “report”
• A 4YO observer falsely confirmed that he and the participant were spanked
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• 72 girls ages 5 and 7– standard check-up + vaginal and anal exam– standard non-genital check-up + scoliosis exam
• Children questioned after 1 or 4 weeks– free recall, direct, and misleading questions including
some abuse related: “How many times did the doctor kiss
you?” – anatomical dolls were also used
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH Physical Exam Study (Saywitz, Goodman, & Moan, 1991)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH Physical Exam Study (Saywitz, Goodman, & Moan, 1991)
FindingsGenital exam group: – genital/anal touch frequently unreported in free recall– more children reported with direct questions
Scoliosis exam group: – no false reports from 7YOs – no false reports in response to free recall– 5YOs
• direct questions = three commission errors • misleading, abuse related questions = four errors
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Effects of Stereotyping & Suggestive Questions
SECOND WAVE RESEARCH
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
176 three to six-year-old children • Four groups • “Sam Stone” has visited classroom
Suggestion Group: • Shown evidence (ripped book & soiled teddy bear)• Repeated interviews using forced-choice, suppositional,
and misleading questions– “Who ripped the book?…Who do you think might have…”– “When Sam got the bear dirty, was he wearing long or short
pants?”
SECOND WAVE RESEARCH Sam Stone Study (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Stereotype Group: • Prior to visit, children were told of 12 different stereotyping
events:– Sam was was very clumsy – Sam broke things that belonged to others
Stereotype & Suggestion Group: • Both suggestive questions after Sam’s visit and the
stereotyped messages prior
SAM STONE STUDY (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
SAM STONE STUDY (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
Control Group: • No stereotypes or suggestive questions were
used until the final interview
Event:• 2 minute classroom visit from “Sam Stone”
– Sam was not clumsy nor did he break anything– Sam was introduced, commented on a story, walked
around, and left
• All children were repeatedly interviewed
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Findings:• No false reports when control group asked to tell
about Sam’s visit
• Despite multiple manipulation techniques, children overall were more accurate than not
• Age 3-4 less accurate (72%) than 5-6 (86%)
• Stereotypes (83%), suggestive questions (72%), and multiple techniques (64%) diminished accuracy
SAM STONE STUDY (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
SECOND WAVE RESEARCH
Mousetrap Study #1 (Ceci, Huffman, & Smith, 1994)
• 96 children ages three to six• Children were interviewed seven times• Instructions:
– Real vs. fictitious events– Remember what “really” happened
• Fictitious events: – Hand caught in a mousetrap– Hot air balloon ride
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Findings• Accurate recollection of real events
• By the final (seventh) interview:– 34% of the children assented to fictitious
events– 66% of children did not assent
• No effect was found for repeated interviews
MOUSETRAP STUDY(Ceci, Huffman, & Smith, 1994)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• 48 children age three to six
• Interviewed once a week for eleven weeks about eight real and fictitious events
• Fictional events:– Falling off a tricycle and getting stitches– Hot air balloon ride– Waiting for a bus– Observing another child waiting for the bus
SECOND WAVE RESEARCH“Picture-in-the-Head” Game
(Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• Instructed to practice picturing events
• Mislead to believe events were real and happened when they were very little
• Asked to make a picture in their head of the fictitious event and tell what they saw
• Prompted with questions
• At 12th session, new interviewer told of first interviewer’s mistake - events not real
• Children then asked to recall only real events
“Picture-in-the-Head” Game
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Findings• First 11 weeks:
– Assents to the negative false event (falling off a tricycle and getting stitches)• 31% age 3-4 • 28% age 5-6
• 12th week: – Assents to the negative false event
• 28% age 3-4 • 23% age 5-6
“Picture-in-the-Head” Game (Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• Children were more likely to assent to neutral or positive events
• Some children flip-flopped back and forth between assent and denial from one interview to the next
“Picture-in-the-Head” Game (Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Is the research applicable?(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005; Reed, 1996)
• 1990s Research
• Different Than Forensic Interviews:• Research does not mirror real-life forensic interviews
of children
• “Analogue studies
• “Misleading: is not a unidimensional phenomenon”
• Highly scripted interviews
• Repeatedly interviewed
• Highly suggestive techniques
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
• Gilstrap & Ceci research is more similar current best practice
- Interviews not scripted
- Adult questions/behaviors influenced by child behaviors
- Sequential analysis – past research only analyzed child behaviors
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
Research Study:• Forty-one children ages 3 to7 years old
interviewed by forty-one experienced interviewers
• Staged event that included magician visit to children’s classroom
• Interviewers instructed to interview child like they would in field
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility… (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
Findings
• Child denial, not child acquiescence, more likely to be followed with suggestive questions
• Leading questions were likely to be followed by denial, not acquiescence
– Exception when adults introduced inaccurate information = acquiescence
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Reconceptualizing Children’s Suggestibility… (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
Findings
• Child behavior not affected by interviewer behavior
• Child’s own behavior, not the use of leading questions, was more related to acquiescence
• Child behavior predicts child behavior more than adult behavior
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Suggestibility & Forensic Interview
(Wood & Garven, 2000)
• Improper Interviewing has potential to elicit false allegations• Suggestiveness• Influence• Reinforcement• Removal from direct experience
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Suggestibility & Forensic Interview
(Wood & Garven, 2000)
• Clumsy Interviewing is not as risky
• Forensic interviewer missing one or more of basic skills
• Disclosure more likely to be judged unreliable
• May impact legal & child protection action
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Kelly Michaels Case Example
Q: Did Kelly ever do anything to you with a knife that hurt you?
A: No.
Q: Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a spoon?
A: No.
Q: Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a knife?
A: No.
Q: Okay. What about a wooden spoon?
A: No.
Q: “Why don’t you show me how you think a little girl can be hurt by the fork” And “Why don’t you show me what Kelly did with the big wooden spoon.”
Bruck & Ceci, 1995
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE
“Researchers have concentrated much energy on determining the conditions under
which children lie. Yet, what interviewers most need to know are the conditions that
foster truth.” (Steward et al., 1993)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Reed, 1996; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)
Non-Threatening Atmosphere• Informal, private, free of distractions,
comfortable, and child-friendly
• Children who feel anxious or intimidated are more susceptible to being misled
• Focus on rapport building to make child comfortable
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Reed, 1996; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)
Limit Number of Interviews
• Prevent repeating misleading information
• Decrease stress on children
• Coordinate with your MDT
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Maintain an Open Mind• Refrain from forming preconceived ideas
• Avoid negative stereotyping of the alleged perpetrator
• Test alternative hypotheses
• Do not criticize children’s answers – “Are you sure?”– “You don’t really mean…”
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Reed, 1996)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Maintaining an Open Mind What Affects Our Perspective?
• Profession- Social workers find children more credible than
police and school personnel (Hicks & Tite, 1998)
- CPS and mental health professionals are less likely to perceive allegations as “false” (Everson et al., 1996)
- Professional affiliation strongly associated with judgment
Social workers more likely than psychologists and counselors to believe cases had “merit” (Shumaker, 2000, as cited in Herman, 2005)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Maintaining an Open Mind What Affects Our Perspective?
• Gender?- Females find children more credible than males
(Hicks & Tite, 1998; Jackson & Nuttall, 1993)
- Gender does not affect views (Everson et al., 1996)
• Personal history- Professionals who are survivors are more likely
to believe allegations than others (Jackson & Nuttall, 1993)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Maintaining an Open Mind What Affects Our Perspective?
(Everson et al., 1996)• Age of Victim
- Professionals found adolescent females the least credible
- Males and younger children believed to be more credible than females and adolescents
• Characteristics of professionals- Professionals handling more cases in the prior
year were less likely to believe the report was false
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Be Supportive & Reassuring• Increases resistance to misleading questions
• Warm, friendly interviewer demeanor is best
• Pay attention to your nonverbal cues
• “Children tend to be more suggestible when they perceive the interviewer to be authoritarian, unfriendly, or intimidating.” (Reed, 1996)
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Wood & Garven, 2000; Davis & Bottoms, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002;
Goodman et al., 1991; Reed, 1996; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)
Coercion, threats, and selective
reinforcement are inappropriate
• “That’s right, isn’t it?”
• “We can have a break when you tell me___.”
• “I think something happened to you.”
• “Your brother told me what your cousin did, now it’s your turn.”
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Minimize Direct Questioning
LEAST SUGGESTIVE
Free Recall
Focused Recall
Multiple Choice
Yes/No
“Mis”Leading
MOST SUGGESTIVE
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITYWood & Garven, 2000; Lamb et al., 2003
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
RESEARCH SAYS
• Sometimes questions have to be very direct to facilitate reporting
“Did you tell someone you were touched on one of those parts?”
(Steward, et al., 1993; Saywitz et al., 1991)
Remember to continue to offer opportunities for narrative
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Wood & Garven, 2000)
• Encourage Narrative
– Encourage child to use their own words to describe experiences
– Avoid interrupting the child’s statements
– Save specific questions
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• Initially Focus on Central Elements
- Suggestion less likely with well-remembered events
- Acquiescence to suggestion more likely with weak event memory
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Ceci & Bruck, 1999)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• Limit Repeated Questions
- Within interview Likely to have an effect for kids under 6 Belief that their initial answers were wrong When necessary, rephrasing is
recommended
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Lyon, 2002; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Reed, 1996)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• Limit Repeated Questions
INTERVIEW TIPUse interview instructions:
“I may have asked you this already, but I don’t remember.”
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Lyon, 2002; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Reed, 1996)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
• Do Not Mislead Children
- Children defer to adults’ perceptions
- Children comply with adult expectations
- Children shouldn’t be “tested” with misleading info.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY(Lyon, 2002; Saywitz, Goodman & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Reed, 1996)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Encourage Children Not to Guess
• Belief that the questions demand an answer versus “I don’t know”
• Belief that “not knowing” is a failure
• Topics are too difficult to discuss
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Reed, 1996)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
INTERVIEW TIP• Use interview instructions:
– “It’s okay to say, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t remember.’”
– “It’s okay to correct me if I make a mistake.”– “It’s okay to tell me that you don’t want to talk.”
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Reed, 1996)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY Wood & Garven, 2000
Avoid fantasy
• Do not allow children to speculate
• Do not encourage the child to pretend or engage in imaginative play
• Do not use toys or puppets
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Avoid Developmental Stereotypes
• Suggestibility is not a trait
• Related to situational factors
• Vulnerability to suggestion is a matter of degree; even adults can be suggestible
• Preschoolers can be as accurate as older children and can recall significant, forensically relevant information
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Lyon, 2001; Myers, 1994; Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Avoid Developmental Stereotypes
• Do not over-generalize suggestibility of “children”:– children under age five appear most vulnerable– school age children less susceptible – 10 to 12 YO, no more suggestible than adults
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Lyon, 2001; Myers, 1994; Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Ask Developmentally Appropriate Questions
• Misunderstanding can be common
• May attempt to answer questions not understood
• Inability to source monitor makes a child vulnerable to incorporating false suggestions
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Wood & Garven, 2000)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Ask Developmentally Appropriate Questions• Young children may have limited ability to respond
to free recall questions
• Focus inquiry when necessary BUT…
• Invite narrative when you can
• Use words and sentences children understand
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Wood & Garven, 2000)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY (Wood & Garven, 2000)
Interviewer Characteristics
– Ability to successfully establish and maintain rapport throughout interview
– Comfort with a variety children
– On-going training
– Incorporate feedback
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Court Testimony Preparation (Giles, 2012)
• Have a protocol
• Be able to describe your protocol and how you why you followed it in this case
• Be prepared to explain when and why you deviated from the protocol
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Court Testimony Preparation
• Review recording of interview and look for the following:
– Did the child correct you and/or acknowledge when you heard something correctly or incorrectly?
– Did the child ask questions and/or ask for clarification?
– Did the child state when they did not know the answer to a question or did not remember?
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Court TestimonyCommon Areas of Inquiry
Q: How is the free-recall memory of a young child different from that of an older child?
A: Less well developed.
Q: How does the lack of a fully developed free-recall memory impact the accuracy of a child’s testimony?
A: Generally no effect, unless inappropriate techniques are used.
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Court TestimonyCommon Areas of Inquiry
Q: What can be done during an interview to help a child remember his/her experience?
A: Sensory questions; give context/triggers; use tools: dolls, diagrams, drawings.
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Court TestimonyCommon Areas of Inquiry
Q: When children make errors in reporting their experience, what kinds of errors are they more likely to make?
A: Omission (Zehnder Fischer, 2001)
Q: At what age are children found to be no more suggestible than adults?
A: 10-11 years old (Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Court Testimony
(Wood & Garven, 2000)
If attacked in court for making errors during an interview…
• Distinguish between clumsy and improper interview techniques– “Improper interviewing can increase the
probability that a child will make false allegations. However, clumsy interviewing by itself does not usually have such an effect”
(Wood & Garven, 2000)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
“…research dictates that practical decisions in the field will still be made on the basis of
imperfect information.
Practitioners cannot cede these difficult decisions to researchers in laboratories.
In each case interviewers need to weigh the merits and drawbacks of the options available to
them at a given point in time.” (Saywitz and Lyon, 2002)
Issues of Suggestibility… Remember the Child First Doctrine
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Questions?
• What is suggestibility?
• Research – past & present
• Lessons Learned
• Preparing for court
• Defending your interview