Exploring how attorneys address grooming in criminal trials of child sexual abuse.

Grooming is a common tactic among perpetrators of child sexual abuse (CSA). It is important that grooming is addressed in court to explain the unintuitive ways a child may act when they have been victims of abuse. The present study draws upon 134 transcripts of CSA criminal trials to establish how attorneys talk about grooming in court. Only 1.8% of attorney's questions addressed grooming behaviors. The majority of these focusing on exposure to pornography (27%) or boundary pushing (19%). Invitations elicited the most productive reports of grooming from children. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion with which defense and prosecuting attorney's raised grooming issues, with prosecutors raising grooming issues more often than defense attorneys. We suggest that attorneys consider devoting proportionally more time to addressing grooming in court, to help jurors demystify common myths surrounding CSA.

Developmental Considerations in How Defense Attorneys Employ Child Sexual Abuse and Rape Myths When Questioning Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse.

Myths and misconceptions surrounding the nature of sexual assault play a role in shaping the perceptions of victims as credible and perpetrators as culpable. Defense attorneys often capitalize on myths in court as an element of their defense strategies. Researchers have established that myths about both rape generally, and child sexual abuse (CSA) specifically, appear with regularity in criminal trials of children who have made an allegation of CSA. Yet no work has systematically and quantitatively examined the impact of a child's age on the probability that attorneys will ask a myth-consistent question in criminal trials of CSA. In the current study, we examine 6,384 lines of questioning across 134 criminal trials of CSA to assess whether defense attorneys employ developmentally sensitive strategies when asking children questions that draw upon myths about sexual violence (CSA myths: disclosure myths, extent of harm, a child's positive relationship with their perpetrator, and the presence of witnesses; Rape myths: force and resistance, motives to lie, victim precipitation, and character issues). We found that attorneys did not vary their use of CSA myths by the age of the child. However, the probability that a child would receive a rape myth-consistent line of questioning, increased with a child's age. This work suggests that attorneys are, at times, strategic in their use of myths and employ these adult rape myths in ways that are plausible, purposeful, and likely impactful. The strategic use of these questions may acknowledge young children's limited development but may place too great a demand on older children's developmental capacities. Prosecutors should be prepared to counterquestion these myths in redirect examination.

Myths and Misunderstandings About Child Sexual Abuse in Criminal Investigations.

Researchers have established that rape myths shape perceptions of victims and perpetrators in criminal cases. Researchers have devoted less attention to exploring the impact of child sexual abuse (CSA) myths in court. While we know that jurors believe myths and misconceptions about the nature of CSA, no work has explored how these myths appear during the prosecution of CSA cases. The purpose of the present investigation was to assess how defense attorneys apply myths more specific to CSA in the questioning of children testifying about alleged CSA. The present study compliments and expands upon a previous study by St. George and colleagues (2021a), where authors examined the use of rape myths in the questioning of children making allegations of CSA. In the current study, we examined testimonies of 122 children testifying in criminal cases of alleged CSA in the United States. We qualitatively coded 6,384 lines of questioning for references to CSA-focused myths related to the disclosure process, witnesses and privacy issues, assumptions of harm, and the child's positive relationship with the perpetrator. These myths were common, occurring in over 10% of defense attorneys' lines of questioning. Disclosure issues were the most frequent, followed by witness and privacy issues, assumptions of harm, and the child's positive relationship with their perpetrator. In many cases, attorneys employed different strategies across child's age to highlight these myths. These findings compliment those of prior work suggesting that CSA myths, much like rape myths, are appearing with regularity. Defense attorneys are likely capitalizing on jurors' misconceptions to undermine children's believability.

A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive biases can impact experts' judgments and decisions. We offer a broad descriptive model of how bias affects human judgment. Although studies have explored the role of cognitive biases and debiasing techniques in forensic mental health, we conducted the first systematic review to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings. HYPOTHESES: Given the exploratory nature of this review, we did not test formal hypotheses. General research questions included the proportion of studies focusing on cognitive biases and/or debiasing, the research methods applied, the cognitive biases and debiasing strategies empirically studied in the forensic context, their effects on forensic mental health decisions, and effect sizes. METHOD: A systematic search of PsycINFO and Google Scholar resulted in 22 records comprising 23 studies in the United States, Canada, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We extracted data on participants, context, methods, and results. RESULTS: Most studies focused only on cognitive biases (k = 16, 69.6%), with fewer investigating ways to address them (k = 7, 30.4%). Of the 17 studies that tested for biases, 10 found significant effects (58.8%), four found partial effects (23.5%), and three found no effects (17.6%). Foci included general perceptions of biases; adversarial allegiance; bias blind spot; hindsight and confirmation biases; moral disengagement; primacy and recency effects; interview suggestibility; and cross-cultural, racial, and gender biases. Of the seven debiasing-related studies, nearly all (k = 6) focused at least in part on the general perception of debiasing strategies, with three testing for specific effects (i.e., cognitive bias training, consider-the-opposite, and introspection caution), two of which yielded significant effects. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity limited quantitative comparability. Future research could build on the existing literature to develop or adapt effective debiasing strategies in collaboration with practitioners to improve the quality of forensic mental health decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Blaming Children: How Rape Myths Manifest in Defense Attorneys' Questions to Children Testifying About Child Sexual Abuse.

Since rape myths were codified in 1980 (Burt, 1980), scholars have shown that individuals who endorse rape myths perceive victims as less credible and more responsible for rape and perpetrators as less responsible. Studies also show that rape myths hinder successful adjudication of rape cases by influencing juries' assessments of perpetrator guilt (Dinos et al., 2015). While most of this research focuses on sexual assaults involving adult victims, some scholars have found that victims as young as 12 are blamed for rape. If rape myths influence the perceptions of sex offenses even when victims are children, then defense attorneys in child sexual abuse (CSA) cases may be motivated to highlight rape myth in CSA trials. In the current study, we conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 122 children, aged 6 to 17, alleging CSA to determine if and how defense attorneys question children about rape myths. We looked for questions about force and resistance, motives to lie, victim precipitation, and character issues (e.g., habitual drug use). We found that defense attorneys commonly referenced rape myths in CSA trials. A total of 10% of all defense attorneys' lines of questioning referenced a rape myth, and attorneys asked 77% of children at least one rape myth line of questioning. Whether or not attorneys asked about different myths and the content of these questions varied by children's age. Our findings indicate that defense attorneys use rape myths strategically to undermine children's credibility in CSA trials, but they adapt (adult) rape myths in ways that are plausible in the CSA context. Policies formed to prevent the prejudicial impact of rape myths at sexual assault trials involving adults (e.g., rape shield laws) may not adequately prevent their impact in CSA trials. Prosecutors, therefore, should address rape myths at CSA trials.

The effects of evidence-based expert testimony on perceptions of child sexual abuse involving recantation.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) cases involving recantation invoke concerns about children's reliability. Expert testimony can help explain the complexities of these cases. Experts have historically relied on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), yet this is not science-based. In a CSA case involving recantation, how would evidence-based testimony affect perceptions of child credibility when compared to CSAAS? Across 2 studies, we test the effects of expert testimony based on evidence-based science, nonscientific evidence, and experience-based evidence on outcomes in CSA cases involving recantation. Evidence-based testimony led to higher perceptions of credibility and scientific rigor of the evidence when compared to CSAAS testimony. Evidence-based testimony also led to more guilty verdicts when compared to the control. In sum, jurors had some ability to detect evidence strength, such that evidence-based expert testimony was superior to CSAAS testimony in many respects, and consistently superior to experience-based testimony in these cases.

"DID YOU EVER FIGHT BACK?": Jurors' Questions to Children Testifying in Criminal Trials About Alleged Sexual Abuse.

The current study examined jurors' questions to children in criminal trials assessing children's allegations of sexual abuse, demonstrating a new avenue for studying how jurors think about, respond to, and assess evidence. We used qualitative content analysis to examine jurors' questions to 134, 5- to 17-year-olds alleging sexual abuse in criminal trial testimonies. Five themes emerged: abuse interactions, contextual details of abuse, children's reactions to abuse, children's (delayed) disclosure, and case background details. Jurors often ask about abuse dynamics, the context surrounding abuse, and children's disclosure processes, reflecting common misconceptions about child sexual abuse (CSA), such as whether it is credible to delay disclosure or maintain contact with an alleged perpetrator. This study improves our understanding of how jurors understand and evaluate children's reports of alleged CSA, suggesting that jurors may struggle to understand children's reluctance.

Assessing Children's Credibility in Courtroom Investigations of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse: Suggestibility, Plausibility, and Consistency.

As children's testimonies of child sexual abuse (CSA) often lack concrete evidence to corroborate a child's claims, attorneys devote a substantial amount of time to establishing a child as credible during the course of a trial. Examining 134 CSA victim testimonies for children aged 5-17 (M = 12.48, SD = 3.34; 90% female), we explored how attorneys assess child credibility through specifically targeting children's suggestibility/honesty, plausibility, and consistency. Results revealed that while prosecutors examine plausibility more often to establish credibility, defense attorneys focus their assessments on suggestibility/honesty and potential inconsistency. However, both attorneys asked many more questions about children's consistency than any other area of potential credibility. Furthermore, while prosecutors ask proportionally more credibility-challenging questions of older children, the defense do not. These results suggest that prosecutors may be missing an opportunity to establish children as honest and consistent and elucidate a need to train attorneys on the implications of children's inconsistencies, suggestibility, and plausible abuse dynamics.

Understanding how social worker compassion fatigue and years of experience shape custodial decisions.

BACKGROUND: Compassion fatigue (i.e., a worker's diminished ability to empathize with clients) is common among "helping workers" and can result in psychological detachment from clients as a coping mechanism. OBJECTIVE: In the present research, we explored the relationship between social workers' compassion fatigue and years of job experience on hypothetical child custody case judgments. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: In two separate studies, individuals with experience working with children in child dependency court (predominantly social workers, Study 1: N = 173, Study 2: N = 119) were recruited on Amazon's Mechanical Turk and read a vignette depicting a mother attempting to regain custody. RESULTS: Supporting hypotheses, compassion fatigue significantly mediated the relationship between increased years of social worker job experience on recommendations that a neglectful mother receive custody, Indirect Effect = .06, CIs [.026, .127] (Study 1). We also found preliminary support for our hypothesized theoretically derived serial path model, in which (a) social worker compassion fatigue predicts anticipated secondary traumatic stress associated with the child neglect case, B = .54, p =  .0001; (b) secondary traumatic stress predicts detachment from the neglected child, B = .27, p =  .0003; (c) detachment from the child predicts job efficacy cynicism B = .65, p <  .0001; and (d) job efficacy cynicism predicts decisions to allocate custody to the neglectful mother, B = .46, p =  .005 (Study 2). CONCLUSION: Our research shows that compassion fatigue among social workers may change the lens through which they perceive cases of child abuse.