Tele-forensic interviewing can be a reasonable alternative to face-to-face interviewing of child witnesses.

OBJECTIVE: Tele-forensic interviews have the potential to aid investigations when children live far from interviewers, there is a risk of disease transmission, or when expertise is not locally available. However, it is unknown whether tele-forensic interviewing is an effective alternative to face-to-face interviewing, particularly for children most prone to suggestibility and lapses of attention. HYPOTHESES: Previous studies suggested that school-age children would provide similar amounts of information across interview modes but provided no basis for predicting how misinformation impacts accuracy across modes or how 4- and 5-year-olds would react to tele-forensic interviewing. METHOD: Children (4-8 years, N = 261, Mage = 6.42 years, 48% female) interacted with male assistants who violated a no-touching rule, parents read children a book containing misinformation about that event, and female assistants conducted interviews (usually 2 weeks after the event) face-to-face or via a video conference application. RESULTS: The children were more talkative during a practice narrative phase when interviewed face-to-face rather than on screen (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.26, 95% CI [1.06, 1.51]), and 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds said more in response to open-ended prompts when interviewed face-to-face (IRR = 1.50, 95% CI [1.08, 2.09]). Children younger than 7 years also disclosed the face touch and noncompleted handshake in response to earlier and less directive prompts when interviewed face-to-face, rs(53) = .28, p = .037, and rs(48) = .33, p = .021, respectively. Children 8 years and older, however, disclosed the face touch more readily when they spoke on screen, rs(28) = -.38, p = .036, and older 7-year-olds and 8-year-olds disclosed the noncompleted handshake more readily on screen, rs(30) = -.36, p = .042. Across interview modes, children reported comparable numbers of touch events, however, and were equally accurate on challenging source-monitoring and detail questions. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-forensic interviewing can be a reasonable alternative to face-to-face interviewing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Effects of interviewer familiarity and supportiveness on children's recall across repeated interviews.

OBJECTIVES: Child witnesses often describe their experiences across multiple interviews. It is unknown whether talking with a familiar interviewer increases disclosures, however, or whether any benefits of a familiar interviewer could be achieved by ensuring that interviewers (regardless of familiarity) behave in socially supportive ways. This study tested the effects of interviewer familiarity and social support on children's reports of an adult's transgressions. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that familiarity and supportiveness would increase transgression reports at a second interview and that children who spoke with familiar, supportive interviewers would disclose the most transgressions. METHOD: Children (N = 160, 5 to 9 years) participated in a science event involving 6 transgressions. Across 2 interviews, they spoke with the same trained university student interviewer or different interviewers, and these interviewers engaged in supportive or neutral behaviors. Interviews were coded for overall information reported, number of transgressions, and confabulations. RESULTS: There were no effects of support in the first interview or on total details reported in either interview. Children reported more transgressions to supportive than neutral interviewers in the second interview (IRR = 1.19), even during open-ended prompting (IRR = 1.26), and they omitted fewer transgressions that had been reported in the first interview (IRR = 0.69). Confabulations were infrequent. There were no condition differences in the total number of confabulations reported across interviews, but these errors occurred more often in the second interview in the supportive condition. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewer support may play a greater role than familiarity in facilitating children's testimony. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The influence of disclosure history and body diagrams on children's reports of inappropriate touching: Evidence from a new analog paradigm.

We tested a new paradigm for child eyewitness research that incorporates children's disclosure histories into analog study designs. Mr. Science-Germ Detective creates meaningful touching experiences and varied patterns of preinterview disclosures by convincing children that touching in the laboratory is potentially contaminating (germy). Children (N = 287, 4 to 8 years) heard that Mr. Science could no longer touch children's skin and then participated in an educational program involving 2 attempted touches. A week later, their disclosure histories were determined by a phone call that occurred a day before a forensic-style interview in the laboratory. This interview was delivered in 1 of 2 conditions: with early open-ended and more focused prompts delivered without a diagram (conventional-first condition) or with an initial diagram-assisted phase (diagram-first condition). Results confirmed that the new paradigm produces salient touches and performance patterns across open-ended and more focused questions that mirror well-known findings in eyewitness studies. A diagram made it easier for research assistants to elicit detailed reports of touching, but only among children 5 years and older who had not previously disclosed. Accuracy rates were comparable across interview conditions for early substantive phases but declined among older children when interviewers used diagrams to elicit additional reports late in interviews. These findings demonstrate that disclosure history is an important variable to include in analog study designs and confirm that Germ Detective is a promising paradigm for initial tests of new interviewing strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record

Children's performance on ground rules questions: implications for forensic interviewing.

Ground rules, also called interview instructions, are included in investigative interviews with children around the world. These rules aim to manage the expectations of children who are typically unaccustomed to being questioned by adults who are naïve to the children's experiences. Although analog research has examined the efficacy of ground rules instruction, a systematic analysis of children's ability to respond appropriately to each of the rules has not been reported. In the current study, we scored the accuracy of children's (N = 501, 4 to 12 years) responses to 5 ground rules practice questions (e.g., "What is my dog's name?") and 2 questions that asked whether they would follow the rules, and then assigned inaccurate responses to 1 of several error categories. Few children answered every question correctly, but their performance on individual questions was encouraging. As expected, there were marked differences in children's understanding across ground rules questions (especially among the younger children), with "Don't guess" and "Tell the truth" rules being the easiest to comprehend. Together with evidence that ground rules instruction takes little time to deliver (typically 2 to 4 min) and is associated with improved accuracy in previous research, these findings support the use of ground rules in investigative interviews of children 4 years and older.

Comfort drawing during investigative interviews: evidence of the safety of a popular practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the impact of comfort drawing (allowing children to draw during interviews) on the quality of children's eyewitness reports. METHODS: Children (N=219, 5 to 12 years) who had participated in an earlier memory study returned 1 or 2 years later, experienced a new event, and described these events during phased, investigative-style interviews. Interviewers delivered the same prompts to children in the no drawing and drawing conditions but provided paper and markers in the drawing condition, invited these children to draw, and periodically asked if they would like to make another picture. RESULTS: Most children in the drawing condition were interested in using the materials, and measures of eyewitness performance were sensitive to differences in cognitive ability (i.e., age) and task difficulty (i.e., delay between the remote event and interview). Comfort drawing had no overall impact as evidenced by nonsignificant main effects of condition across 20 performance measures, although more of the younger children reported experienced touching in the drawing than no drawing condition. CONCLUSIONS: The children successfully divided attention between voluntary drawing and conversations about past events. Importantly, comfort drawing did not impair the amount of information recalled, the accuracy of children's answers, or even the extent to which interviewers needed to prompt for answers. Due to the large number of analyses, the benefit of drawing for younger, touched children requires replication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Comfort drawing poses no documented risks for typically-developing school-aged children, but the practice remains untested for younger children and those with cognitive impairments.

Deficient cognitive control fuels children's exuberant false allegations.

In eyewitness studies as in actual investigations, a minority of children generate numerous false (and sometimes incredulous) allegations. To explore the characteristics of these children, we reinterviewed and administered a battery of tasks to 61 children (ages 4-9 years) who had previously participated in an eyewitness study where a man broke a "germ rule" twice when he tried to touch them. Performance on utilization, response conflict (Luria tapping), and theory of mind tasks predicted the number of false reports of touching (with age and time since the event controlled) and correctly classified 90.16% of the children as typical witnesses or exuberant (more than 3) false reporters. Results of a factor analysis pointed to a common process underlying performance on these tasks that accounted for 49% of the variability in false reports. Relations between task performance and testimony confirmed that the mechanisms underlying occasional intrusions are different from those that drive persistent confabulation and that deficient cognitive control fuels young children's exuberant false reports.

Evidence supporting restrictions on uses of body diagrams in forensic interviews.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared two methods for questioning children about suspected abuse: standard interviewing and body-diagram-focused (BDF) interviewing, a style of interviewing in which interviewers draw on a flip board and introduce the topic of touching with a body diagram. METHODS: Children (N=261) 4-9 years of age individually participated in science demonstrations during which half the children were touched two times. Months later, parents read stories to their children that described accurate and inaccurate information about the demonstrations. The stories for untouched children also contained inaccurate descriptions of touching. The children completed standard or BDF interviews, followed by source-monitoring questions. RESULTS: Interview format did not significantly influence (a) children's performance during early interview phases, (b) the amount of contextual information children provided about the science experience, or (c) memory source monitoring. The BDF protocol had beneficial and detrimental effects on touch reports: More children in the BDF condition reported experienced touching, but at the expense of an increased number of suggested and spontaneous false reports. CONCLUSIONS: The two props that are characteristic of BDF interviewing have different effects on testimonial accuracy. Recording answers on a flip board during presubstantive phases does not influence the quality of information that children provide. Body diagrams, however, suggest answers to children and elicit a concerning number of false reports. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Until research identifies procedures and/or case characteristics associated with accurate reports of touching during diagram-assisted questioning, interviewers should initiate discussions about touching with open-ended questions delivered without a body diagram.

The phenomenology of carryover effects between show-up and line-up identification.

This study explored carryover effects from show-ups to subsequent line-up identifications using a novel paradigm in which participants rendered multiple identification judgements. A total of 160 participants studied a series of faces and subsequently viewed a series of target-absent and target-present show-ups. Following a retention interval, participants then made identification judgements from a series of target-absent and target-present line-ups. Remember-Know-Guess judgements were collected to assess the phenomenological basis of carryover effects in face identification. Our results indicated clear carryover effects from show-ups to line-ups, such that repeated exposure to a face increased the likelihood that it would later be identified, regardless of whether or not it had been presented at the time of study. The phenomenological basis for these carryover effects is discussed, as are the implications of these findings for police conduct of multiple eyewitness identification procedures.