– Module 5 –
Introduction to Forensic Psychology
(FSC220)
Module 5:
Child Victims and Witnesses
Rasmus R. Larsen, Ph.D.
rosenberg.larsen@utoronto.ca
Assistant Professor
Forensic Epistemology
UTM Forensic Science Program
www.rasmusrosenberg.com
Copyright © Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen
All rights reserved
– Module 5 –
Quiz #1 – Summary
– Module 5 –
Assignment #1:
Assignments: Students must complete a total of 2 x written assignments. An
assignment consists of written answers to text and lecture specific questions and
themes. The assignments are accessed and submitted via Quercus. The
assignment is graded on a scale from 0-100. All assignments are subject to the
university’s plagiarism software (details below). More information follows in class.
Please Notice:
There is a 24-hour “Grace period” on
all reading assignments…!
This means that you can
be 24-hour “late” without
being penalized…
– Module 5 –
Assignment #1:
Instructions
– Module 5 –
Assignment #1:
Grading Rubric
Part 1: Case File Review
• This section evaluates your ability to
summarize and critically review a
case file from a forensic perspective.
• Stay concise, focus only on forensic
relevance, cover key points, raise
important questions, and write in
clear, formal language.
Part 2: Applied Analysis
•
•
This part assesses how well you can apply
course concepts and methods to analyze
a testimony or interview.
Apply required course concepts
accurately and in depth, use strong
examples, discuss strengths/limitations,
and write in a clear, organized way.
Part 3: Reflection
•
•
This section focuses on your ability to
reflect thoughtfully and connect
personally to your learning.
Answer both prompts with thoughtful,
specific reflections that show personal
engagement and connect meaningfully to
your learning.
– Module 5 –
Any questions..?
Introduction– toModule
Forensic
5 –Psychology
(FSC220)
Module 1
What is Forensic Psychology?
Module 7
Risk Assessment
Module 2
Criminal Profiling
Module 8
The Role of Mental Illness
Module 3
Deception
Module 9
Psychopathy (Mainstream)
Module 4
Eyewitness Testimony
Module 10
Psychopathy (Critical)
Module 5
Child Victims and Witnesses
Module 11
Serial Murders
Module 6
Sentencing and Parole
Module 12
Ethics of Forensic Psychology
– Module 5 –
Please be mindful…
DISCLAIMER
THE TOPIC OF
“CHILD VICTIMS”
WILL AT TIMES BE
SENSITIVE
– Module 5 –
– WARNING –
POSSIBILITYNeeded…
OF GRAPHIC AND EXPLICIT CONTENT
Peer Note-Taker
– FORENSIC COURSE CONTENT WARNING –
Forensic Science courses may present content that includes (but is not limited to) visual
depictions or discussions of assault, violent crimes, human tissue, victimization of
children, death, psychological trauma, and systemic oppression. Students should be
aware that some content may be distressing or unsettling.
Forensic courses provide an open space for the critical and civil exchange of ideas, and
students are expected to create an atmosphere of mutual respect and sensitivity.
If you are finding the content of your courses distressing, support is available for students
through the UTM Health & Counselling Centre
• Phone: 905-828-5255
• Email: health.utm@utoronto.ca
9
– Module 5 –
www.protectchildren.ca
– Module 5 –
This Week’s Agenda
1. Children in Forensic Settings.
2. The Reliability of Child Witnesses.
3. Interviewing Children.
4. Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of
Abuse.
5. Recollecting Traumatic Childhood
Memories.
Children in Forensic
Settings
– Module 5 –
Children in Forensic Settings
• When forensic psychologists refer to children or
childhood, they are typically referring to
individuals ranging from 3 – 15 years of age.
• Childhood must not be conflated with the legal
definition of a “minor” or the age of majority
(Canada = age 18/19).
Age of Majority: The threshold of adulthood as
recognized or declared in law (i.e., when individuals are
considered fully responsible for their actions).
Link
– Module 5 –
Children in Forensic Settings
• One of the main reasons why psychologists see a need to differentiate
children from adults is that:
➢ Children are believed to be psychologically different in a number of
important ways.
• For example, compared to adults:
1. Children have different behavioral patterns across contexts.
2. Children are cognitively less capable (e.g., memory function not
fully developed).
3. Children are uniquely vulnerable in many obvious ways (e.g., they
cannot physically defend themselves).
– Module 5 –
Children in Forensic Settings
Victimhood vs. Witness
• This week is about two separate issues, namely: child victims and witnesses.
• Not necessarily separate issues – they often overlap.
• For example, child victims are sometimes the sole or main witness to the
crime committed against them (e.g., physical or emotional abuse).
• In such cases, forensic practitioners face unique challenges.
• For example, they must be mindful how they retrieve evidence, such as
ensuring interviewing techniques do not compromise the (potential) legal
court procedures.
– Module 5 –
Children in Forensic Settings
Decent and informative productions on the subject…
Sleepers
The Celebration
Oscar Winning, The Hunt
Spotlight
– Module 5 –
Children in Forensic Settings
Four Myths About Child Victims and Witnesses:
1. People do not forget childhood abuse:
Actually, some people claim to have
suppressed memories of abuse; some
researchers hypothesize that memory
suppression is a coping mechanism.
2. Children will tell someone if abused:
Actually, victims of sexual abuse usually
don’t report it until they reach adulthood.
And when children report any form of
abuse, this is often significantly delayed.
3. Childhood abuse is rare:
Actually, an Ontario-study found that 31%
of adults have experienced physical abuse
during childhood; 8% of males and 22%
of females experienced sexual abuse.
4. Children have very poor memory:
Actually, children are generally capable of
remembering important details when they
are asked to witness; children are, on the
other hand, more suggestible than adults.
Child Witnesses
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
Forensic Interviews of Children
• Children can be reliable witnesses; however, there are many factors that
can impact and reduce the reliability of their statements.
• For example, the interview-process entails high risk of altering or
contaminating the information the witness “possesses”.
• Indeed, children are very prone to manipulation and suggestibility.
• When a child gives an “untruthful” statement, this is often unintentional
or without a larger and/or ulterior purpose.
• Notice that this is different from interviewing adults, where we are more
focused on their sincerity (deception) and working memory.
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
Interviewing a child witness begins with taking the entire situation into consideration – from
the way you approach the child, to the interview technique!
Two Types of Interview Questions:
Free Recall/Narrative Questioning: Asking broad, open-ended questions (e.g.,
“What do you remember from school last Tuesday?”)
Direct Questioning: Asking specific, contextual questions (e.g., “What else do
you remember about recess in school last Tuesday?”)
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
• One problem with recollection in children is that they often don’t know
or understand the context of the case they are being questioned about.
• While children perform well during free recall or free narrative questions
(e.g., Bruck & Ceci, 1999) the information they give may be irrelevant.
• In order to retrieve (potentially) relevant information, interviewers may
eventually have to ask more specific or so-called direct questions.
• When using direct questions, the risk of misinformation effect increases.
Misinformation effect: When misinformation about a personal experience is
incorporated into our memory of it (also known as post-event information effect).
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
• A common “cause” of the misinformation effect are leading questions.
• Recall the study by Loftus (1975), who could manipulate the memory of
adults by simply changing minor details in how they were questioned.
• A study by Waterman and colleagues (2004) found that children are
especially prone to answer yes/no question wrongfully.
• An example of a leading yes/no question: “Did Walther take the money
from the drawer?”
Leading Question: A question that suggests or encourages a specific answer.
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
• Generally, children are much more vulnerable or suggestible to leading
questions than adults (and even adults are pretty vulnerable themselves!).
• Notice that this is a factual matter: we have experimental evidence that
children are more suggestible than adults.
But why are children more “suggestible”…?
Social Compliance: When a child responds to an interviewer with an answer the
child assumes the interviewer “wants to hear” or “is searching for”.
Cognitive Misattribution: When a child responds to an interviewer with an
answer that contains information that is not part of what the child witnessed.
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
Suggestibility
as SocialtoCompliance:
Social Compliance: When
a child responds
an interviewer with an answer the
child assumes the interviewer “wants to hear” or “is searching for”.
• Generally, children are aware of their social role as a “child” vs. “adults”.
• When being interviewed, children might interpret the situation as if something
is expected of them; that they must “deliver” or comply.
• So, answers might be non-factual, simply inferred from what sort of
information they “think” the (adult) interviewer is seeking.
• Answering “I don’t know” might not be seen as a viable option to them.
• A study by Hughes & Grieve (1980) found that children between 5-7 years are
likely to give answers to non-sensical yes/no-questions.
• For example: “Is red heavier than yellow?”
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
Suggestibility
Cognitive
Misattribution:
Cognitive Misattribution:
Whenasa achild
responds
to an interviewer with an
answer that contains information that is not part of what the child witnessed.
• Most people have experienced having a false memory.
• Perhaps your parents told you about a birthday or a holiday so many times that
this story has morphed into a form of (false) memory?
• When being reflective about it, adults can sometimes distinguish between real
and false memories (though it’s arguably very hard!).
• Children, on the other hand, are not mindful about the conceptual distinction
between these two types of memories.
• Children may cognitively misattribute a story from another person as a
concrete memory of their own (NB: many subtle variations hereof).
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
Consider an Example of False-Memory
One of Dr. Larsen’s false-memories from his childhood…
I used to have a vivid memory of playing a soccer
match against Zlatan Ibrahimović when I was 15. We
lost 7-2! Zlatan scored 5 goals! [This happened].
The Catch: I have no real memory of Zlatan, because
it was only many years later that he became famous
and I found out I played against him. I was simply told
that he scored 5 goals, but I can’t actually recall it.
– Module 5 –
Child Witnesses: Recollection, Fabrication and Suggestibility
Eyewitnesses and Cognitive Misattribution:
TED Talk by forensic psychologist, Scott Fraser (link)
Interviewing Children
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
The Challenge of Interviewing Children:
How should we interview individuals who we know are highly suggestible?
And to what extent should we rely on their testimony/information?
• Dilemma: Childhood abuse are perhaps some of the most morally
deplorable acts! But the witness/victim is also fragile and unreliable.
• We therefore want to develop techniques where we can increase reliability,
thereby preserving the integrity of the testimony.
• …and thus, enhance chances of a successful trial (i.e., we don’t want to
risk being accused of having “contaminated” the interview).
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
• There are multiple standardized interviewing techniques developed by
forensic psychologists (Pozzulo et al., 2022, p. 151-57).
• Generally, these techniques are informed by what we know about
children’s vulnerability towards suggestibility and fabrication.
• In other words, the techniques are informed by the research we have
done on how children behave in an interview-scenario.
• To prevent suggestibility these techniques (a) encourage/facilitates a free
recall/narrative format, and (b) refrain from asking yes-no-questions.
• To detect fabrication these techniques (often) have inbuilt ways to check
for: logical consistency, unusual events, timeline coherence, etc.
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
Central Prerequisite: Techniques must be standardized…!
• Standardization of interviewing techniques is key, since only when we
have standardized something can we systematically test its performance.
• When we standardize, we can then test whether such technique
outperforms non-methodological interviews.
• And it turns out that standardized techniques are better at extracting
reliable information compared to “free-styling” it (NB: we can test it!).
• It’s a general mark of bad forensic practices that they lack standardization.
• This is, for instance, the case with the use of the anatomical doll.
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
Various Standardized Interviewing Techniques
Step-Wise Interview: Interview protocol designed as a series of “steps” that
progress from free narrative questions to more direct questions.
Criterion-Based Content Analysis: Analysis that uses standard criteria to
detect fabrication (or deceit) in child interviews.
Narrative Elaboration: An interview protocol where children are instructed to
organize their narrative into categories (participants, settings, actions, etc.)
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
Step-Wise Interview: Interview
protocol designed as a series of
“steps” that progress from free
narrative questions to more direct
questions.
Pozzulo et al. 2018, p. 172.
Pozzulo et al., 2022, p. 155.
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
Criterion-Based Content Analysis:
Analysis that uses standard criteria to
detect fabrication (or deceit) in child
interviews.
Pozzulo et al. 2018, p. 170.
Pozzulo et al., 2022, p. 154.
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
Midwifery as a Metaphor for a good child interviewer:
• Interviewing a child in an abuse case/suspicion is a precarious situation:
• Stakes are high: The child’s testimony is likely to have great impact.
• Fragility: The interviewer is likely to tamper with the witness.
• Necessity: We need to carry out the interview; often no alternatives.
• One might say there is a metaphorical similarity to childbirth; stakes are
high, the subject is fragile, and we necessarily need to carry out the job.
• Good interviewers are like good midwifes; they assist the interviewee in
doing their part.
• Make the subject comfortable, non-intervening, etc.
– Module 5 –
Interviewing Children
The Netflix mini-series, Waco, explores the topic of Child Abuse, and the intuitive signs hereof..
(especially, in episode 5)
– Module 5 –
Child Victims
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
• When forensic psychologists talk about child victims (i.e., child
maltreatment), they tend to focus the conversation on sexual abuse.
• However, there are many other, and perhaps more prevalent forms of
abuse that we need to consider.
• Importantly, different types of abuse represent with different risk factors.
• Therefore, different forms of abuse may also need likewise different
intervention and prevention strategies.
• The role of a forensic psychologists is to utilize scientific knowledge to
improve legal decisions; but also, develop prevention strategies.
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
Four Most Common Forms of Child Abuse and Maltreatment:
From Child Maltreatment Section of Health Canada (link) | Most forms of family violence is criminal in Canada.
Physical Abuse: The deliberate application of force to any part of a child’s body
that results or may result in a non-accidental injury.
Sexual Abuse: When an adult or youth uses a child for sexual purposes.
Abuse of Neglect: When a child’s caregivers do not provide the requisite
attention to the child’s emotional, psychological, and physical development.
Emotional Maltreatment: Acts or omissions by caregivers that cause or could
cause serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders.
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
In cases where abuse (or indications of abuse) is observed…
• Government agencies have the legal authority and responsibility to remove
children from caregivers that maltreat or is in risk of maltreatment (link).
• Priority is given to assessing the need for protection of the child (i.e., their
need and right to live without maltreatment).
• Government agencies require that social workers report incidents or
concerns about child maltreatment.
• These requirements, however, can be difficult to follow.
• Indeed, it can be difficult to prove the occurrence of maltreatment
incidents or corroborate concerns about maltreatment.
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
From a 2008 Analysis of 128,748 Child Welfare Investigations
Figure shows primary categories of substantiated maltreatment
Recall Myth #3
Myth #3: “Childhood abuse is rare…”
Actually, an Ontario-study found that 31%
of adults have experienced physical abuse
during childhood; 8% of males and 22%
of females experienced sexual abuse.
[Pozzulo et al. 2018, p. 186-187; 2022, p. 166]
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
The Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal
Link
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
From a 2014-report in Canadian Medical Association Journal (n=23,395).
“Our findings indicate that 32% of
the adult population in Canada has
experienced child abuse (i.e.,
physical abuse, sexual abuse and/or
exposure to intimate partner
violence) and that child abuse has
robust associations with mental
conditions.” (CMAJ, p. 331)
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
• Recall that forensic psychologists are interested in prevention and
intervention (i.e., we want to prevent or stop criminal behavior).
• It can therefore be useful to analyze what are the common risk factors
(i.e., predictors) of child maltreatment.
• Knowing the risk factors may predict the occurrence of maltreatment.
• A risk factor is a variable that makes it statistically more probable for
maltreatment to occur (NB: it’s not a causal factor!).
• For example, low socioeconomic status is a predictor of physical abuse.
• Importantly: Different forms of abuse have different risk factors.
Risk Factor: An independent factor that increases the statistical likelihood of
child maltreatment to occur.
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
Pozzulo et al. 2018, p. 188.
Pozzulo et al., 2022, p. 167.
– Module 5 –
Child Victims: Risk Factors and Effects of Abuse
• As was concluded in the CMAJ report (2014), child abuse in general is
robustly correlated with mental disorders/conditions.
• Generally, researchers differentiate between short- and long-term
consequences of child abuse; i.e., symptoms decrease in long-term.
• Short-term effects of sexual abuse, Kendall-Tacket and colleagues (1993):
• Psychological effects: Behavioral problems, lowered self-esteem,
deviant sexual behavior; all consistent with PTSD.
• Physical effects: sleep disturbances, eating disorders, headaches, etc.
• Long-term effects of sexual abuse, see Putnam (2003):
• Paolucci et al. (2001) found strong correlation with major depression.
• Pérez-Fuentes et al. (2014) found increased suicide attempts.
Recollecting Traumatic
Memories
– Module 5 –
Recollecting Traumatic Memories:
The Challenge of False Memories in “Historic” Abuse Cases
• It is not uncommon for adults to press charges based on memories of an
abusive episode as a child (e.g., consider the movies Sleepers or Spotlight).
• These cases are referred to as Historic Child Sexual Abuse Cases (legal doc).
• These cases are sometimes built on so-called restored memory – memories
that were allegedly suppressed, and now recollected.
• Cases like these have ignited a debate in forensic psychology on whether
such a newly “restored memory” is a real memory or rather a false memory.
False Memory Syndrome: When a person falsely recollects childhood abuse for
the first time as an adult (often in relation to psychiatric treatment).
– Module 5 –
Recollecting Traumatic Memories:
The Challenge of False Memories in “Historic” Abuse Cases
• There seems to be little doubt that humans can have false “memories”,
recollection of events that actually didn’t happen.
• Researcher Elizabeth Loftus has found some evidence of this.
• For example, Loftus et al. (1997) managed to “induce” a false memory in
test participants (a false memory of getting lost in the mall) (see also).
• But it also appears to be trivially true that we sometimes forget things,
only to remember them again at some later stage in life.
• So, the challenge is to develop reliable methods to distinguish between a real
memory and a false memory.
– Module 5 –
Recollecting Traumatic Memories:
Follow the Evidence:
Can people recollect suppressed memories?
• Porter & Birth (2001) found that a majority of victims of sexual abuse
consciously blocked such memories, as opposed to forgetting it.
• Hunter & Andrews (2002) found that victims of childhood sexual abuse
reported periods in their lives where they had forgotten the event(s).
• Ghetti and colleagues (2006) found that among people who blocked
memories of childhood sexual abuse ~4% said they would not had been
able to recollect the memory during that period of “amnesia”.
– Module 5 –
Recollecting Traumatic Memories:
Question:
Imagine that you are given the task to evaluate whether a witness testimony
concerning physical abuse is an instance of:
(a) valid recollected memory, or
(b) a false memory syndrome.
How would you practically evaluate the witness statement…?
– Module 5 –
Recollecting Traumatic Memories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Validity of Recovered Memory
A Practical Checklist (from Lindsay & Read, 1995)
Age at the time of alleged abuse? It is unlikely for people to remember details
prior to their 2-year birthday.
What memory extraction technique? Many interviewing techniques are highly
suggestible, and has limited scientific testing (e.g., hypnosis).
Consistency? Is the testimony consistent or increasingly detailed.
Motivations and ulterior motives? people may search for explanations for
mental health symptoms; or sometimes there can be external gains.
Time elapsed since abuse? Memories fade, making it unlikely to remember
(all) details decades after the event.
– Module 5 –
Caveat:
– Pozzulo, Bennell, & Forth (2018, p. 189-190; 2022, p. 168-169)
– Module 5 –
www.protectchildren.ca