Issues of
Suggestibility & Court
Overview
• What is suggestibility?
• Research – past & present
• Lessons Learned
• Preparing for court
• Defending your interview
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Suggestibility
(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
Traditional definition:
“…the extent to which individuals come to
accept and subsequently incorporate
post-event information into their memory
recollections…”
ALTHOUGH…
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Suggestibility
(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005)
“…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…”
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Some of the Research
on Suggestibility
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH
Clown Study (Rudy & Goodman, 1991)
• 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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH
Clown 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.
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH
Physical Exam Study (Saywitz, Goodman, & Moan, 1991)
• 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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
FIRST WAVE RESEARCH
Physical Exam Study (Saywitz, Goodman, & Moan, 1991)
Findings
Genital 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.
SECOND WAVE RESEARCH
Sam Stone Study (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
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?”
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
SAM STONE STUDY
(Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
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
© 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.
SAM STONE STUDY
(Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
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
© 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.
MOUSETRAP STUDY
(Ceci, Huffman, & Smith, 1994)
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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
SECOND WAVE RESEARCH
“Picture-in-the-Head” Game
(Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)
• 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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
“Picture-in-the-Head” Game
• 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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
“Picture-in-the-Head” Game
(Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)
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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
“Picture-in-the-Head” Game
(Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck 1994)
• 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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Is the research applicable?
• 1990s Research
(Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005; Reed, 1996)
• 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
Bruck & Ceci, 1995
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.”
© 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.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Wood & Garven, 2000; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Leichtman & Ceci,
1995; Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Reed, 1996)
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…”
© 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?
• Age of Victim
(Everson et al., 1996)
- 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.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Wood & Garven, 2000; Davis & Bottoms, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002;
Goodman et al., 1991; Reed, 1996; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996)
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)
© 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.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
Wood & Garven, 2000; Lamb et al., 2003
Minimize Direct Questioning
LEAST SUGGESTIVE
Free Recall
Focused Recall
Multiple Choice
Yes/No
“Mis”Leading
MOST SUGGESTIVE
© 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.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Ceci & Bruck, 1999)
• Initially Focus on Central Elements
- Suggestion less likely with well-remembered
events
- Acquiescence to suggestion more likely with
weak event memory
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Lyon, 2002; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Reed, 1996)
• 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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Lyon, 2002; Myers, Saywitz & Goodman, 1996; Reed, 1996)
• Limit Repeated Questions
INTERVIEW TIP
Use interview instructions:
“I may have asked you this already, but
I don‟t remember.”
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Lyon, 2002; Saywitz, Goodman & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Reed, 1996)
• Do Not Mislead Children
- Children defer to adults’ perceptions
- Children comply with adult expectations
- Children shouldn’t be “tested” with
misleading info.
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Reed, 1996)
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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Reed, 1996)
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.”
© 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.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Lyon, 2001; Myers, 1994; Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)
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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Lyon, 2001; Myers, 1994; Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002)
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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Wood & Garven, 2000)
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
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
REDUCING SUGGESTIBILITY
(Saywitz, Goodman, & Lyon, 2002; Saywitz & Lyon, 2002; Wood & Garven, 2000)
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
© 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 Testimony
Common 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 Testimony
Common 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 Testimony
Common 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.
Issues of Suggestibility…
Remember the Child First Doctrine
“…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)
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.
Questions?
• What is suggestibility?
• Research – past & present
• Lessons Learned
• Preparing for court
• Defending your interview
© 2011 CornerHouse. All rights reserved.