“Did She Do it on Purpose?”
Young Children’s Accuracy for Questions About Intentions
1
Klemfuss
2
Kulkofsky
1
Ceci
J. Zoe
Sarah
Stephen J.
1Cornell University 2Texas Tech University
Abstract
This study was designed to explore ways to maximize
preschool aged children's abilities to answer difficult
interview questions about intentions. We hypothesized that
children would be more accurate when they were given twooption forced choice questions which emphasize that the
interviewer is interested in intentions. We compared these
binary forced choice questions to basic "yes/no" closedended questions concerning intentions. Our primary
hypothesis was partially supported. Children performed
equally well when they were asked either forced choice
questions or yes/no questions in which the intention asked
about matched the intention witnessed (ie: yes/no questions
where the answer should be “yes”). Children were more
accurate with each of these question types as compared to
non-matching yes/no questions (ie: yes/no questions where
the answer should be “no”), though the difference between
forced choice questions and non-matching yes/no questions
became marginal when controlled for multiple comparisons.
There were no effects of age and children were generally
biased to pick the second option when asked forced choice
questions, and biased to respond “yes” to yes/no questions.
Forensic applications are discussed.
Introduction
Accuracy and Interviewing Techniques
Research on child interviewing techniques has found that
the majority of questions used in forensic interviews are
yes/no and forced choice (Warren, A.R., Woodall, C.E.,
Hunt, J.S., & Perry, N.W., 1996). However, there has been
little study of the specific effects of these question types on
the accuracy of children’s responses, especially in
situations in which the subject matter may be challenging
for children. Questions about intentions may be particularly
difficult for young children.
•Research on the development of intentional understanding
has taken two complementary perspectives. The first line of
research is largely cognitive and emphasizes children’s
early abilities to understand the intentions of others. The
second line, focusing on linguistic research, has
demonstrated the limitations of young children’s
understanding of intentions. Although the ability to
comprehend others’ intentions may exist at a very young
age, children may not be able to verbally communicate this
understanding effectively until much later.
•Cognitive Evidence for Early Comprehension:
Ex: Children can produce an adult’s intended action,
even when the adult is unsuccessful in completing the
act, by 18 months (Meltzoff, 1995).
•Linguistic Evidence for Delayed Communicative Ability:
Ex: Children cannot accurately report that two people
who perform an act with different goals in mind have
different intentions until 5 years of age (Baird & Moses,
2001).
The Present Study
The present study examined how question type (y/n-yes,
y/n-no, 2-option forced choice) influenced children’s
accuracy in responding to questions about the intentions
behind witnessed events.
Interview Questions:
Who was taller, the grown up or the little girl?
Did the little girl play on the swings before the slide?
Did the little girl have brown or blond hair?
Was the climbing structure made of plastic?
Did the grown up bump into the little girl?
Did the grown up kick the soccer ball by accident?
Did the grown up spill the water on purpose or by accident?
Did the grown up have a red jacket?
Did the grown up go down the slide or did the little girl go
down the slide?
Did one of the girls slide down the handrails of the stairs?
Did the grown up push the little girl on the swing, or did the
little girl push the grown up?
Did the grown up spill the water?
Did the little girl sit on the swing?
Did the two kids come with the grown up or meet her there?
Did the grown up bump into the little girl on purpose?
Did the little girl fall off the climbing structure?
Did the grown up kick the soccer ball?
Did the little girl get to the park first, or did the grown up?
Did the grown up drop the doll by accident?
Did the grown up throw the basketball on purpose?
Did the grown up step on the flower on purpose or by
accident?
Was the grown up nice or mean?
We hypothesized that children would be more accurate
when answering forced choice questions in which all
options were present and yes/no questions in which the
correct response was present (y/n-yes) as compared to
yes/no questions in which the correct response was absent
(y/n-no).
Methods
•Seventy-nine preschool children (M = 51.1 months; N = 40
female) participated.
•Children watched a video about an adult and a child
playing on a playground. The video contained three target
“intention” events- the adult kicked a soccer ball, bumped
into the child, and spilled a cup of water. Each child saw all
three events, but the order and intention of each event was
randomized for each child.
•Next, children were asked 22 yes/no and 2-option forced
choice questions about the video. There were four
randomized question orders and children were randomly
assigned to a question order. Each child was asked a 2option forced choice about an event, a y/n-yes question
about a different event, and a y/n-no question about another
event.
The Effects of Question Type and Question Content on
Children's Accuracy
0.8
Table 1. :Linear contrasts predicting accuracy from intention asked and question type
Variable
Intention
Intention
Accident
Question
Type
Intentio
n
Question Type
Purpos
e
Estimate
Chi-Square
P-value
-1.07
12.42
<0.01
Question
Type
Forced
Choice
Y/N-yes
0.48
2.01
0.16
Question
Type
Forced
Choice
Y/N-no
-0.79
4.55
0.03
Question
Type
Y/N-yes
Y/N-no
-1.26
10.15
<0.01
0.7
0.6
0.5
% Children
0.4
Correct
0.3
Results (cont.)
•Linear contrasts revealed that children are no better at
forced choice questions than they are at yes/no questions
overall (ie: matching and non matching yes/no questions
combined).
•Children were more accurate overall when they were
asked about an event that was an accident, than when they
were asked about an event that was purposeful.
•When children were asked questions involving intentions,
overall they were biased to respond “yes” if they were
asked a yes/no question (d’ = -0.54, C = -0.5), and they
were biased to say that a witnessed act was an accident if
they were given a forced choice (d’fc = 0.25, Cfc = 0.42).
Conclusion
On the whole, it seems that preschool-aged children have
difficulty in accurately responding to questions about
intentions. This difficulty partially manifests itself in a bias to
respond “yes” when asked yes/no questions, and in a bias
to respond “accident” (second option) when asked whether
an event was performed on purpose or by accident. The
finding that children have “yes” biases when asked about
intentional events is not surprising given the literature on
leading and suggestive questioning (Bruck & Ceci, 1999).
Children were most accurate when they were asked yes/no
questions in which the answer should be “yes”, or when
asked forced choice questions in which they were
presented with both possible answers. Children were the
least accurate when asked yes/no questions in which the
answer should be “no”. These results may have come about
because including the correct response within the question
(ie: “Did she do it on purpose?” when she did do it on
purpose) cues children’s memory of the original event.
However, it is important to consider the findings that overall,
children are no more accurate at yes/no questions than they
are at 2-option forced choice questions because in forensic
interviews interviewers do not know whether the answer to
forensically relevant questions should be “yes” or “no”.
Y/N-yes
Forced Choice
Y/N-no
0.2
0.1
0
Intentions
Non Intentions
Question Type
Results
• The main findings are that when asked about other
people’s intentions, children appear to be equally accurate
at matching yes/no questions and 2-option forced choice
questions. They are significantly better at matching yes/no
questions as compared to non matching yes/no questions
and marginally better at forced choice questions as
compared to non matching yes/no questions.
References:
Baird, J.A. and Moses, L.J. (2001). Do Preschoolers Appreciate That Identical Actions May Be
Motivated by Different Intentions? Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(4), 413-448.
Bruck, M. & Ceci, S.J. (1999). The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50.
Meltzoff, A.N. (1995). Understanding the Intentions of Others: Re-Enactment of
Intended Acts by 18-Month-Old Children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838-850.
Warren, A.R., Woodall, C.E., Hunt, J.S., Perry, N.W. (1996). “It Sounds Good in Theory, But…”:
Do Investigative Interviewers Follow Guidelines Based on Memory Research?. Child
Maltreatment, 1, 231.