Five Factors That Can Damage
Children’s Memory
Steve Ceci
Department of Human Development
Are children’s statements accurate?
2 Ways for Statements to be
Inaccurate


lies
false memory/false belief
What is memory?
Memory is a record of:

pattern-recognition

interpretive analyses

source information
Source Memory
Memory for the root of information
acquisition
A record is made of the context of
remembering
Jargon #1
Source Misattributions
Source Misattributions - what
are they?
Even
adults are vulnerable (20%-35%)
Preschoolers are disproportionately
vulnerable (50-70%)
• “One day in the summer of 1901, I remarked
to a friend with whom I used to have a lively
exchange of scientific ideas: ‘These problems
of the neuroses are only to be solved if we
base ourselves on the assumption of the
original bisexuality of the individual.’ To
which he replied: ‘That’s what I told you two
years ago at Breslau when we went for that
evening walk. But you wouldn’t hear of it
then’. It is painful to be requested in this way
to surrender one’s originality.” (Freud, 1901,
p. 141)
Five Factors That Can Damage Memory
 Suggestive
questions (Ceci, et al, 1987)
 Stereotypes (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
 Confirmatory bias (Ceci, et al, 1997)
 Visually guided imagery (Ceci, et al, 1994)
 High levels of stress (Peters, 1991)
Recall Experiment
Participants are read a list of
words and later asked if a
particular word was among
those listed
Credibility Experiment
Participants view video
footage of interviews with
children and are asked to rate
the credibility of the children’s
responses
2,300 Professional Raters’
Confidence
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Rip
Book
Soil
Bear
Toss
in Air
Alone
NO SUGGESTION; NO STEREOTYPE
Leichtman & Ceci (1995)
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
"Sam ripped it"
"I saw him"
"He really did"
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
Adapted From: Leichtman, M. & Ceci, S. J. (1995). ) The Effects of Stereotypes
and Suggestions on Preschoolers’ Reports, Developmental Psychology, 31, 568-578.
NO SUGGESTIONS; + STEREOTYPE
Leichtman & Ceci (1995)
40
35
30
25
"Sam ripped it"
20
"I saw him"
15
"He really did"
10
5
0
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
+ SUGGESTIONS; NO STEREOTYPE
Leichtman & Ceci (1995)
60
50
40
"Sam ripped it"
30
"I saw him"
20
"He really did"
10
0
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
+SUGGESTION +STEREOTYPE
Leichtman & Ceci (1995)
80
70
60
"Sam ripped it"
50
40
"I saw him do it"
30
"He really did"
20
10
0
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
+STEREOTYPE + SUGGESTION
(2 suggestive sessions over 1 month)
70
60
50
"Sam did it"
40
"I saw him"
30
"He really did"
20
10
0
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
+STEREOTYPE + SUGGESTION
(6 suggestive sessions over 3 months)
90
80
70
60
50
40
"Sam did it"
"I saw him"
"He really did"
30
20
10
0
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
Four causes of source misattributions
 Suggestive
questions (Ceci, et al, 1987)
 Stereotypes (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995)
 Confirmatory bias (Ceci, et al, 1997)
 Visually guided imagery (Ceci, et al, 1994)
Jargon #2
Confirmatory Bias
Rice (1929)
“Social workers tended to accept information
unquestioningly when it fitted their current
opinion…(and) showed much more skepticism
when it conflicted with their views.” (Munro’s,
1996 analysis of 45 inquiries into deaths of
children in the U.K.)
--------------
In assessing the trustworthiness of a child’s
statements, the Michaels Court recognized that
“Among the factors that can undermine neutrality
and create undue suggestiveness is …the pursuit
by an interviewer of a preconceived notion of what
has happened to the child” at 309, 642 A.2d 1372
Experimental Demonstration of
a Confirmatory Bias

Simon Says Experiment
1 MONTH INTERVIEW
40
35
30
Informed
25
No Info
20
Misinforme
d
15
10
5
0
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
White, T.L., Leichtman, M.D. and Ceci, S.J. (1997). The good, the bad, and the
ugly: Accuracy, inaccuracy, and elaboration in preschoolers’ reports about a past
event. Applied Cognitive Psychology 11, S37-S54.
3-MONTH INTERVIEW
45
40
35
30
Informed
25
No Info
20
Misinformed
15
10
5
0
3-4 yr old
5-6 yr old
Inducing Visualization
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5-6-year-olds
Percent of False Assenting
Percent of False Assenting
3-4-year-olds
1
3
5
7
SESSIONS
9
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
5
7
9
SESSIONS
Adapted From: Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. D., & Bruck, M.
(1994). International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
“If the child says ‘no’, indicating that
sexual touching has not been
experienced, then ask the child to
put on the drawing a face that shows
how he or she would feel if it
happened.” (Hewitt, S., 1999.
Assessing Allegations of Sexual
Abuse in Preschool Children, Sage,
p. 233).
Multiplicative Effect of Using Multiple
Suggestive Techniques
90
1. Stereotype
2. Leading Q's
3. Visualization
4. Peer Pressure
1&2
1, 2, & 3
1, 2, 3, & 4
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3-4 Yr. Olds
5-6 Yr. Olds
Can These Same Techniques Be
Used to Suggest Painful Events?
Taking Advantage of NaturallyOccurring Medical Procedures
How Much Did You Cry?
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Positive
Neutral
1
0.5
0
5 Days
1 Year
Bruck, Ceci, Francoeur, & Barr (1995)
How Much Did It Hurt?
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Positive
Neutral
1
0.5
0
5 Days
1 Year
Bruck, Ceci, Francoeur, & Barr (1995)
% Who Incorrectly Recalled R.A.
40
35
30
25
Neutral
Mislead
20
15
10
5
0
Doctor's Gender
Gender of Check-up
Bruck, Ceci, Francoeur, & Barr (1995)
How About Genital Touching?
Multiple Independent Studies Showing
Suggestion for Genital Touching
_
_
_
_
_
_
VCUG Studies (Merritt, Ornstein et al, 1996)
“Mr. Science put something yucky in my mouth”
(Poole & Lindsay, 2000)
Babysitter touching (Rawls, 1996)
Stranger took photos in bath (Goodman et al,
1989)
Parent kissed child while naked in tub (Ceci et al.,
1993)
Pediatrician touching (Bruck, et al, 1995)
GENITAL EXAMINATION
(Bruck, Ceci, Francouer & Renick, 1995)
ERRORS OF OMISSION
 “Did the doctor touch you here?”
 “Show me on the doll”
55%
60%
ERRORS OF COMMISSION
 “Did the doctor touch you here?
 “Show me on the doll”
65%
55%
RECAP





Stereotypes
Repeated Leading Questions
Confirmatory Bias
Visually-Guided Imagery
CAVEATS:




Control Group Impressive
Techniques work with abuse-related events
No “Pinocchio Test”
Multiplicative effect of combined suggestions
The End