Table 2 - uploaded by Claudia M Roebers
Content may be subject to copyright.
Percent of "I don't know" answers for the unanswerable questions as a function of age and question format.
Source publication
This study examined potential effects of a warning instruction prior to an eyewitness interview including answerable and unanswerable questions, which both were either unbiased or misleading. A total of 84 six-, eight- and ten-year-old children were shown a short video about the production of sugar and they were individually questioned about it one...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... subsequent Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test showed that the 6-year-olds (.11) were outperformed both by the 8- year-olds (.41) and the 10-year-olds (.43). Table 2 presents the percentage of "I don't know" responses to the unanswerable questions as a function of age (6-, 8-and 10-year-olds) and question format (unbiased vs. misleading). An ANOVA was conducted on the percentage of "I don't know" responses, with question format (unbiased vs. misleading) as a within- subjects factor and age and experimental condition (warning vs. no warning instruction) as between-sub- jects factors. ...
Citations
... First, irrespective of whether a questioner suggests (in tone or manner) the desired answer (e.g., "Surely you fought back, didn't you?"), there is a tendency for people to exhibit a response bias toward "yes" when response options are narrowed to yes or no, or to choose an option provided by an interviewer instead of saying "I don't know" (Goodman et al., 2014). Response bias, which is largely a socially driven phenomenon, is more prevalent among complainants of relatively low social status (e.g., children, aboriginal complainants, people with communication impairment), and is not easily dampened with warnings about the importance of saying "I don't know" and not to guess responses (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Cohen & Harnick, 1980;Eades, 2008;Earhart et al., 2014;Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003). Indeed, children typically perceive adults as competent and sincere communication partners and thus they often comply with requests for information without even fully understanding the question (Ceci et al., 1987;Ceci & Bruck, 1993). ...
The way that complainants of child sexual assault are questioned about their experiences can profoundly influence the accuracy, credibility, and consistency of their evidence. This is the case for all people, but especially children whose language, social, and cognitive capacity is still developing. In this study, we examined the questions used by a representative sample of Australian prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges/magistrates to determine if this is an area that warrants improvement. Our focus was the type of questions used by the different professionals and how (if at all) these varied across complainant age groups (children, adolescents, and adults, total N = 63). Our findings revealed that each complainant group was questioned in a manner known to heighten misunderstanding and error (e.g., complex and leading questions were used frequently by all professional groups). There was also little indication of question adaption according to age (e.g., prosecutors asked children more complex questions than they asked adults). When the results are considered in the context of the broader literature on the impact of different question styles, they suggest that professional development in questioning would improve the quality of trial advocacy and judicial rulings.
... If so, can they successfully generate their own correct alternative? Unanswerable forced-choice questions are questions for which the child does not have the requisite knowledge to answer, that is, the question requires them to speculate (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Fritzley & Lee, 2003;Waterman & Blades, 2011;Waterman, Blades, & Spencer, 2000). Unanswerable questions encourage children to guess or speculate, as the only appropriate response would be "I don't know" or somehow challenging the question (Pratt, 1990;Roebers & Fernandez, 2002;Waterman & Blades, 2011;Waterman et al., 2000;Waterman, Blades, & Spencer, 2004). ...
Forensic guidelines recommend minimizing forced-choice questions when interviewing children. We investigated whether adding a “something else” alternative to forced-choice questions affected 3- to 5-year-olds’ (N = 94) reports of an event involving innocuous touch. Following a 1-week delay, children were randomly assigned to receive either standard 2-alternative forced-choice questions or the same questions with an additional something else alternative. All children received 3 counterbalanced question types: correct alternative present, no correct alternative present, and unanswerable. Children’s overall accuracy was not affected by the something else alternative except on questions with no correct alternative present, where performance went from 15% to 31% accurate. Children selected or generated inaccurate and speculative responses to the majority of unanswerable questions regardless of a something else alternative. These findings suggest that the inclusion of a something else alternative does not bypass concerns about the use of forced-choice questions during interviews with children.
... In respect to the other ground rules, researchers have demonstrated some positive effects of using ground rules (Mulder & Vrij, 1996), but have also found limitations in the benefits of their implementation (Teoh & Lamb, 2010). For example, explaining to children that they should say "I don't know" or "I don't understand" does not necessarily have a positive impact on a child's conversational behaviour (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Blades, Water- man, & Gibson, 2003;Ellis, Powell, Thomson, & Jones, 2003;Waterman, Blades, & Spencer, 2004). A further issue is that interviewers' implementation of the ground rules, both in England and Wales and in other countries, is often incomplete and inconsistent (Cederborg, Orbach, Sternberg, & Lamb, 2000;Hershkowitz & Elul, 1999;Powell & Hughes-Scholes, 2009;Thoresen, Lønnum, Melinder, Stridbeck, & Magnussen, 2006;Westcott & Kynan, 2006). ...
... Such a separation may not have helped children realize that the ground rules applied to the whole of the interview, especially as ground rules were rarely repeated later in the interview. Merely providing ground rules does not necessarily enhance a child's conversational behaviour (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Blades et al., 2003;Ellis et al., 2003;Waterman et al., 2004) and therefore the behaviour of the interviewers in making the ground rules appear as a separate part of the interview may have made them even less effective. ...
... Such a separation may not have helped children realize that the ground rules applied to the whole of the interview, especially as ground rules were rarely repeated later in the interview. Merely providing ground rules does not necessarily enhance a child's conversational behaviour (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Blades et al., 2003;Ellis et al., 2003;Waterman et al., 2004) and therefore the behaviour of the interviewers in making the ground rules appear as a separate part of the interview may have made them even less effective. ...
There are specific guidelines for forensic interviews with children [for example, Crown Prosecution Service. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London: Crown Prosecution Service]. Such guidelines include a set of “ground rules” - these are procedures that should be followed at the start of an interview to explain the nature of the interview to a child and to ensure that evidence is obtained in a legally appropriate way. The procedures are also used as a way to demonstrate how well a child understands aspects of the interview. This study investigated how ground rules were implemented in 51 investigative interviews with child witnesses and victims alleging criminal activities. The results showed that there was a lack of consistency in ground rule implementation, and that even when ground rules were implemented, their relevance to the remainder of the interview was not made clear. These findings highlight concerns as to the efficacy of ground rule implementation practices.
... Some studies that employed this ground rule as a direct statement (e.g., "I wasn't there, I don't know what happened") also simultaneously included other rules (e.g., Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Cordón, Saetermoe, & Goodman, 2005;Geddie, Beer, Bartosik, & Wuensch, 2001;Krackow & Lynn, 2010;Saywitz & Moan-Hardie, 1994). For example, in addition to modeling complete recall and correcting an interviewer's mistakes, Krackow and Lynn (2010) gave 4-to 5-and 7-to 8-year-old children in their training group an explanatory statement about naiveté ("Sometimes adults ask questions in a way that makes it sound like they know the answers. ...
... Motivated by evidence that adults' suggestibility can be reduced by warnings about "tricky" questions (e.g., Chambers & Zaragoza, 2001;Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982), a few experiments focused on the benefits of similar warnings for children, without explicitly instructing them to correct the interviewer when a mistake had been made (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Cordón et al., 2005;Endres, Poggenpohl, & Erben, 1999;Warren, Hulse-Trotter, & Tubbs, 1991). All but Beuscher and Roebers (2005) reported benefits, but only Warren and colleagues focused exclusively on the warning instruction. ...
... Motivated by evidence that adults' suggestibility can be reduced by warnings about "tricky" questions (e.g., Chambers & Zaragoza, 2001;Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982), a few experiments focused on the benefits of similar warnings for children, without explicitly instructing them to correct the interviewer when a mistake had been made (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Cordón et al., 2005;Endres, Poggenpohl, & Erben, 1999;Warren, Hulse-Trotter, & Tubbs, 1991). All but Beuscher and Roebers (2005) reported benefits, but only Warren and colleagues focused exclusively on the warning instruction. These investigators told one group of first graders, sixth graders, and adults that some of the questions about a story would be "tricky." ...
Guidelines for conducting investigative interviews with children often include instructions that explain the conversational rules of the in- terview. Despite the widespread and international use of such instructions (also referred to as “ground rules”), the body of re- search characterizing children’s understanding of these rules and documenting the impact of instruction on memory reports is rel- atively small. We review the use of ground rules in investigative interviews, the developmental differences that likely underlie chil- dren’s ability to make sense of these rules, and research pertaining to the effects of the ground rules commonly included in interview guidelines on the reports of 3- to 13-year-old children. We then present a study space analysis concerning the five ground rules re- viewed: (a) a statement about interviewer naïveté regarding the target events, (b) instructions to tell the interviewer when a mistake has been made, (c) cautions that some questions may be repeated, and instructions to say (d) “I don’t understand” and (e) “I don’t know.” The results demonstrate obvious gaps in this body of literature, with only the “I don’t know” ground rule having received significant at- tention. In addition to exploring how individual rules impact interview performance, we encourage more process-oriented studies that relate developmental differences in ground rules benefits to the cognitive processes that underlie rule understanding and imple- mentation. Optimally, this research should identify the most suitable ormat and placement of instruction in interviews and broaden to more often include field studies of child witnesses.
... Older children were significantly more accurate in their open-ended narratives than were younger children. Although this was in contrast to our prediction, and the findings of Lindsay (1995, 2001), it is consistent with Beuscher and Roebers' (2005) finding that 8-and 10-year-old children were more accurate in their free recall compared with 6-year-old children. For the direct examination, counter to predictions, older children were no more accurate than their younger counterparts in the direct examinations of either Interview 1 or Interview 2. Children from both age groups performed near ceiling on the neutral items in both the first and second direct examinations. ...
PurposeIn many jurisdictions child witnesses who testify in court about their own sexual abuse are cross-examined by a defence attorney. Children find this process to be distressing, and despite recent child-focussed modifications to other aspects of the legal process, cross-examination has remained largely unaltered. This lack of modification is due, in part, to the assumption that cross-examination promotes truthful testimony (Wigmore, 1974 Evidence in trials at common law). However, little empirical research has investigated the effects of cross-examination questions on children's reports of neutral and transgressive events. To examine these effects a laboratory-based study was conducted. Method
One hundred and twenty kindergarten (M = 6 years) and grade 2 (M = 8 years) students participated individually in a staged event. Children witnessed an adult commit a transgression and were then interviewed twice about it. Children first underwent a direct-examination interview followed by either a direct- or cross-examination interview. ResultsChildren's reports of neutral events were significantly less accurate in Interview 2 cross-examination, than they were in Interview 1 direct-examination, whereas children interviewed twice with direct-examination were equally accurate in Interviews 1 and 2. Furthermore, children whose second interview involved cross-examination were less accurate in their reports of neutral events than were children whose second interview was a direct examination. Cross-examination also affected some children's disclosures of a witnessed transgression. More of the older children provided truthful disclosures of the transgression in the initial direct examination compared with the Interview 2 cross-examination. Conclusions
Findings suggest that cross-examination as used in this study may not be the most effective procedure for eliciting truthful testimony for both neutral and transgressive events from children aged between 5 and 8 years.
... Furthermore, studies have yet to investigate the feasibility of interventions directly designed to improve children's capacity to answer cross-examination questions. Several researchers have, however, attempted to improve children's ability to resist suggestion (Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Ellis, Powell, Thomson, & Jones, 2003;Endres, Poggenpohl, & Erben, 1999;Memon & Vartoukian, 1996;Warren, Hulse-Trotter, & Tubbs, 1991). Many of these interventions have involved warning children about some of the difficulties they might encounter during questioning, and encouraging appropriate responding. ...
... Although early research in this area focused on adults (e.g., Christiaansen & Ochalek, 1983;Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982), these types of warnings have also proved successful with children (e.g., Lindsay, Gonzales, & Eso, 1995). Research has also demonstrated that verbal warnings about the difficult nature of a future interview could help children to resist misleading questions (e.g., Chambers & Zaragoza, 2001;Endres et al., 1999;Warren et al., 1991; but see Beuscher & Roebers, 2005). In Warren et al.'s (1991) study, for example, children answered misleading questions more accurately when they were warned that the questions might be tricky and told only to attempt questions they could answer. ...
... This seems unlikely for two reasons. First, not all warning interventions aimed at children have yielded positive effects (e.g., see Beuscher & Roebers, 2005), and any significant effects have typically been small. Second, the cross-examination interview not only comprises suggestive questions but also credibility-challenging questions, in which children face considerable pressure to comply with the interviewer. ...
This study investigated whether preinterview interventions could help to facilitate children's accuracy under cross-examination-style questioning. Five- and 6-year-olds (n = 77; mean [SD] age = 5.84 [0.48] years; 57% boys) and 9- and 10-year-olds (n = 87; mean [SD] age = 10.30 [0.54] years; 56% boys) took part in a staged event and were then interviewed with analogues of direct examination and cross-examination. In a pilot study, we ascertained that a brief verbal warning about the nature of cross-examination-given immediately prior to the cross-examination interview-did not influence children's cross-examination accuracy, regardless of whether it was delivered by an unfamiliar interviewer or the cross-examining interviewer. In the main experiment, some children participated in a brief intervention involving practice and feedback with cross-examination questions. Relative to control children, those who underwent this preparation intervention made fewer changes to their direct-examination responses under cross-examination, changed a smaller proportion of their correct responses, and obtained higher ultimate accuracy levels. These findings provide some support for the notion that pretrial interventions, if sufficiently comprehensive, could help children to maintain accuracy during cross-examination. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
... Others inform children about appropriate response styles to courtroom questioning (e.g., speaking loudly, slowly, and clearly; Sas, 1997). Research suggests, however, that simply warning children about question difficulty or telling them to say "I don't know" does not necessarily improve the accuracy of their responses (Cassel, Roebers, & Bjorklund, 1996;Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Ellis, Powell, Thomson, & Jones, 2003;Gee, Gregory, & Pipe, 1999;Memon & Vartoukian, 1996;Righarts, O'Neill, & Zajac, 2012; but see Endres, Poggenpohl, & Erben, 1999;Warren, Hulse-Trotter, & Tubbs, 1991 for exceptions). Given these findings, applied researchers have sought to develop preparation programs that are more comprehensive, and therefore more likely to facilitate children's accuracy. ...
Recent research has suggested that a comprehensive pretrial intervention utilizing a practice–feedback approach could help children to remain accurate in the face of challenging cross-examination questioning. We do not know, however, the extent to which this type of intervention remains effective as the delay between preparation intervention and cross-examination increases. To answer this question, 5- and 6-year olds (n = 88) and 9- and 10-year olds (n = 108) participated in a staged event and were then interviewed about it (direct examination). Six months later, children watched a videotape of this interview, and were then interviewed in an attempt to talk them out of their direct examination responses, regardless of accuracy (cross-examination). One day, 1 week, or 1 month prior to cross-examination, some children took part in a preparation intervention. These children were given practice at answering cross-examination-style questions about an unrelated topic, and received feedback on their responses. Remaining children received no preparation. Children's direct examination accuracy scores were high, but accuracy decreased markedly during cross-examination, especially for younger children. The preparation intervention significantly improved cross-examination accuracy above that of the control group when the program was delivered 1 day or 1 week prior to cross-examination, but not at a 1-month delay. Although the intervention conveyed considerable benefits, cross-examination still exerted a negative effect on children's accuracy in all preparation conditions. Our findings underscore the importance of considering not only the components of pretrial preparation programs, but also the timing of their delivery. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
... Children not only become better at remembering more information over time, but they also remember a higher ratio of accurate to inaccurate information over time. For example, Beuscher and Roebers (2005) tested 6, 8, and 10 year old children's memories about a brief video 1 week after its presentation. They found that the number of correct responses about the video increased with age and that the 6 year olds included a higher proportion of false details into their reports than either of the older age groups. ...
Young children are often called as witnesses to crimes they were victims of or observed. Because of their immaturity, child witnesses are sometimes more heavily scrutinized than adult witnesses before being allowed to testify in court, for example, through competency screening. This review discusses the psychology and US law relevant to decisions about children’s testimonial competency. Legally, a child is competent to provide in-court testimony if the presiding judge finds that the child can understand and answer basic interview questions, observe and recall pertinent events, understand the difference between truths and lies, and be affected by the moral obligation to tell the truth on the stand. We review the legal foundation and current practice of testimonial competence standards and discuss issues in the current system. We then review developmental psychology literature on children’s capabilities and individual differences in each domain of testimonial competency as well as the limited body of literature on competency exams. Finally, we make empirically-based recommendations and conclusions and highlight the need for further research and policy reforms related to children’s testimonial abilities.
... In fact, only one study has specifically looked at the effect of a warning on children's responses to unanswerable questions. Beuscher and Roebers (2005) showed children a video about sugar production and then interviewed the children using answerable and unanswerable questions. Prior to the interview children were instructed in the acceptability of the "don't know" response and were warned that some of the questions might "fool" them. ...
Adults ask children questions in a variety of contexts, for example, in the classroom, in the forensic context, or in experimental research. In such situations children will inevitably be asked some questions to which they do not know the answer, because they do not have the required information ("unanswerable" questions). When asked unanswerable questions, it is important that children indicate that they do not have the required information to provide an answer. These 2 studies investigated whether preinterview instructions (Experiment 1) or establishing a memory narrative (Experiment 2) helped children correctly indicate a lack of knowledge to unanswerable questions. In both studies, 6- and 8-year-olds participated in a classroom-based event about which they were subsequently interviewed. Some of the questions were answerable, and some were unanswerable. Results showed that preinterview instructions increased the number of younger children's appropriate "don't know" responses to unanswerable questions, without decreasing correct responses to answerable questions. This suggests that demand characteristics affect children's tendency correctly to say "I don't know." The opportunity to provide a narrative account increased children's appropriate "don't know" responses to unanswerable yes/no questions, and increased the number of younger children's correct responses to answerable questions. This suggests that cognitive factors also contribute to children's tendency correctly to say "I don't know." These results have implications for any context where adults need to obtain information from children through questioning, for example, a health practitioner asking about a medical condition, in classroom discourse, in the investigative interview, and in developmental psychology research.
... Previous research has shown that children as young as 5 years who used do-not-know responses more frequently provided proportionally more accurate (and less inaccurate) information (Schaaf et al., 2008). Beuscher and Roebers (2005) found that older children were more likely than younger children to give do-not-know responses when asked unanswerable questions, after being warned about such questions. The researchers suggested that older children may have been more comfortable with the social demands of formal interviews. ...
The present study examined (1) the ways investigative interviewers in forensic settings prepared children for substantive questioning, and (2) whether the techniques used and the amount of time spent in the pre-substantive phase were related to children's informativeness. Accuracy of the children's statements was not assessed. The sample included investigative interviews of a small sample of 75 alleged victims of sexual abuse in Malaysia, aged 5 to 15 years. Explanations of the conversational rules, purpose of the interview, and the children's roles as informants appeared to help the youngest children to be informative. The results also revealed possible limits to the potential benefits of rapport-building and suggest that interviewers should monitor the amount of time they spend preparing children for substantive questioning. Implications for addressing the limitations of the present research and directions for future research are discussed.
