Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Children’s Ground Rule Application During an Investigative Interview

• In Event: Poster Session 09
  In Poster Session: PS 09 Topic - Attention, Learning, Memory

Abstract

When children are questioned by adults, it is imperative that they indicate when they do not know the answer to or understand a question. Thus, best-practice guidelines for interviewing children typically include a portion of the interview devoted to establishing the “ground rules” for the interview. These rules are designed to provide children with the language necessary to, for example, tell an interviewer when the interviewer has made a mistake, indicate that they do not know an answer, or indicate that they do not understand a question. Research has aimed to promote children’s appropriate ground rule responses within interview settings. However, this research has been conducted without a concomitant understanding of how such responses may affect adults’ perceptions of children’s performance. For example, saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t understand,” especially multiple times during an interview, may undermine children’s credibility. The present studies examined how adults perceive a child who applies either the “I don’t understand” (IDU) rule or the “I don’t know” (IDK) rule within an interview, including the potential effects of child age.

In Study 1, a 2 (Child Age: 6 v. 10) X 2 (IDU Application: 1 v. 6 times) design was implemented. Jury eligible adults (n = 140) read a randomly assigned transcript adapted from an actual investigative interview of a female child alleging sexual abuse. Participants responded to a battery of Likert-scale questions regarding their perception of the child (e.g., believability), their testimony (e.g., accuracy), and the interview (e.g., its fairness). Participants were also asked whether they would convict the alleged perpetrator. In Study 2, which is currently underway, a 2 (Child Age: 6 v. 10) X 2 (Rule: IDU v. IDK) X 2 (Rule Application Frequency: 1 time v. 6 times) design is being implemented. Our complete sample (n = 600) will be collected online via Amazon Mechanical Turk by November.

Preliminary results revealed that Child Age and IDU Application affected mock jurors’ perceptions of the child in several ways. For example, those viewing a transcript with 1 IDU application indicated a higher likelihood of the child intentionally lying during the interview than those who viewed a transcript with 6 IDU applications, F (3, 136) = 3.121, p = .028, µ2 = .064. Those in the 1 IDU condition also had marginally higher evaluations of children’s comprehension in the interview than those in the 6 IDU condition, F (3, 136) = 2.526, p = .060, µ2 = .053. Additional analyses will be conducted for Study 2.

The present studies are the first to investigate how adults view children who implement the IDU and IDK rules in response to interview questions. Because adults (e.g., judges, jurors) are responsible for evaluating and making judgements regarding children’s testimony, it is imperative to understand how ground rule responses affect these judgments and whether these vary based on children’s age. Results of the current studies have implications for all those who interview children (e.g., forensic interviewers, developmental researchers), design interview interventions, and provide expert testimony regarding child witnesses.

Authors

• Lillian A Rodriguez Steen, The College of Saint Rose
  Presenting Author

• Lindsay C Malloy, University of Ontario Institute of Technology
  Non-Presenting Author