Using the Cognitive Interview to question children with intellectual disabilities about a transgression

• In Event: 3-031 - Children's Honesty

Integrative Statement

Children with intellectual disabilities (CWID) are often reluctant to disclose the transgression of another person to an unfamiliar adult (Wissink et al., 2015), which can reduce public perceptions of their credibility as eyewitnesses (Henry, Ridley, Perry, & Crane, 2011). However, to date there has been little research examining CWID’s willingness and abilities to truthfully and falsely disclose about another’s transgression when being questioned using generalizable interview protocols. To address this gap in the literature, the current study analyzed the efficacy of the Cognitive Interview (CI) and a Standard Interview (SI) for encouraging CWID to produce honest, forthcoming and detailed reports about another’s transgression.

After watching a live magic show wherein the magician made a major error, children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities (N = 50; ages 6 to 18) were asked by the magician to keep the transgression a secret. Next, children were interviewed using the CI (free-recall, cognitive load and closed-ended questions) or a SI (free-recall and closed-ended questions) by an unfamiliar researcher. For the three dependent measures, the children’s novel event details disclosed about the transgression, statement veracity, and disclosure forthcomingness (i.e., the specific questions whereby a child first discloses or denies the transgression) were coded. Based on prior literature (Vrij et al., 2017), it was expected that CI group would produce more honest, forthcoming, and detailed disclosures. Additionally, truth-tellers in the CI group were expected to give more forthcoming and detailed disclosures than the lie-tellers. Furthermore, disclosure detail was expected to increase with age and cognitive IQ test performance.

Binary logistic regression analyses indicated that the lie-tellers (36% of participants) were less likely, with marginal significance, to disclose the ink spill on the initial free-recall question (B = -2.25) compared to the truth-tellers, Wald (1) = 3.472, p = .06. Whereas, the lie-tellers were significantly more likely (B = 2.45) to make their false disclosure (falsely deny the magician’s ink spill) on the final closed-ended question, Wald (1) = 5.07, p = .02. Further, MANOVA analyses indicated that the truth-tellers (M details = 6.23) disclosed significantly more information about the ink spill throughout the CI than the lie-tellers (M details = .33), F(1, 22) = 7.53, p = .01. Conversely, there were no significant interview group (CI vs. SI), age or cognitive test performance differences in event details disclosed, statement veracity or disclosure forthcomingness.

The current study suggests that CWID above the age of 6 can produce true and false reports about a transgression they witnessed. When telling the truth, CWID discussed the ink spill earlier in the interview on the free-recall question; whereas, lie-tellers falsely denied the transgression on the final closed-ended question. Truth-tellers in the CI group also provided the most details about the ink spill. However, the CI protocol did not result in more honest, forthcoming or detailed disclosures when compared to the SI. Thus, those seeking the truth from CWID should use open-ended free-recall questions.

Authors

• Joshua Wyman, McGill University
  Presenting Author

• Christine Saykaly, McGill University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Valentine Clary, McGill University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Victoria Talwar, McGill University
  Non-Presenting Author