The relationship between within-interview contradictions and eliciting interviewer utterances

Pergamon Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

The relationship between within-interview contradictions and eliciting interviewer utterances Yael Orbach, Michael E. Lamb* Section on Social and Emotional Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, BSA Building, Room 331, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA Received 23 May 2000; received in revised form 18 August 2000; accepted 21 August 2000

Abstract Objective: To determine whether interview practices associated with inaccurate reporting in laboratory analog contexts were also associated with inaccurate information in actual forensic contexts. Method: The forensic interview of a 5–year-old girl, an alleged victim of sexual abuse, was analyzed to explore interview practices associated with the retrieval of contradictory information. Content analyses of the child’s responses focused on: (1) new informative details about the reported incidents; (2) contradictory details; (3) “central” and “peripheral” details; and (4) the types of utterances used to elicit each detail. Results: The results illustrate how risky option-posing and suggestive utterances can be, as most (90%) contradicting details were elicited using option-posing and suggestive utterances and almost all (98%) of the contradicted and contradicting details were central, containing crucial information concerning the investigated allegation. No contradictory details were elicited in response to openended invitations. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that poor interviewing practices can be associated with high levels of internal contradiction and should be avoided by forensic interviewers. To avoid contaminating children’s reports and increase the likely accuracy of the information retrieved, moreover, interviewers should elicit as much information as possible using open-ended utterances, which tap free-recall memory. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Investigative interviews; Contradictions; Accuracy; Suggestive questions; Open-ended questions

* Corresponding author. 0145-2134/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 5 - 2 1 3 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 2 5 4 - 4

324

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

Introduction Because alleged victims are often the only available sources of information about their experiences, professionals have made extensive efforts to understand how the accuracy of children’s testimony can be evaluated and maximized. Most of this research has been conducted in laboratory analog contexts, where researchers can stage events and thus know exactly what actually happened to the children. Because the generalizability or “ecological validity” of such research is often questioned, however, it is crucially important to conduct research in the field, so that the applicability of the experimental literature can be evaluated systematically. The goal of the present study was to determine whether interview practices associated with inaccurate reporting in laboratory analog contexts were also associated with inaccurate information in actual forensic contexts. In many studies, researchers have explored the association between contradictions, across interviews or across narratives within the same interview, and the overall level of accuracy (Brewer, Potter, Fisher, Bond, & Luszcz, 1999; Brock, Fisher, & Cutler, 1999; Bruck, Ceci, & Hembrooke, 1998; Fisher & Cutler, 1995; Fivush & Schwarzmueller, 1995). Because this was a field study, the reported details could not be verified independently, however, so we instead used the incidence of internally contradictory information to index inaccuracy. In a similar field study, Lamb and Fauchier (in press) examined the circumstances in which seven alleged sexual abuse victims repeated or contradicted forensically relevant details. Suggestive questions elicited a disproportionately high number of contradictions in that study, whereas no responses to free recall prompts were ever contradicted. In light of extensive evidence that the accuracy of reported information depends in large part on the means by which the information is elicited (Dent & Stephenson, 1979; Goodman, Hirschman, Hepps, & Rudy, 1991; Hutcheson, Baxter, Telfer, & Warden, 1995; Lamb & Fauchier, in press; Oates & Shrimpton, 1991), the objective of the present study was to determine whether excessive reliance on option-posing and suggestive utterances to elicit information was associated with an increase in the amount of internal contradiction. Like Lamb and Fauchier (in press), we focused on the eliciting conditions associated with the retrieval of contradictory information, but whereas Lamb and Fauchier (in press) examined ‘average’ interviews (i.e., interviews similar in structure and quality to investigative interviews conducted by peer interviewers in investigative agencies around the world), the investigative interview examined in the present study was selected because it was characterized by excessive reliance on questionable practices, and we expected that such an interview would elucidate the extent to which these negative practices fostered internal contradictions. Many researchers have demonstrated that information elicited using recognition memory probes is less likely to be accurate than information elicited using recall memory probes in both field and laboratory analog contexts (Dale, Loftus, & Rathbun, 1978; Dent, 1982, 1986; Dent & Stephenson, 1979; Goodman et al., 1991; Hutcheson et al., 1995; Lamb & Fauchier, in press; Oates & Shrimpton, 1991). In addition, option-posing, yes/no, and suggestive questions subvert children’s competency, foster acquiescence to misleading information, and increase the retrieval of erroneous information (Brady, Poole, Warren, & Jones, 1999; Bruck & Ceci, 1995, 1996; Ceci & Bruck, 1993, 1995; Ceci & Huffman, 1997; Garven, Wood,

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

325

Malpass, & Shaw, 2000; Hunt & Borgida, 1998; Peterson, Dowden, & Tobin, 1999; Poole & Lindsay, in press). In the experimental laboratory, information suggested by interviewers is often incorporated by eyewitnesses into their memories of experienced events (Ackil & Zaragoza, 1995; Belli, Lindsay, Gales, & McCarthy, 1994; Ceci & Bruck, 1993, 1995; Lindsay, 1990; Zaragoza & Lane, 1994; Zaragoza & Mitchell, 1996) especially where preschool children are involved (Brady et al., 1999; Cassel & Bjorklund, 1995; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Ceci & Huffman, 1997; Huffman, 1997; Hunt & Borgida, 1998; Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; Muir-Broaddus, 1997; Quas, Goodman, Bidrose, Pipe, Craw, & Ablin, in press; Roberts & Blades, 2000; Robinson & Briggs, 1997) and the suggestions are repeated (Mitchell & Zaragoza, 1996). In addition, Endres, Poggenpohl, and Erben (1999) showed that suggestive prompts led preschoolers to contradict information that they had provided earlier in an interview. Similarly, yes/no questions frequently elicit erroneous information from children, particularly young children (Poole & White, 1991, 1993). The contaminating effects of option-posing and suggestive utterances are aggravated when they are repeated. Thus, children contradict themselves at a higher rate when optionposing questions are repeated (Bruck et al., 1998) while repeated exposure to yes/no and suggestive questions reduces children’s overall accuracy (Memon & Vartoukian, 1996; Poole & White, 1991, 1993, 1995). Whereas repeated open-ended questions are often perceived as requests for additional information, suggested Poole and White (1991), repeated yes/no questions might be perceived as indications that the initial responses were unacceptable and thus should be changed (Ackil & Zaragoza, 1995; Brady et al., 1999; Douglas, Park, Bjorklund, Gache, Sanders, Nelson, Cassel, & Bjorklund, 1997; Memon & Vartoukian, 1996; Poole & White, 1991, 1995; Roberts & Blades, 1995, 2000), especially by younger children (4 year olds). In the interview examined here, a 5 year old alleged victim of sexual abuse was repeatedly exposed to suggestion and recognition memory prompts by the interviewer. The effects of these interview practices on the rate of internal contradictions were the focus of our analysis. The literature suggests that the adverse effects of leading and suggestive practices should be aggravated when children are very young, when such practices occur early in the interview, and when they are repeated. The specific interview was selected for our study of the circumstances associated with the retrieval of contradictory information because it was so highly suggestive and exemplified well all the conditions associated with high levels of inaccuracy in laboratory analog contexts.

Method Subjects The interview analyzed here was performed in the late 1980s by a psychologist investigating allegations of sexual abuse in a family day care home. The investigation led to a conviction that was later overturned on appeal. At the time of the interview, this alleged victim was 5 years old.

326

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

Procedure The interview was video-recorded and transcribed by a professional transcriber. The transcript was checked against the video recording of the interview to ensure its completeness and accuracy. Two coders, who had been trained to code investigative interviews, but were unaware of the purpose of the study, independently coded the transcript of the video-recorded interview. The coding involved identifying informative details reported by the child and categorizing each of the interviewer’s eliciting utterances. Details were defined as words or phrases identifying or describing individuals, objects, or events (including actions) that were part of the alleged incident being investigated. All such details were by definition forensically relevant, whereas nonsubstantive information was not coded. Details were quantified using techniques first developed by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) and subsequently elaborated by Lamb, Hershkowitz, Sternberg, Esplin, Hovav, Manor, and Yudilevitch (1996). Allegationspecific details (e.g., about sexual acts or sexual body parts) that specified the outline of the abusive event (changing such details would change the alleged plot) were defined as ‘Central.’ Descriptive details (e.g., descriptions of the suspect or location) about the incident that were not allegation-specific (changing such details would not change the plot of the alleged incident) were defined as ‘Peripheral.’ Only new details (those appearing for the first time) were counted. Repeated details were not counted. Details which were inconsistent with earlier disclosed information were defined as ‘contradictory.’ Content analyses of the child’s responses focused on: (1) new informative details about the reported incidents; (2) contradictory details; (3) “central” and “peripheral” details; and (4) the types of utterances used to elicit each detail. All substantive utterances or prompts were categorized into one of the following categories: 1. Invitations. Utterances, including questions, statements, or imperatives, prompting free-recall responses from the child. Such utterances do not delimit the child’s focus except in a general way (for example, “Tell me everything that happened”), or use details disclosed by the child as cues (for example, “You mentioned that he touched you. Tell me everything about the touching.”). 2. Directive utterances. These refocus the child’s attention on details or aspects of the alleged incident that the child has already mentioned, providing a category for requesting additional information using “Wh-” questions (cued recall). 3. Option-posing utterances. These focus the child’s attention on details or aspects of the alleged incident that the child has not previously mentioned, asking the child to affirm, negate, or select an investigator-given option using recognition memory processes, but do not imply that a particular response is expected. 4. Suggestive utterances. These are stated in such a way that the interviewer strongly communicates what response is expected (for example: “He forced you to do that, didn’t he?”) OR they assume details that have not been revealed by the child (for example: Child: “We laid on the sofa.” Interviewer: “He laid on you or you laid on him?”).

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

327

Table 1 The structure of interviews with 4-6 year-old children (All figures represent the proportions (in percentages) of the total number of substantive utterances in the interview) Utterance Type

USAa (N ⫽ 16)

Israelb (N ⫽ 8)

Swedenc (N ⫽ 21)

Present Study (N ⫽ 1)

Invitation Directive Option-posing Suggestive

9.58 39.49 36.84 14.09

6.36 44.99 36.39 12.26

6.15 44.66 34.74 14.45

8.38 16.75 43.98 30.89

a

Sub-samples of children studied by Sternberg, Lamb, Orbach, Esplin, & Mitchell (in press). Sub-samples of children studied by Orbach et al. (2000). c Sub-samples of children studied by Cederborg, Orbach, Sternberg, & Lamb (2000). b

Interviewer utterances not related to the alleged incident under investigation (e.g., references to the interviewer’s and child’s roles) interjected within the substantive portion of the interview were coded as ‘Nonsubstantive.’ Any incident-related information provided by the child following such utterances was coded as ‘spontaneous,’ that is, provided spontaneously by the child rather than in response to an information-eliciting prompt. Before coding transcripts for the study, two raters were trained on an independent set of transcripts until they agreed on the identification of at least 95% of the details and utterance types. The interview was then coded independently by both raters. Any disagreements were discussed to consensus.

Results Table 1 presents a comparison of the structure of the interview analyzed in this study with the structure of forensic interviews with children of comparable ages conducted by investigators in the USA, Sweden, and Israel. Like many interviewers, the present interviewer employed many undesirable practices (option-posing and suggestive utterances) and posed very few of the open-ended utterances which elicit information of higher accuracy but the present interviewer was much more reliant on suggestive prompts than the comparison interviewers (see Table 1). Similarly, the proportion of informative details elicited by suggestive utterances was higher in the present interview (36%) than in the comparison interviews (see Table 2). Option-posting and suggestive utterances were posed from the beginning of the interview, as indicated by the fact that no information was provided by the child prior to the investigator’s first option-posing or suggestive prompt. Of the 195 substantive utterances in the interview, 143 (73%) were option-posing or suggestive in nature. Fifty-nine (41%) of the 143 option-posing and suggestive utterances were associated with contradictory details, either because they elicited information that was later contradicted (14 utterances, 24% [Example: Line 216 —Interviewer: “Did X. take his clothes off or did he leave his clothes on?” Child: “He leaves his clothes on;” Line 499 —Interviewer: “He took his clothes off?” Child: “Yes.”]) or because they elicited details that contradicted details reported earlier (45 utter-

328

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

Table 2 Informative details provided by 4-6 year-old children in forensic interviews. (All figures represent the proportions (in percentages) of the total number of substantive utterances in the interview) Eliciting Utterance Type

USAa (N ⫽ 16)

Israelb (N ⫽ 8)

Swedenc (N ⫽ 21)

Present Study (N ⫽ 1)

Invitation Directive Option-posing Suggestive

10.89 41.69 29.03 18.39

11.01 43.84 30.35 14.79

8.10 39.00 34.05 14.48

9.43 14.89 37.96 35.73

a

Sub-samples of children studies by Sternberg et al. (in press). Sub-samples of children studies by Orbach et al. (2000). c Sub-samples of children studied by Cederborg et al. (2000). b

ances, 76% [Example: Line 230 —Interviewer: “Did he say anything to you? Did he talk to you?” Child: “No;” Line 445—Interviewer: “What did he say would happen?” Child: “You will get in big bad trouble.”]). Many (85%) of the utterances eliciting contradictory information in this study were yes/no questions. Moreover, five (25%) of the 20 option-posing utterances and 13 (52%) of the 25 suggestive utterances that elicited contradictory details were repeated. Likewise, of the 403 details provided by the child during the interview, 138 details (34%) were associated with contradiction, in that 51 details were later contradicted and 87 details contradicted information that had been reported earlier. All but one of the 51 details that were later contradicted (98%) and 80 of the 87 contradicting details (92%) were central (i.e., plot-crucial). Moreover, in over 50% of the contradicting details, of which 91% were elicited in response to option-posing or suggestive questions, the child provided information contrary to her earlier denials. As shown in Table 3, 82 (94%) of the 87 contradicting details were elicited using option-posing or suggestive utterances. The remaining five contradicting details (6%) were elicited using one directive utterance (a summary). No contradiction occurred in response to an open-ended utterance (see Table 3). A posthoc analysis revealed that in 40% of the option-posing and suggestive utterances which elicited contradictory details, the interviewer cast doubt on the truthfulness of the child’s response by asking such questions as “Did he really do it?” or “Is that the truth or a lie?”.

Table 3 Eliciting utterance types and the production of new and contradictory details Utterance Type

New Details

Contradictory Details

Invitation Directive Option-posing Suggestive

38 (9%) 60 (15%) 148 (38%) 144 (36%)

0 (0%) 5 (6%) 41 (47%) 41 (47%)

Numbers in parentheses are percentages within the columns.

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

329

Discussion Determining the accuracy of child witnesses’ accounts in forensic contexts is possible only in those rare cases that corroborative evidence exists and the lack of corroborative evidence in most child abuse cases has enhanced the importance of research on the accuracy and credibility of children’s statements about forensically important issues. It is particularly important to identify interviewing conditions associated with both accurate and inaccurate reporting, as this in turn informs recommendations regarding desirable interviewing practices. In the present study, it was possible to identify some details as inaccurate because they were specifically contradicted by the child herself, and the interviewing practices associated with these contradictions were explored. The interview studied was characterized by an extraordinary reliance on recognition memory prompts and excessive use of option-posing and suggestive questions (71% of the total number of utterances), which denied the child an opportunity to provide free-recall information about the alleged incidents and required that she merely confirm, reject, or select options given by the investigator, exposing her to suggestive, contaminating input. The results illustrate how risky option-posing and suggestive utterances can be, as contradictions were almost always (94% of the time) elicited by option-posing and suggestive utterances. Moreover, almost all of the contradicted (98%) and contradicting (92%) details were central, containing crucial information concerning the investigated allegation. The impact of the interviewer’s contamination, as indexed by the elicitation of contradictory information, is further illustrated by the fact that the child even contradicted some details initially elicited using open-ended prompts (such as “tell me everything that happened”) which conveyed no information from the interviewer and are typically associated with accurate responses (Dent, 1982; Dent & Stephenson, 1979; Goodman & Aman, 1990; Goodman et al., 1991; Ornstein, Gordon, & Larus, 1992). In the present interview, 12 of the 51 details provided in response to an open-ended invitation were later contradicted. These contradictions were, however, elicited in response to the fourth repetition of a suggestive question after the child had confirmed the original information three times! No contradicting details emerged in response to open-ended prompts, whereas nearly 95% of the contradicting details were elicited using option-posing and suggestive utterances. Interestingly, over 50% of the contradicting details, of which 91% were retrieved in response to option-posing or suggestive utterances, involved the child making allegations that she had initially denied. These findings are in line with laboratory analog studies demonstrating that information elicited using recognition memory probes is less likely to be accurate than information elicited using recall memory probes (Goodman et al., 1991; Hutcheson et al., 1995; Oates & Shrimpton, 1991), and rare studies in the field demonstrating that no inaccurate or contradictory information is elicited using open-ended prompts (Lamb & Fauchier, in press; Orbach & Lamb, 1999). Moreover, 40% of the option-posing (including yes/no) and suggestive questions that elicited contradictions in the present study were repeated, thereby confirming the results of laboratory analog studies (Bruck et al., 1998; Greenhoot, Ornstein, Gordon, & Baker-Ward, 1999; Warren, Hulse-Trotter, & Tubbs, 1991) showing that the repetition of option-posing and suggestive questions is more likely to elicit erroneous information. In addition, a posthoc analysis indicated that 40% of the option-posing and

330

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

suggestive questions which elicited contradictions contained interviewer comments that cast doubt on the child’s truthfulness (e.g., “Did that really happen?;” “Is that a lie or the truth?”). In all, this analysis of within-interview contradictions reveals in a very compelling way that poor interview practices can be associated with high levels of internal contradiction and should therefore be avoided by forensic interviewers. To avoid contaminating children’s reports and increase the likely accuracy of the information retrieved, moreover, interviewers should elicit as much information as possible using open-ended utterances, which tap free recall memory.

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Hana Shiloach for helping to code the transcribed interview, Michelle Garretson for assistance with the analyses, and Melissa Rudd and Lori Sideman for checking reliability.

References Ackil, J. K., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1995). Developmental differences in suggestibility and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 57– 83. Belli, R. F., Lindsay, D. S., Gales, M. S., & McCarthy, T. T. (1994). Memory impairment and source misattribution in postevent misinformation experiments with short retention intervals. Memory and Cognition, 21, 40 –54. Brady, M., Poole, D. A., Warren, A., & Jones, D. (1999). Young children’s responses to yes-or-no questions: patterns and problems. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 47–57. Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N., & Luszcz, M. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 297–313. Brock, P., Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Examining the cognitive interview in a double-test paradigm. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 5, 29 – 45. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. (1995). Amicus Brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels presented by Committee of Concerned Social Scientists. Psychology, Public Policy, and The Law, 1, 272–322. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1996). Issues in the scientific validation of interviews with young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 204 –214. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (1998). Reliability and credibility of young children’s reports. American Psychologist, 53 (2), 136 –151. Cassel, W. S., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1995). Developmental patterns of eyewitness memory and suggestibility: an ecologically based short-term longitudinal study. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 507–532. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: a historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403– 439. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: a scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ceci, S. J., & Huffman, M. L. C. (1997). How suggestible are preschool children? Cognitive and social factors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 948 –958. Cederborg, A., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Investigative interviews of child witnesses in Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1355–1361. Dale, P. S., Loftus, E. F., & Rathbun, L. (1978). The influence of the form of the question on the eyewitness testimony of preschool children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7, 269 –277.

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

331

Dent, H. R. (1982). The effects of interviewing strategies on the results of interviews with child witnesses. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the past: the role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 279 –297). Stockholm: Norstedt. Dent, H. R. (1986). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning mentally handicapped child witnesses. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 13–17. Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 41–51. Douglas, R., Park, C., Bjorklund, B., Gache, J., Sanders, L., Nelson, L., Cassel, W., & Bjorklund, D. (1997, April). Social demand characteristics in children’s eyewitness memory and suggestibility: the effects of different interviewers. Presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Convention, Washington, DC. Endres, J., Poggenpohl, C., & Erben, C. (1999). Repetitions, warnings and video: cognitive and motivational components in preschool children’s suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 129 –146. Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In G. M. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: international developments in research and practice (pp. 21–28). Berlin: De Gruyter. Fivush, R., & Schwarzmueller, A. (1995). Say it once again: effects of repeated questions on children’s event recall. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8, 555–580. Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R. S., & Shaw, J. S. (2000). Allegations of wrongdoing: the effect of reinforcement on children’s mundane and fantastic claims. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 38 – 49. Goodman, G. S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children’s use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61, 1859 –1871. Goodman, G. S., Hirschman, J. E., Hepps, D., & Rudy, L. (1991). Children’s memory for stressful events. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 37, 109 –157. Greenhoot, A. F., Ornstein, P. A., Gordon, B. N., & Baker-Ward, L. (1999). Acting out the details of a pediatric check-up: the impact of interview condition and the behavioral style on children’s memory reports. Child Development, 70, 363–380. Huffman, M. L. (1997). Can criterion-based context analysis discriminate between accurate and false reports of preschoolers? A validation attempt. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Hunt, J. S., & Borgida, E. (1998, March). Beyond leading questions: modifications in eyewitness interviews. Presented at the American Psychology-Law Society convention, Redondo Beach, CA. Hutcheson, G. D., Baxter, J. S., Telfer, K., & Warden, D. (1995). Child witness statement quality: question type and errors of omission. Law & Human Behavior, 19, 631– 648. Lamb, M. E., & Fauchier, A. (in press). The effects of question type on self-contradiction by children in the course of forensic interviews. Applied Cognitive Development. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hovav, M., Manor, T., & Yudilevitch, L. (1996). Effects of investigative utterance types on Israeli children’s responses. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 627– 637. Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolers’ reports. Developmental Psychology, 31, 568 –578. Lindsay, D. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitness’s ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1077–1083. Memon, A., & Vartoukian, R. (1996). The effect of repeated questioning on young children’s eyewitness testimony. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 403– 415. Mitchell, K. J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and false memory: the role of contextual variability. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 246 –260. Muir-Broaddus, J. E. (1997, April). The effects of social influence and psychological reactance on children’s responses to repeated questions. Presented at the Society for Research in Child Development convention, Washington, DC. Oates, K., & Shrimpton, S. (1991). Children’s memories for stressful and non-stressful events. Medical Science and Law, 31, 4 –10.

332

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 733–752. Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (1999). Assessing the accuracy of a child’s account of sexual abuse: a case study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 91–98. Ornstein, P. A., Gordon, B. N., & Larus, D. M. (1992). Children’s memory for a personally experienced event: implications for testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 49 – 60. Peterson, C., Dowden, C., & Tobin, J. (1999). Interviewing preschoolers: comparisons of Yes/No and Whquestions. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 539 –555. Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (in press). Children’s suggestibility. In G. S. Goodman, M. L. Eisen, & J. A. Quas (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1991). Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27, 975–986. Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1993). Two years later: effect of question repetition and retention interval on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 29, 844 – 853. Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1995). Tell me again and again: stability and change in the repeated testimonies of children and adults. In M. S. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman, & Y. S. Ben Porath (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 24 – 43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Bidrose, S., Pipe, M-E., Craw, S., & Ablin, D. S. (in press). Emotion and memory: children’s long-term remembering, forgetting, and suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Roberts, K. P., & Blades, M. (1995). Children’s discriminations of memories for actual and pretend actions in a hiding task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 321–333. Roberts, K., & Blades, M. (2000). Children’s memory and source-monitoring of real-life and televised events. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 575–596. Robinson, J., & Briggs, P. (1997). Age trends and eye-witness suggestibility and compliance. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 187–202. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (in press). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology. Warren, A. R., Hulse-Trotter, K., & Tubbs, E. (1991). Inducing resistance to suggestibility in children. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 273–285. Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291–301. Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 934 –945. Zaragoza, M. S., & Mitchell, K. J. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and the creation of false memories. Psychological Science, 7, 294 –300.

Resumen Objetivo: Determinar si las pra´cticas de entrevista asociadas con informes inexactos en contextos ana´logos de laboratorio estaban tambie´n asociadas con informacio´n inexacta en los contextos forenses actuales. Me´todo: Se analizo´ la entrevista forense de una nin˜a de 5 an˜os, una supuesta vı´ctima de abuso sexual, para explorar las pra´cticas de entrevista asociadas con la recuperacio´n de informacio´n contradictoria. Los ana´lisis del contenido de las respuestas de la nin˜a se centraron en: (1) nuevos detalles acerca de los incidentes reportados; (2) detalles contradictorios; (3) detalles “centrales” y “perife´ricos;” y (4) los tipos de expresiones utilizados para manifestar cada detalle. Resultados: Los resultados ilustran lo arriesgado que pueden ser las expresiones que presentan una

Y. Orbach, M.E. Lamb / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 323–333

333

opcio´n y las expresiones sugestivas, ya que la mayorı´a (90%) de los detalles contradictorios fueron manifestados utilizando presentacio´n de opciones y expresiones sugestivas y casi todos (98%) los detalles contrarios y contradictorios eran centrales, conteniendo informacio´n crucial en relacio´n al alegato investigado. No se presento´ ningu´n detalle contradictorio en respuesta a invitaciones de final abierto. Conclusio´n: Los resultados demuestran lo pobre que pueden ser las pra´cticas de entrevista asociadas con altos niveles de contradiccio´n interna y las cuales deben evitar los entrevistadores forenses. Adema´s, para evitar la contaminacio´n de los reportes infantiles y aumentar la posibilidad de exactitud en la informacio´n recogida, los entrevistadores deben procurar la mayor cantidad de informacio´n posible utilizando expresiones de final abierto, que hacen contacto con la libre asociacio´n de la memoria.