Young children's difficulty with indirect speech acts: implications for questioning child witnesses

Children's Elaborated Responses to Yes-No Questions in Forensic Interviews About Sexual Abuse

Children tend to answer yes-no questions with unelaborated "yes" and "no" responses, but the types of details likely omitted from unelaborated answers have not been explored. This study examined 379 4- to 12-year-olds' answers to yes-no questions in forensic interviews about CSA (N = 11,187), focusing on age differences in elaborated responses. As expected, older children elaborated more frequently than younger children. Our novel categorization of elaboration types revealed that although there were no age differences in children's use of nominal corrections (correcting a label), or in emphatic negations (giving forceful denials), older children were more likely to give narrative elaborations (providing additional narrative information), wh-elaborations (answering implicit wh-questions), and qualified elaborations (avoiding potentially misleading implications of unelaborated "yes" and "no" responses). The results suggest that children's developing understanding of the implied meaning of questions and responses helps to explain age differences in elaborative responses to yes-no questions.

Using an AI-based avatar for interviewer training at Children's Advocacy Centers: Proof of Concept

This proof-of- concept study focused on interviewers' behaviors and perceptions when interacting with a dynamic AI child avatar alleging abuse. Professionals (N = 68) took part in a virtual reality (VR) study in which they questioned an avatar presented as a child victim of sexual or physical abuse. Of interest was how interviewers questioned the avatar, how productive the child avatar was in response, and how interviewers perceived the VR interaction. Findings suggested alignment between interviewers' virtual questioning approaches and interviewers' typical questioning behavior in real-world investigative interviews, with a diverse range of questions used to elicit disclosures from the child avatar. The avatar responded to most question types as children typically do, though more nuanced programming of the avatar's productivity in response to complex question types is needed. Participants rated the avatar positively and felt comfortable with the VR experience. Results underscored the potential of AI-based interview training as a scalable, standardized alternative to traditional methods.

Being pragmatic about syntactic bootstrapping

Words have meanings vastly undetermined by the contexts in which they occur. Their acquisition therefore presents formidable problems of induction. Lila Gleitman and colleagues have advocated for one part of a solution: indirect evidence for a word's meaning may come from its syntactic distribution, via syntactic bootstrapping. But while formal theories argue for principled links between meaning and syntax, actual syntactic evidence about meaning is noisy and highly abstract. This paper examines the role that syntactic bootstrapping can play in learning modal and attitude verb meanings, for which the physical context is especially uninformative. I argue that abstract syntactic classifications are useful to the child, but that something further is both necessary and available. I examine how pragmatic and syntactic cues can combine in mutually constraining ways to help learners infer attitude meanings, but need to be supplemented by semantic information from the lexical context in the case of modals.

Elaborations and Denials in Children's Responses to Yes-No Any/Some Questions in Forensic Interviews

This study examined 379 4- to 12-year-old children's answers to any/some and other yes-no questions in forensic interviews about sexual abuse (N = 10,041). Yes-no questions that include the terms any/some (e.g., "Did he say anything?") often implicitly ask for elaboration when the answer is yes ("What did he say?"). However, children may give unelaborated responses to yes-no questions, fail to recognize implicit requests, and falsely respond "no." As predicted, children gave more wh- elaborations in response to any/some questions than other yes-no questions, but younger children elaborated less often than older children. Also as predicted, children responded "no" more often to any/some questions than to other yes-no questions, and more often to "any" than to "some" questions. "No" responses were also more common when children were asked potentially vague anything/something questions and else/other/different questions. The results highlight the potential risks of asking children any/some questions.

Pseudotemporal Invitations: 6- to 9-year-Old Maltreated Children's Tendency to Misinterpret Invitations Referencing "Time" as Solely Requesting Conventional Temporal Information

Forensic interviewers ask children broad input-free recall questions about individual episodes in order to elicit complete narratives, often asking about "the first time," "the last time," and "one time." An overlooked problem is that the word "time" is potentially ambiguous, referring both to a particular episode and to conventional temporal information. We examined 191 6-9-year-old maltreated children's responses to questions about recent events varying the wording of the invitations, either asking children to "tell me about" or "tell me what happened" one time/the first time/the last time the child experienced recent recurrent events. Additionally, half of the children were asked a series of "when" questions about recurrent events before the invitations. Children were several times more likely to provide exclusively conventional temporal information to "tell me about" invitations compared to "tell me what happened" invitations, and asking "when" questions before the invitations increased children's tendency to give exclusively conventional temporal information. Children who answered a higher proportion of "when" questions with conventional temporal information were also more likely to do so in response to the invitations. The results suggest that children may often fail to provide narrative information because they misinterpret invitations using the word "time."

Suppositional Wh-Questions About Perceptions, Conversations, and actions are More Productive than Paired Yes-No Questions when Questioning Maltreated Children

Forensic interviewers are taught to pair yes-no questions with open-ended requests for recall in order to reduce the likelihood that they will be misled by false "yes" responses. However, yes-no questions may elicit false "no" responses. Questioning 112 6- to 11-year-old maltreated children about three innocuous events (outside activities, yesterday, last birthday), this study compared the productivity of paired yes-no questions about perceptions, conversations, and actions involving the hands and mouth (e.g., "Did you say anything?") with wh-questions (e.g., "What did you say?"). The wh-questions presupposed that children had content to provide, but did not specify that content. Children were twice as likely to deny content and half as likely to provide novel information when interviewers asked them yes-no questions. Younger children were more inclined than older children to deny content and give unelaborated "yes" responses. The results support further research into the potential for suppositional wh-questions to increase child witnesses' productivity.

Linguistically complex recognition prompts in pre-recorded cross-examinations

This study examined the effects of pre-trial preparation and pre-recorded cross-examinations on the linguistic complexity of recognition prompts (i.e., option-posing or suggestive questions) used when questioning child victims in English criminal courts. The study also compared the linguistic complexity of recognition prompts that did and did not contain suggestive content. Analyses compared 43 cases that involved pre-recorded cross-examinations with pre-trial preparation and 44 cases that did not, which occurred between 2012 and 2016. Cases utilizing the "special measures" contained fewer linguistically complex prompts with and without suggestive content than did their counterparts, demonstrating the benefits of those special measures. Overall, linguistically complex recognition prompts were more likely to contain suggestive content than other recognition prompts. However, linguistically complex prompts with and without suggestive content were still frequently used despite the special measures, demonstrating the need for further professional training to improve the quality of children's evidence.

Children’s accuracy in answering Why and How Come questions

Children’s developing understanding of language may influence their ability to accurately respond to questions inquiring about their event knowledge (i.e., Why and How Come questions), potentially creating misinterpretations in adult–child communication. The present study examined 120 5-, 7-, and 9-year-old’s accuracy in responding to Why and How Come questions about the cause of their behaviors. Children’s accuracy improved with age, highlighting a developmental milestone whereby children become highly accurate by 7 years of age. Further, the semantic differences in question type did not influence children’s responses, as there were no differences in children’s accuracy when answering Why or How Come questions. The findings from this study highlight the developmental shift in children’s abilities to answer Why and How Come questions, and thus the importance of considering the age and linguistic abilities of the child when inquiring about their event knowledge.

Editorial Perspective: Questioning kids: applying the lessons from developmentally sensitive investigative interviewing to the research context

In 1989, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child solidified that “the child who is capable of forming his or her own views [has] the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child.” Involving children as research participants is one key method of ensuring that children’s voices are heard, especially in psychological science where researchers gather information from children across clinical, developmental, health, cognitive, and social research contexts and in related fields like psychiatry, social work, nursing, and medicine. How we talk to children as researchers affects whether we produce rigorous science, and a consensus that has emerged from decades of research on children’s eyewitness testimony demands that we pause for critical self-reflection. In this piece, we propose that scientists studying children consider a large but siloed body of work on developmentally-sensitive investigative interviewing to facilitate complete, accurate, and honest responding from children in research studies. By examining how researchers phrase questions, how they contextualize questioning, and how they report methodology, we address concrete avenues for ensuring robust and reliable psychological science, as well as pathways for children’s optimal involvement in the research process.

Adults' Perceptions of Children's Referentially Ambiguous Responses

The present study examined adults' (N = 295) interpretations of child witnesses' referentially ambiguous "yes" and "no" responses to "Do You Know/Remember (DYK/R) if/whether" questions (e.g., "Do you know if it was blue?"). Participants were presented with transcripts from child sexual abuse cases modified based on question format (DYK/R vs. Direct) and child response type (Yes, No, I don't know) in a between subjects design. We assessed whether adults recognized that children's ambiguous responses were unclear, and if not, how they were interpreting children's responses compared to the control (Direct) conditions. More specifically, we assessed whether adults interpreted children's responses as answering the explicit (e.g., "No, I don't remember") or implicit (e.g., "No, it wasn't blue") question. Participants virtually never recognized ambiguous responses as unclear, and their interpretations were influenced by the attorney's question and child's response type. In sum, these results suggest that DYK/R questions often lead to misinterpretation, resulting in miscommunication.

'Where were your clothes?' Eliciting descriptions of clothing placement from children alleging sexual abuse in criminal trials and forensic interviews

PURPOSE

The present study examined how children alleging sexual abuse are asked about clothing placement during abusive episodes, both in criminal trials and forensic interviews. The placement of clothing is of great importance, because it facilitates distinguishing abusive touch from non-abusive touch, as well as the severity of abuse when the touching is in fact sexual. If clothing has not been removed, then sexual abuse appears less likely and certain types of sexual contact are physically impossible (or at least highly improbable).

METHODS

We examined how trial attorneys (n = 142) and forensic interviewers in investigative interviews (n = 155) questioned 5- 12-year-olds about the location of clothing during alleged sexual abuse. To do so, we identified all question-answer pairs that included references to clothing placement, and coded for the clothing item mentioned, whether the interviewer elicited information about clothing placement or the child spontaneously provided such information, question-type, and response-type.

RESULTS

Discussions about clothing placement were commonplace in both settings, particularly in court. Fewer than one in five question-answer pairs about clothing placement were spontaneous mentions by children; the questioner elicited most discussions. When interviewers asked wh- questions rather than yes/no and forced-choice questions, children provided more elaboration, more detailed clothing information, and were over six times more likely to describe clothing placement in a fashion that could not be captured by a single preposition (e.g., neither on nor off).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that descriptions of clothing placement are subject to serious misinterpretation when closed-ended questions are asked.

Pragmatic Failure and Referential Ambiguity when Attorneys Ask Child Witnesses "Do You Know/Remember" Questions

"Do you know" and "Do you remember" (DYK/R) questions explicitly ask whether one knows or remembers some information while implicitly asking for that information. This study examined how 104 4- to 9-year-old children testifying in child sexual abuse cases responded to DYK/R wh- and yes/no questions. When asked DYK/R questions containing an implicit wh- question requesting information, children often provided unelaborated "Yes" responses. Attorneys' follow-up questions suggested that children usually misunderstood the pragmatics of the questions. When DYK/R questions contained an implicit yes/no question, unelaborated "Yes" or "No" responses could be responding to the explicit or the implicit questions resulting in referentially ambiguous responses. Children often provided referentially ambiguous responses and attorneys usually failed to disambiguate children's answers. Although pragmatic failure following DYK/R wh- questions decreased with age, the likelihood of referential ambiguity following DYK/R yes/no questions did not. The results highlight the risks of serious miscommunications caused by pragmatic misunderstanding and referential ambiguity when children testify.

The Effects of Secret Instructions and Yes/no Questions on Maltreated and Non-maltreated Children's Reports of a Minor Transgression

This study examined the effects of secret instructions (distinguishing between good/bad secrets and encouraging disclosure of bad secrets) and yes/no questions (DID: "Did the toy break?" versus DYR: "Do you remember if the toy broke?") on 262 maltreated and non-maltreated children's (age range 4-9 years) reports of a minor transgression. Over two-thirds of children failed to disclose the transgression in response to free recall (invitations and cued invitations). The secret instruction increased disclosures early in free recall, but was not superior to no instruction when combined with cued invitations. Yes/no questions specifically asking about the transgression elicited disclosures from almost half of the children who had not previously disclosed, and false alarms were rare. DYR questions led to ambiguous responding among a substantial percentage of children, particularly younger children. The findings highlight the difficulties of eliciting transgression disclosures without direct questions. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.