When does quality count?: Perceptions of hearsay testimony about child sexual abuse interviews

Effects of child interview tactics on prospective jurors' decisions

Although decisions in child sexual abuse (CSA) cases are influenced by many factors (e.g., child age, juror gender), case and trial characteristics (e.g., interview quality) can strongly influence legal outcomes. In the present study, 319 prospective jurors read about a CSA investigation in which the alleged victim was interviewed at a child advocacy center (CAC) or traditional police setting. The prospective jurors then provided legally relevant ratings (e.g., child credibility, interview quality, defendant guilt). Structural equation modeling techniques revealed that child credibility predicted greater confidence in guilt decisions and also mediated all associations with such decisions. Having fewer negative prior opinions and rating the interview as of better quality were associated with higher child credibility ratings. Mitigating factors (e.g., interview quality), as opposed to proxy indicators (e.g., participant gender), better predicted CSA case outcomes. Similar associations across groups (e.g., CAC interviews did not make child victims more or less credible) permit a tentative conclusion that CACs do not positively or negatively affect decisions made in hypothetical CSA cases. Ideas for future studies examining factors influencing decisions in CSA cases are discussed.

How common is "common knowledge" about child witnesses among legal professionals? Comparing interviewers, public defenders, and forensic psychologists with laypeople

The present study evaluates the knowledge of jury-eligible college students (n = 192), investigative interviewers (n = 44), forensic psychologists (n = 39), and public defenders (n = 137) in regard to the research on interviewing children. These groups' knowledge was compared with the scientific research on the impact of interview techniques and practices on the accuracy of child witnesses. Jury-eligible students were the least knowledgeable, but their accuracy varied widely across items. Both interviewers and public defenders performed better than jury-eligible students, but they lacked substantial knowledge about the research on interviewing children on certain topics (e.g., using anatomically detailed dolls); forensic psychologists were the most knowledgeable. These findings suggest that professionals in the legal system need substantial professional development regarding the research on interviewing strategies with child witnesses. They also highlight the need for experts to provide case-relevant information to juries who lack basic information about the validity and reliability of children's reports.

"How did you feel?": increasing child sexual abuse witnesses' production of evaluative information

In child sexual abuse cases, the victim's testimony is essential, because the victim and the perpetrator tend to be the only eyewitnesses to the crime. A potentially important component of an abuse report is the child's subjective reactions to the abuse. Attorneys may ask suggestive questions or avoid questioning children about their reactions, assuming that children, given their immaturity and reluctance, are incapable of articulation. We hypothesized that How questions referencing reactions to abuse (e.g., "how did you feel") would increase the productivity of children's descriptions of abuse reactions. Two studies compared the extent to which children provided evaluative content, defined as descriptions of emotional, cognitive, and physical reactions, in response to different question-types, including How questions, Wh- questions, Option-posing questions (yes-no or forced-choice), and Suggestive questions. The first study examined children's testimony (ages 5-18) in 80 felony child sexual abuse cases. How questions were more productive yet the least prevalent, and Option-posing and Suggestive questions were less productive but the most common. The second study examined interview transcripts of 61 children (ages 6-12) suspected of being abused, in which children were systematically asked How questions regarding their reactions to abuse, thus controlling for the possibility that in the first study, attorneys selectively asked How questions of more articulate children. Again, How questions were most productive in eliciting evaluative content. The results suggest that interviewers and attorneys interested in eliciting evaluative reactions should ask children "how did you feel?" rather than more direct or suggestive questions.

Expert testimony regarding child witnesses: does it sensitize jurors to forensic interview quality?

Does expert testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework expert testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child's Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether expert testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without expert testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with expert testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further expert testimony increased mock jurors' knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that expert testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children's reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.