In investigative interviews, it is vital that children request clarification when necessary so that crucial legal decisions can take into account the most accurate and detailed information. In the present study, 91 investigative interview transcripts about suspected child sexual abuse were coded to answer these research questions: (i) How often and how do children request clarification in investigative interviews? (ii) What factors (age, alleged abuse frequency, interviewer prompt type) are associated with children's requests? and (iii) How do interviewers respond to clarification requests, and are these interventions associated with relevant responses from children? Children rarely requested clarification, although, as expected, older children made more requests. Most requests were explicit (e.g., What do you mean?) and in response to invitation prompts. Question 'rephrasing' was the most common interviewer intervention regardless of child age. Results have implications for interviewing children in various contexts and for advancing our understanding of children's cognitive and communicative development.

Child maltreatment cases often hinge on a child's word versus a defendant's word, making children's disclosures crucially important. There is considerable debate concerning why children recant allegations, and it is imperative to examine recantation experimentally. The purpose of this laboratory analogue investigation was to test (a) how often children recant true allegations of an adult's wrongdoing after disclosing and (b) whether children's age and caregiver supportiveness predict recantation. During an interactive event, 6- to 9-year-olds witnessed an experimenter break a puppet and were asked to keep the transgression a secret. Children were then interviewed to elicit a disclosure of the transgression. Mothers were randomly assigned to react supportively or unsupportively to this disclosure, and children were interviewed again. We coded children's recantations (explicit denials of the broken puppet after disclosing) and changes in their forthcomingness (shifts from denial or claims of lack of knowledge/memory to disclosure and vice versa) in free recall and in response to focused questions about the transgression. Overall, 23.3% of the children recanted their prior disclosures (46% and 0% in the unsupportive and supportive conditions, respectively). No age differences in recantation rates emerged, but 8- and 9-year-olds were more likely than 6- and 7-year-olds to maintain their recantation throughout Interview 2. Children whose mothers reacted supportively to disclosure became more forthcoming in Interview 2, and those whose mothers reacted unsupportively became less forthcoming. Results advance theoretical understanding of how children disclose negative experiences, including sociomotivational influences on their reports, and have practical implications for the legal system.

The underlying reasons for recantation in children's disclosure of child sexual abuse (CSA) have been debated in recent years. In the present study, we examined the largest sample of substantiated CSA cases involving recantations to date (n = 58 cases). We specifically matched those cases to 58 nonrecanters on key variables found to predict recantation in prior research (i.e., child age, alleged parent figure perpetrator, and caregiver unsupportiveness). Bivariate analyses revealed that children were less likely to recant when they were (1) initially removed from home postdisclosure and (2) initially separated from siblings postdisclosure. Multivariate analyses revealed that children were less likely to recant when family members (other than the nonoffending caregiver) expressed belief in the children's allegations and more likely to recant when family members (other than the nonoffending caregiver) expressed disbelief in the allegations and when visitations with the alleged perpetrator were recommended at their first hearing. Results have implications for understanding the complex ways in which social processes may motivate some children to retract previous reports of sexual abuse.

Children's lie-telling is surprisingly understudied among children with significant behavioral problems. In the present study, experimental paradigms were used to examine antisocial lie-telling among ethnically diverse 5- to 10-year-old children with disruptive behavior disorders (DBD; n = 71) and a typically developing (TD) comparison sample (n = 50) recruited from a southeastern state from 2013 to 2014. Children completed two games that measured the prevalence and skill of their lies: (a) for personal gain and (b) to conceal wrongdoing. Children with DBD were more likely to lie for personal gain than TD children. With age, children were more likely to lie to conceal wrongdoing, but the reverse was true regarding lies for personal gain. Results advance knowledge concerning individual differences in children's lie-telling.

Although parents are significant sources of socialization in children's lives including with respect to their moral behavior, very little research has focused on how parents socialize children's honesty and dishonesty, especially parents of atypically developing children for whom lying is of substantial concern. We surveyed 49 parents of typically-developing (TD) children (M = 7.49, SD = 1.54) and 47 parents of children who had been diagnosed with a disruptive behavior disorder (DBD; M = 7.64, SD = 1.39) regarding their beliefs and attitudes about honesty and dishonesty, including in response to hypothetical vignettes; their messages to their children about honesty and dishonesty (e.g., punishment); and their own lying behavior and perceptions of their child's lying behavior. Results revealed that, in comparison to parents of TD children, parents of children with DBD reported (a) more punitive reactions to children's lying behavior, including in response to the hypothetical vignettes, (b) less encouragement of dishonesty among their children, and (3) perceiving their children as more prolific and sophisticated liars. Findings shed light on potential sources of individual differences in children's lie telling and may have implications for interventions for children with DBD and their parents.

Children are often the primary source of evidence in maltreatment cases, particularly cases of child sexual abuse, and may be asked to testify in court. Although best-practice protocols for interviewing children suggest that interviewers ask open-ended questions to elicit detailed responses from children, during in-court testimony, attorneys tend to rely on closed-ended questions that elicit simple (often "yes" or "no") responses (e.g., Andrews, Lamb, & Lyon, ; Klemfuss, Quas, & Lyon, ). How then are jurors making decisions about children's credibility and ultimately the case outcome? The present study examined the effect of two attorney-specific factors (e.g., temporal structure and questioning phase) on mock jurors' perceptions of attorney performance, child witness credibility, storyline clarity, and defendant guilt. Participants were randomly assigned to read a trial excerpt from one of eight conditions and were then asked to evaluate the attorney, child witness, and the case. Selected excerpts were from criminal court case transcripts and contained either high attorney temporal structure (e.g., use of temporal markers) or low temporal structure (e.g., frequent topic switching), involved direct or cross-examination, and represented cases resulting in a conviction or acquittal. Child responses were kept consistent across all excerpts. Results showed that participants perceived the attorney's performance and child's credibility more favorably and thought the storyline was clearer when attorneys provided high rather than low temporal structure and when the excerpt contained direct rather than cross-examination. Participants who read a direct rather than cross-examination excerpt were also more likely to think the defendant was guilty. The study highlights the impact of attorney questioning style on mock jurors' perceptions. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome is a theory of children's reactions to sexual abuse. It describes the process by which some children disclose sexual abuse and the factors that may affect children's willingness to disclose and maintain allegations of sexual abuse over time. It includes the following five components: (a) secrecy; (b) helplessness; (c) entrapment and accommodation; (d) delayed, conflicted, and unconvincing disclosure; and (e) retraction. Considerable controversy exists regarding the theory, and it has been the focus of much debate in the psychological and legal fields. Debate has focused on three main issues: (a) whether the model can be used accurately to diagnose sexual abuse, (b) the appropriate use of the model in legal contexts, and (c) whether there is empirical support for child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome.