An Examination of “Don't Know” Responses in Forensic Interviews with Children

Abstract

Most experimental studies examining the use of pre-interview instructions (ground rules) show that children say "I don't know" more often when they have been encouraged to do so when appropriate. However, children's "don't know" responses have not been studied in more applied contexts, such as in investigative interviews. In the present study, 76 transcripts of investigative interviews with allegedly abused children revealed patterns of "don't know" responding, as well as interviewers' reactions to these responses. Instructions to say "I don't know" when appropriate did not affect the frequency with which children gave these responses. Interviewers rejected "don't know" responses nearly 30% of the time, and typically continued to ask about the same topic using more risky questions. Children often answered these follow-up questions even though they had previously indicated that they lacked the requested information. There was no evidence that "don't know" responses indicated reluctance to talk about abuse. Implications for forensic interviewers are discussed.

Children's Uncertain Responses when Testifying about Alleged Sexual Abuse in Scottish Courts

“…Unlike Hershkowitz and colleagues, who were concerned primarily with the dynamics of interviews with children who were reluctant to disclose abuse (Ahern et al, ; Hershkowitz, ; Hershkowitz et al, , , ), other researchers have evaluated children's “don't know” responses differently in investigative interviews. Earhart et al () examined 76 forensic interviews with allegedly abused 4‐ to 13‐ year‐olds and found that, even though the “don't know” ground rule was presented in 94% of the interviews, an average of only seven “don't know” responses were identified in each interview, constituting only 6% of children's substantive responses – half the proportion reported by Hershkowitz et al (). This discrepancy may be attributable to differences in interview procedure as well as the inclusion of non‐responses along with don't know/remember responses in the “omissions” category (Hershkowitz et al, ).…”

“…Furthermore, courtroom questioning can be unusual and difficult for children, who are accustomed to being tested by knowledgeable adults (Lyon, ), and often feel pressured to answer adults’ questions (Earhart, La Rooy, Brubacher, & Lamb, ). Lawyers may also question children using complicated prompts about events that occurred long ago (Andrews, Lamb, & Lyon, ; Hanna, Davies, Crothers, & Henderson, 2012; Spencer & Lamb, ), making it critical to prepare children for their unique roles as witnesses by instructing them not to guess and to express uncertainty when they do not know the answers to questions (i.e., the “don't know” ground rule).…”

“…As in experimental studies (Gee et al, ; Waterman et al, , ), Earhart and colleagues found that directives were more likely than option‐posing prompts to elicit don't know responses. Earhart et al () found no association between age and the frequency of don't know responses, how uncertainty was elicited (by the child, the interviewer, or the type of question), and the effect of the ground rule on children's propensity to express uncertainty. However, children aged 7–13 years were more likely than children aged 3 to 6 years to elaborate on their uncertain response and explain why they were uncertain.…”

The Effects of Practice on Children's Ability to Apply Ground Rules in a Narrative Interview

“…It is not known whether the findings would generalize to situations in which children are questioned about negative events generally or abuse‐related events specifically (repeated or otherwise). However, field research provides no indication that children describing abusive incidents would benefit more from ground rules than children describing a pleasant event (e.g., Earhart, La Rooy, Brubacher, & Lamb, ; Malloy et al, ). Further, it is known that chronically maltreated children's metacognition and other executive functions lag behind those of their non‐maltreated peers (Danese & McEwen, ).…”

The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children: A synthesis and call for research

“…Yet, the number of instructive prompts with the youngest age group was strongly positively correlated with the proportion of informative responses in the substantive phase, suggesting that this younger group stood to benefit most (similar to the findings of Dickinson et al, in press). In the only other field study we are aware of, Earhart, La Rooy, Brubacher, and Lamb (2014) assessed the use of the "don't know" ground rule in interviews with alleged sexual abuse victims (4-14) conducted according to the Memorandum of Good Practice. Half of the interviews contained the "don't know" ground rule instruction and half did not, but interviewers treated children similarly regardless of whether or not they had delivered the rule.…”