Developmental differences in the effects of repeated interviews and interviewer bias on young children's event memory and false reports.

Abstract

The present study investigated developmental differences in the effects of repeated interviews and interviewer bias on children's memory and suggestibility. Three-and 5-year-olds were singly or repeatedly interviewed about a play event by a highly biased or control interviewer. Children interviewed once by the biased interviewer after a long delay made the most errors. Children interviewed repeatedly, regardless of interviewer bias, were more accurate and less likely to falsely claim that they played with a man. In free recall, among children questioned once after a long delay by the biased interviewer, 5-year-olds were more likely than were 3-year-olds to claim falsely that they played with a man. However, in response to direct questions, 3-year-olds were more easily manipulated into implying that they played with him. Findings suggest that interviewer bias is particularly problematic when children's memory has weakened. In contrast, repeated interviews that occur a short time after a to-be-remembered event do not necessarily increase children's errors, even when interviews include misleading questions and interviewer bias. Implications for developmental differences in memory and suggestibility are discussed. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptAlthough it is well accepted that memories are not exact replicas of prior experiences but instead are reconstructions (Loftus, 1979), the nature of these reconstructions and the effects of developmental and contextual influences on them remain debated. One noteworthy debate has focused on the effects of repeated interviews on children's memory and suggestibility. In particular, concerns have been raised that the more often a child is interviewed, the more often misinformation might be presented-intentionally or inadvertently-leading to increased inaccuracy over time. Moreover, repeated demands for a child to retrieve information from memory may increase confabulations due to social pressure. Despite these concerns, studies of children's memory for experienced events generally suggest that repeated interviews can improve performance by facilitating recall and reducing forgetting (e.g., Howe, Courage, & Bryant-Brown, 1993;Peterson, 1999). Yet, in a second line of research, specifically when children are suggestively questioned about false events, adverse effects of repeated interviews appear to emerge (e.g., Bruck, Ceci, & Hembrooke, 2002;Leichtman & Ceci, 1995).A simple explanation for the different patterns of results is that repeated interviews benefit memory when the to-be-remembered event is true and distort memory when the to-beremembered event is false. However, a number of other factors likely contribute to the evident reduction in accuracy when children are repeatedly interviewed about fictitious events, making the simple explanation premature. For instance, studies concerning children's false event reports following repeated interviews often began with an interviewer explicitly stating that the false events occurred...

Child Maltreatment, Trauma‐Related Psychopathology, and Eyewitness Memory in Children and Adolescents

“…traditional age trend; for example, memory for gist-related information has shown age-reversals in false memory reports (Brainerd, 2013). Moreover, even young children can often be quite accurate in their eyewitness memory, especially when interviewed about negative or abuse-related information while their memories are still strong for what really happened (Goodman et al, 2001;Quas et al, 2007;Rudy & Goodman, 1991).…”

How Common is “Common Knowledge” about Child Witnesses among Legal Professionals? Comparing Interviewers, Public Defenders, and Forensic Psychologists with Laypeople

“…If an interviewer believes that a child has been abused even though the child denies it, the interviewer should keep interviewing the child until he or she discloses abuse. Studies on interviewer bias (e.g., Garven et al, 1998;Quas et al, 2007;Thompson et al, 1997) and for disclosure rates see (2007); Peterson et al (2001) 10. If children play in a sexual way (demonstrate sexual touching) with anatomically detailed dolls, it means they have been sexually abused.…”

“…Studies on interviewer bias (e.g., Garven, Wood, Malpass, & Shaw, 1998;Quas et al, 2007;Thompson et al, 1997) show the problems with continuing an interview after a child has denied an event occurred (as assessed by item 7). The need for interviewers to provide suggestive encouragement (i.e., statements that presume that the child has something to tell) to get children to disclose abuse has been shown to be unnecessary (London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005;London, Bruck, Wright, & Ceci, 2008;Malloy, Lyon, & Quas, 2007;Pipe et al, 2007) and even detrimental to children's reports (for a review, see Ceci & Bruck, 1995;Goodman et al, 2002).…”

“…If an interviewer believes that abuse occurred, then it is okay for the interviewer to ask the child suggestive questions (e.g., "Did he touch your private parts?"). Studies on interviewer bias (e.g., Garven et al, 1998;Quas et al, 2007;Thompson et al, 1997) 5. Suggestive questioning (e.g., "Did he touch your private parts with his hand?")…”

Memory Development and Trauma in Preschool Children: Implications for Forensic Interviewing Professionals - A Review of the Literature

“…In a similar study comparing 3 and 5-year olds, Quas et al [18] investigated the impact of repeated interviews and interviewer bias on children's memory and suggestibility. Results indicate that in free recall, 5-year-olds were more likely than 3-year-olds to provide false reports.…”