Gaining insight into long‐term effects of inviting speculation: Does recantation help?

Abstract

The effects of speculation on delayed recall and on source monitoring (SM) as a recantation device were examined in first and fourth graders. Two weeks after a clown show, the speculation group recalled all actions and speculated on half. The control group recalled all actions without speculating. One month and 6 months later, all children recalled all actions. Half the children were given the opportunity to recant at 1 month and all children at 6 months. Even after 6 months, speculation negatively impacted recall. Only first-graders' script-consistent false responses increased with time. In the speculation group, 19% of previously given script-consistent speculations were recanted after 1 month and 20% after 6 months. Older children were better at recanting than younger children. Although recantation via SM immediately after 6-month recall had a positive effect, SM at 1 month had no prospective effect on 6-month recall.

When forced fabrications become truth: Causal explanations and false memory development.

“…Rather, they are informed ahead of time that they must respond to all questions, even if they have to guess. Although participants typically resist answering these false-event questions (either by refusing to respond or by overtly stating that the false event did not happen or that they do not remember), the interviewer forces them to comply by repeatedly insisting that they just “give their best guess” until participants eventually acquiesce by providing a relevant, fabricated response (for related paradigms that involve telling participants to guess or speculate, without forcing them to do so, see Pezdek, Sperry, & Owens, 2007; Pezdek, Lam, & Sperry, 2009; for studies with children, see Compo & Parker, 2010; Schreiber & Parker, 2004; Schreiber, Wentura, & Bilsky, 2001).…”

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

“…A large body of research indicates that dolls increase the amount of false information provided without increasing the amount of accurate information reported, particularly when used with young children (Bruck, Ceci, & Francoeur, 2000;Goodman et al, 1997;Lamb et al, 1996;Thierry, Lamb, Orbach, & Pipe, 2005; for a review, see Poole & Bruck, 2012;Poole, Bruck, & Pipe, 2011). Item 6 assessed participants' knowledge that inviting speculation decreases the accuracy of child witnesses (e.g., Ackil & Zaragoza, 2011;Compo & Parker, 2010;Schreiber & Parker, 2004;Schreiber, Wentura, & Bilsky, 2001).…”

“…If a young child does not report or does not seem to remember much information, it is okay for an interviewer to ask what might have happened or what they think happened. b Studies on inviting speculation (Ackil & Zaragoza, 2011;Compo & Parker, 2010;Schreiber & Parker, 2004;Schreiber et al, 2001) 7. 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.…”