Support Person Presence and Child Victim Testimony: Believe it or Not

Abstract

This study examined the effects of support person presence on participants' perceptions of an alleged child sexual abuse victim and defendant. Two hundred jury-eligible community members (n = 100 males) viewed a DVD of an 11-year-old girl's simulated courtroom testimony either with or without a female support person seated next to her. Participants found the child victim to be less accurate and trustworthy, and the defendant to be less guilty and less likely to have sexually abused children, when the support person was present. Participants who viewed the female support person (n = 100) believed that she had probably coached and spent a great deal of time with the child victim before testifying. Female participants perceived the child to be more accurate, and the defendant to be more guilty and likely to have sexually abused children, than male participants. The degree to which the child victim's testimonial behavior violated participants' expectancies mediated the negative relation between support person presence and child victim accuracy and trustworthiness. Support person presence was positively associated with expectancy violation, which in turn was negatively associated with child victim accuracy and trustworthiness. These preliminary findings suggest that seating a support person next to an alleged child victim in court may have the unintended effect of decreasing the child's perceived credibility and, if replicated, suggest that alternative seating arrangements might be necessary.

Measurement of Victim Credibility in Child Sexual Assault Cases: A Systematic Review

“…The final four experiments (33%) scored the average of multiple items as the measure of victim accuracy. McAuliff, Lapin, and Michel (2015) averaged the scores of 7 items relating to accuracy, reliability, credibility, clarity, consistency, certainty, and how well-spoken the victim was, however, the wording of these items was not provided. The three experiments by Connolly et al (2008), scored victim accuracy as the average of 4 items including “how intelligent do you think [victim name] was?” “how accurately do you think [victim name] recalled the details of the event?” “how well did [victim name] understand the events she described?” and “[victim name] was asked seven particular questions about the event.…”

Children Abuse: The Credibility of the Victim's Testimony in the Brazilian Justice

“…One of the drawbacks of this type of statement carried out in an environment without the characteristics that would be destined to the special testimony is that, during the victim's questioning and as the questions are formulated, it is established a veiled communication by means of an exchange of glances between the victim and his or legal guardian, which gives the impression to those who attend to be experiencing an authorization request for a response. According to McAuliff et al (2015), this type of behavior indicates that the child does not feel comfortable in that environment, but, in the eyes of others present, can give impression of there being there an interference of the adult in the content of the response, which somehow ends up producing mistrust in relation to what is said by the child. It still persists in Brazil a series of obstacles that put in doubt the quality of thetestimony during the operationalization of special testimony.…”

The personal is political: the restorative dialectic of child inclusion

“…Often support people, including parents, are not permitted to accompany children into the courtroom because they might later be called to testify as well. Moreover, if a female support person sits by the side of a girl witness, jurors are likely to perceive the girl as having been coached and are less likely to trust her testimony (McAuliff, Lapin & Michel, 2015).…”