It is unlikely that biased interviewers will ask questions that may provide an alternate explanation for any allegations, they will not ask about events that are inconsistent with their hypothesis, they may ignore any inconsistent or bizarre information and they certainly will not challenge the authenticity of a report when it is consistent with their hypothesis.
Thompson et al (1997∗) investigated the effect a biased interviewer may have. Using two different interviewers, who were either consistently accusatory or neutral in tone. As the interview progressed the interviewer changed from mildly aggressive to strongly aggressive. Results showed that neutral interviewers received “factually correct and consistent reports” whereas children conformed to the suggestions of the accusatory interviewer. Therefore interviewer bias may affect the structure of interviews as children may give more elaborative and sensationalised responses in order to please.
Similarly Goodman et al (1989∗) found that children are more likely to give incorrect information to misleading questions about events for which they have no memory when an interviewer uses an emotional tone of accusation. The courts often make use of misleading questions; therefore this is an obvious place to investigate. Rudy and Goodman (1991∗) found that seven year olds are more accurate than four year olds in all types of question except misleading questions; this therefore shows that misleading questions are often very persuasive and can influence the response that is given.
Children perceive their interviewers as trustworthy and truthful, not deceptive. Therefore if an interviewer repeats a specific question the child may assume that their first response was incorrect, therefore there is an increased risk of inaccuracy in repeated questions as the child may alter their initial response. Poole and White (1991∗) found that children change their answers to provide the interviewer with the information that they perceive the interviewer wants to hear. Similarly children may not feel comfortable admitting that they simply do not know or cannot remember therefore they cooperate by guessing. If asked to repeat there ‘guessed’ responses their uncertainty at their own responses are no longer apparent. Therefore it appears that children develop new ‘memories’ by altering or making up responses. Similarly, children repeatedly interviewed about events will continue to sensationalise and ‘make up’ events. This may be due to displacement theory, where new ideas and information distort and displace old information. Therefore the first interview is often the most accurate. This has great repercussions for police and social workers that repeatedly interview children. A child may have been interviewed several times before they appear in court. Each time the child’s responses may change because they believe that their initial answers were not what the interviewer wanted to hear. In court therefore, much of the response may be incorrect, as the child has edited it so many times as s/he aims to please the interviewer. This has far reaching consequences for the judicial system.
This is a very important finding as often children deny sexual abuse; it is only after persistent questioning and interviews that a child makes allegations. Therefore with reference to the above research, it is very difficult to be certain if a child is telling the truth or if they have been manipulated by the form of questioning into making new memories of a supposed event. However, this may be due to repression, memories of abuse cause guilt, shame, anxiety and embarrassment, therefore they may be repressed as this is a defence mechanism, subsequently it may take several interviews for this information to be brought back into conscious memory. However, this theory has never been empirically proved and it is very difficult to distinguish repressed memories from false memories.
Similar findings also occur when props are used in interviews. Anatomically detailed dolls are used for interviews about possible sexual abuse as it is thought that they may overcome any embarrassment felt by both the child and the interviewer. The concept is very clear, however, a child may see the doll and guess that any cavities it has are there for a purpose. They realise that the interviewer expects them to use these cavities, simply because they do not resemble normal play dolls. This is clarified by Goodman et al (1997∗) who asked children to demonstrate a medical procedure. They concluded that the dolls are suggestive, particularly when asked by the interviewer to demonstrate abuse. The questions used are also crucial to a child’s interpretation of how the doll should be handled. Bruck et al (1995∗) asked three and four year old children who had been given a routine medical examination “show me on the doll how the doctor touched your genitals”, results showed that girls in particular make use of the special features of the doll and some showed how the doctor had inserted a finger into the genitals or anus. Therefore anatomically detailed dolls are often a highly suggestive and inaccurate form of questioning.
The same can be said about asking children to imagine a particular situation. The children may believe that the event happened and therefore report it as a true event because of the apparent underlying aims of the interviewer.
Interference theory may explain why some mistakes are made by children (and adults) when they are asked to remember events. With particular reference to retroactive interference, where new information interferes with the retrieval of old information. For example, existing schemas and stereotypes about people. i.e. a belief that a person “does bad things” and therefore accusing that person of abuse (Leichtman and Ceci 1995∗) or changing original responses to questions with altered responses when asked the same question after an interval of time when it is possible that another event has occurred.
Clearly, interviewers use many different techniques, the use of anatomically detailed dolls combined with repeating misleading questions and high emotions may have a great effect on the answers given. However it is not fair to assume that all children respond identically. Some children may not change their answers if a question is repeated. Similarly, pre-schoolers may be more resistant to suggestive interviewing techniques than older children or even adults. Therefore, it is important to consider individual differences in all psychological studies and theories. It can be presumed that the above research and the majority of other research in this area have been conducted in western societies (America and Britain) using middle class white participants. Therefore the results cannot be generalised to different cultures. Similar findings cross-culturally may give the basis of more sound conclusions regarding children’s event memory.
However we cannot underestimate the effect that such research has had on how legal cases where children are used as witnesses are conducted in the future. Therefore it is vital that more research is conducted, as we are unsure as to whether children change their accounts of events in order to comply with the interviewer or whether there is a cognitive process that makes children believe their false statements.
∗ As cited in Cici S. J. and Bruck M, (1999) The suggestibility of children’s memory.
Wordage = 1473
References
Ceci S.J. and Bruck M. (1999) The Suggestibility of Childrens Memory. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50: 419-39
Gruneberg M. and Morris P. (Eds) (1992) Aspects of Memory, Vol 1, The Practical Aspects.
Westen D. (1999) Psychology. Mind, Brain and Culture. (2nd Ed) 287-93.
104PY Lecture notes on Memory.