CHILDREN’S SUGGESTIBILITY AND MEMORY

1. CHILDREN’S SUGGESTIBILITY AND MEMORY L. Dennison Reed, Psy.D. NSU-CPS Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment

2. Primary References • Malloy & Quas (2009) Children’s Suggestibility: Areas of Consensus and Controversy. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connel (Eds.), The Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations (pp. 267-297). Wiley. • APSAC Practice Guidelines: Forensic Interviewing in Cases of Suspect Child Abuse (2012)

3. What is suggestibility? • Suggestibility can be defined as the degree to which one's "memory" of an event, and/or one’s "recounting" of an event is influenced by exposure to suggested information or misinformation

4. Are children influenced by what they overhear? Preschoolers debate Presidential Politics!

5. In most cases of suspected CSA, the child’s abuse-related statements are the only evidence of abuse: • Diagnostic medical evidence is present in only 5-15% of confirmed cases, e.g., semen, STDs, pregnancy • Rarely are there any witnesses to CSA apart from the victim and the perpetrator • There are no ‘profiles’ that reliably differentiate between child molesters and innocent individuals

6. Why is children’s suggestibility an important consideration when assessing for CSA? • Those who conduct forensic interviews should utilize interview techniques that are not suggestive/leading so as to elicit the most reliable information possible. • Since children’s statements are often the only evidence in CSA cases, it is important for investigators to consider whether those statements may have been influenced by improper interviewing, e.g., leading questions by a concerned parent

7. The Attack on the Interviewer • Those who conduct interviews of children in CSA cases are often criticized for “leading” children to make false allegations of sexual abuse. • According to the National Center on the Prosecution of Child Abuse, this is currently the most often used defense in child sexual abuse cases. • It is also one of the most effective defenses in CSA cases.

8. DO INVESTIGATORS LEAD CHILDREN?

9. Inappropriate leading and coercive interviewing of children has occurred in some highly publicized cases

10. The Kelly Michaels Case • In 1988, a preschool teacher named Kelly Michaels was convicted of 115 counts of sexual abuse against twenty children, ages 3 to 5 • She was sentenced to serve 47 years in prison.

11. Kelly Michaels’ Appeal • Kelly Michaels Appealed her case to the Appeals Court of New Jersey. • In coming to it’s decision, the Appeals Court considered the nature of the interviews of the suspected victims and recent scientific research regarding the suggestibility of preschoolers • The Appeals Court then reversed all of Kelly Michaels’ convictions and noted that the interviews of the suspected victims were highly leading and were likely to give rise to inaccurate testimony by such young children.

12. Excerpts from the transcript of a child interview in St. v. Michaels The interview excerpts that follow demonstrate highly suggestive and leading questioning. However, the preschooler that was being interviewed was NOT a highly suggestible preschooler! • Although some children acquiesce to leading and suggestive questioning, other children resist being led . . .

13. Excerpts from the transcript of a child interview in St. v. Michaels Q Did Kelly have hair? [referring to pubic hair] A Nah, I know ‘cause it’s grown ups . . . I know about that. Q So I guess that means you saw her private parts, huh? Did Kelly ask the kids to look at her private parts, or to kiss her private part or-- A I didn’t really do that . . . I didn’t even do that. Q But she made you.

14. Later in the same interview, after the child denied‘kissing Kelly’s private parts’ Q Did it smell good? (referring to Kelly’s privates) A Shhh Q Her private parts? A I don’t know. Q Did it taste good? Did it taste like chocolate? A Ha, ha. No, I didn’t even do it . . .

15. Child Interview (continued) Q You Wee Care kids seem so scared of her. A I wasn’t. I’m not even. . . Q But while you were there, were you real scared? A I don’t know. Q What was so frightening about her, what was so scary about her? A I don’t know. Why don’t you ask her?

16. In some cases, children were: • Told about the allegations of other children (contamination); • Not permitted to go to the bathroom or see their mother until they provided allegations (coercion); • Bribed with ice cream, etc. to provide allegations (bribery).

17. ARE CHILDREN “SUGGESTIBLE”? YES. Some children are suggestible—at least under certain circumstances Adults are, too—but generally less so than children under 10 or 11

18. Suggestibility is not ‘Unidirectional’ • Children can sometimes be led to falsely claim abuse • Children can also be led to falsely deny abuse

19. The “New Wave” in Suggestibility Research • Stephen Ceci (Cornell) and colleagues • Research designed to MAXIMIZE children’s suggestibility

20. The “Sam Stone” studyThe Impact of Leading Questions, Encouraging Guessing, and Negative Stereotypeson Young Children’s Accounts

21. 5 & 6 year-olds 40% 3 & 4 year-olds 72% “SAM STONE” STUDYPercent of children assenting to false allegations after 7-10 weeks of leading interviews:

22. Why were these children so suggestible?

23. AGE was the primary factor (when combined with repetitive Leading Questions, Guessing, & Stereotyping) • The children in this study were 3 to 6 years old • Preschoolers (especially 3 and 4-year-olds) are far more suggestible than older children and adults • 10-11 year-olds are quite similar to adults with regard to their ‘memory’ being influenced or distorted by suggested information

24. The NATURE OF THE QUESTIONING was a factor • Children were repeatedly asked highly leading questions for 7-10 weeks • This sometimes happens in real-life cases; although probably not often

25. “Stereotyping” was a factor • For several weeks, children were repeatedly told stories about Sam Stone being clumsy and as accidentally destroying things. • In real-life cases, children sometimes overhear one parent speaking badly about the other parent—but not usually about sexual abuse

26. Children were encouraged to “GUESS” When children said they did not know who ripped the book or got the teddy bear dirty, they were asked: “Who might have ripped the book/gotten the teddy bear dirty?”

27. There was no emphasis on TELLING THE TRUTH Kids are not required to tell the truth in all situations, i.e., playing games, telling stories, casual conversations Kid’s don’t assume that telling the truth is important in all situations

28. Young children who were not led or encouraged to guess during the Sam Stone study were quite accurate “Of the 3- and 4-year-olds who were not exposed to repetitive and highly leading questions or stereotypes about the ‘offender,’ and who were not asked to “guess” answers, 90% were still accurate after three months.” Stephen Ceci

29. THE “MOUSETRAP” STUDY(Source Misattributions)Did it really happen or did I only hear about it?

30. “Source Misattribution” Misidentifying the Source of one’s MEMORY

31. Source Misattribution does occur under certain circumstances-especially with 3 and 4 year olds

32. In the Mousetrap study, very young children were repeatedly: Told about non-events Shown pictures of non-events Encouraged to “think real hard” about and visualize these non-events and what it would be like to experience them Repeatedly asked (leading) questions about the non-events

33. Is this a Storytelling Game? • Some kids might have thought that this was a storytelling game. • Nobody said they had to talk about things that “really happened.”

34. Didn’t you like the first answer I gave you? • Some kids might have thought that the questions were being repeated week after week because they gave the wrong answer earlier or because the interviewer simply did not like their earlier answer. • Some children might have changed their answer because they wanted to get it ‘right.’ • Some children may have changed their answer to please the adult—even though the child may have known that their first answer was right

35. Nevertheless, “most” of the preschoolers did not come to affirm that these ‘fictitious’ events had occurred • 66% resisted repeated leading questioning about negative and positive fictional events even after 7—10 interviews • When interviewed two years later, nearly 80% of the children who had succumbed to leading recanted the allegations they had been led to make before

36. YOUNG CHILDREN’S ACCURACY IN DESCRIBING GENITAL TOUCHES • Age plays a major role in children’s accuracy in reporting bodily touches • Between 2 and 4 years of age, children often experience genital touching in the course of normal parenting behavior, e.g., bathing, wiping, application of medication for diaper rashes, etc. Therefore, genital touches may not be particularly memorable for kids this age • Children ages 2 to 4 also have developmental limitations that contribute to inaccuracies in describing genital touching

37. A Study of (almost) 3-year-olds’ accuracy in reporting bodily touches with and without the use of Anatomically Detailed Dolls Bruck et al. (1995). Anatomically detailed dolls do not facilitate preschoolers’ reports of a pediatric examination involving genital touching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

38. Bruck, et al. (1995) Research Design • Two groups of 3-year-olds underwent a routine medical examination; one group (‘genital exam’ condition) had a genital/anal exam that involved gentle separation of the labia/buttocks (but no penetration or rubbing); the other group did not receive a genital/anal exam or any touching of the genitals/buttocks and their underpants remained on during the examination • Immediately after the exam, both groups of children were questioned about the exam interviewed in a leading manner with and without the use of anatomical dolls • Also, the group that underwent a genital/anal exam was asked to show on ananatomical doll and on their own bodies how the doctor had touched their genitals/buttocks

39. Bruck et al (1995) FINDINGS • When asked, “Did the doctor touch you here?” (pointing to the doll’s genitals, and then to the doll’s buttocks), about half of the children in BOTH groups responded inaccurately • About half of those whose genitals/buttock were not touched by the doctor falsely claimed the doctor had touched their genitals or buttocks • About half of those whose genitals/buttocks were touched by the doctor falsely denied the doctor had touched their genitals/buttocks

40. Bruck et al (1995) FINDINGS(continued) • When asked to demonstrate with anatomical dolls how they were touched, 42% of the girls in the ‘genital exam’ group erroneously inserted a finger into the doll’s genital or anal opening or rubbedthose areas. • When asked to demonstrate on their own bodies, 65% of these girls were inaccurate in demonstrating how they were touched.

41. IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT THE Bruck et al. (1995) Study • The mean AGE of the sample in the Bruck et al. study was only 35 months (not quite 3 years old) • In a very similar study by Saywitz et al. (1991) involving 5- and 7-year-olds, error rates for children in the ‘non-genital’ condition were much lower. When asked whether the doctor touched them ‘there,’ pointing to the doll’s genitals/buttocks, only 3% falsely claimed genital touching; and 6% falsely claimed buttocks touching.

42. IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT THE Bruck et al. (1995) Study (continued) • In the Bruck et al. study, when children in the ‘non-genital’ condition said “No” when asked, ‘Did the doctor touch you there? (pointing to the genitals and the buttocks), the children were then asked the highly leading question:“Show me how the doctor touched your (buttocks/genitals)” • Thus, initially some children correctly denied that the doctor had touched their buttocks/genitals; however, they were later “led” to respond inaccurately

43. Young children sometimes look to ‘environmental clues’ to answer adult’s questions • In the Bruck et al. study, children sometimes used available props in an inaccurate fashion, e.g., demonstrating how the doctor used the toy stethoscope to examine their genitals or anal area • Interviewers should be cautious about asking very young children (i.e., 3-year-olds) to re-enact events with props

44. Anatomical Dolls should not be used to elicit disclsores • There is widespread agreement that anatomical dolls should not be used to elicit disclosures. (APSAC, 2012) • If the use of props is necessary, other props are less controversial and less suggestive than anatomical dolls, e.g., ‘cookie cutter’ human figure drawings

45. DOLLS, DRAWINGS & OTHER PROPS SHOULD BE USED WITH CAUTION • Always try to elicit a verbal description FIRST (without the use of props); and only use props as needed to clarify and/or document the child’s verbal statements, e.g., body parts

46. Similarities Between the Research and “some” real-life cases • Sometimes children are questioned for weeks or months in a highly leading fashion by well-intentioned but biased parents, therapists, investigators and others. • Sometimes children are influenced by what they overhear, i.e., angry parent talking to a friend about the other parent. • Sometimes (though probably rarely) parents or others deliberately influence children to make false sex abuse allegations.

47. Beware of the Misapplication of Suggestibility Research to Children of a Different Age • Because there are significant AGE DIFFERENCES in suggestibility, it would be inappropriate to generalize research findings about preschoolers to older children • By the time children are 10-11 years old, they are essentially equivalent to adults with regard to suggestibility • Even 5-year-olds are significantly less suggestible than 3- and 4-year-olds

48. Beware of the Misapplication of Suggestibility Research to Real-life Sex Abuse Cases • Much of the suggestibility research has limited “ecological validity,” i.e., the extent to which the research mimics real-world situations • Sexual abuse differs in many ways from the type of events that researches have attempted to ‘lead’ children about, such as: • Sam Stone accidentally soiling a teddy bear or ripping a book • Getting one’s finger caught in a mousetrap

49. According to Ceci, it was not easy to lead children to make false allegations—even when the allegation did not relate to sexual abuse • It is probably far more difficult to lead children to make false allegations against someone they know and love (e.g., a parent) than it is to lead them to make such allegations against a stranger (e.g., Sam Stone)

50. Researchers often have to go to great lengths to lead children to provide elaborate accounts of non-events • A singular misleading question does not typically elicit elaborate accounts of non-events—even from 3- and 4-year-olds. • “We really had to work hard to get children to provide detailed accounts of non-events” Stephen Ceci