Adults' evaluations of characteristics of children's memory

When a Battered Victim Kills Their Abuser: The Impact of Child and Expert Testimony on Mock Jurors' Decision-Making

The present study investigated the effects of child and expert witness testimony on mock jurors' decision-making and perceptions of a case in which a female defendant claimed self-defense as the reason for killing her husband during a domestic dispute. A 3 (expert witness: Battered Woman Syndrome [BWS] vs. Social Agency [SA] vs. No Expert) × 3 (child witness: Age 5 vs. Age 8 vs. no child) between-subject design was used to examine the effects of two different forms of expert testimony and their interaction with the presence of a child witness. Jury-eligible participants (N = 370) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and a Psychology Undergraduate Student Pool. The mock jurors who were exposed to the BWS expert perceived the defendant as more guilty when an 8-year-old testified compared to when no child testified at all. Furthermore, when the jurors were exposed to the BWS expert, they imposed a harsher sentence on the defendant when an 8-year-old child testified compared to a 5-year-old child or no child testifying. Although the jurors perceived the defendant in the BWS condition as more fearful compared to no expert and the SA condition, this knowledge did not seem to translate into a lighter verdict or sentencing decision. This study aims to provide guidelines for future researchers and legal professionals considering the issue of expert testimony and child witnesses in intimate partner homicides.

Discernment of Children's True and False Memory Reports: Police Officers and Laypersons

Adults' ability to accurately evaluate children's statements can have far-reaching consequences within the legal system. This study examined the evaluations of police officers ("experts") and laypersons ("nonexperts") when presented with videotaped interviews of children aged 3 and 5 years who provided either true or false reports or denials. Participants were drawn from several counties in the eastern United States. Children's interview statements fell within four statement types: accurate reports, false reports, accurate denials, and false denials. Both groups of participants displayed overbelief in false denials. Several control variables predicted accuracy, including children's age and children's race. A significant interaction emerged: Experts (vs. nonexperts) had greater odds of being accurate when judging false reports (vs. false denials). These findings highlight the challenges adults face when distinguishing between various types of children's statements. The results have important implications for legal contexts, emphasizing that fact finders need to be mindful of the risks associated with both overaccepting false denials and accepting false reports.

"I Didn't Do That!" Event Valence and Child Age Influence Adults' Discernment of Preschoolers' True and False Statements

Justice can hinge on adults' abilities to distinguish accurate from inaccurate child testimony. Yet relatively little is known about factors that affect adults' abilities to determine the accuracy of children's eyewitness reports. In this study, adults (N = 108) viewed videoclips of 3- and 5-year-olds answering open-ended and leading questions about positive and negative actually experienced ("true") events or never experienced ("false") events that the children either affirmed or denied. Analyses revealed that adults were more accurate at determining the veracity of negative compared with positive incidents, particularly when children said that they had experienced the event. Moreover, adults' accuracy was at chance for older children's false denials. Psycholegal implications are discussed.

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

While the concept of credibility seems like an intuitive one, research has indicated that there is no consistent definition of this construct and that credibility may, in fact, be multidimensional. This article is the first to review how the measurement of credibility in child sexual assault cases has been conducted, with the view to improve how credibility is psychometrically measured. Our findings indicate that the majority of experiments have been conducted in the United States (67%), have been based primarily on undergraduate students as participants (67%), and primarily investigated cases involving a male defendant and female victim (69%). Ultimately, among experiments investigating victim credibility, approximately 60% of all measures were based on a single item and 53% used materials not based on the testimony of the child. Moreover, credibility has been measured using a great variety of constructs such as believability, honesty, truthfulness, suggestibility, accuracy, and reliability. A more nuanced and consistent definition of credibility will be needed to facilitate meaningful applications of the research literature.

The Development of a Conceptual Model of Perceived Victim Credibility in Child Sexual Assault Cases

Perceived victim credibility is a crucial factor in jury decision-making, especially in the context of child sexual assault cases where there are often no corroborating witnesses. Yet despite the importance of credibility and the expanding research in this area, there remains no unified understanding of what credibility is, what domains it encompasses and how it can be comprehensively measured. This article proposes a conceptual model of perceived victim credibility encompassing the five domains of accuracy, believability, competency, reliability and truthfulness. These domains are defined, distinguishing between the various sub-constructs based on the items they encompass. This model provides a theoretical framework for the development of an instrument to measure perceived victim credibility in future research studies. This is valuable for both researchers and professionals working in the area of child sexual assault in terms of understanding the construct of credibility and unifying the approach to measuring and comparing attitudes.

The Effect of Gender on Perceptions of Credibility in Child Sexual Assault Cases: A Systematic Review

Child sexual assault cases have one of the highest attrition rates throughout the justice system, with jurors' perceptions of the credibility of the child playing a critical role in the judicial process and resulting outcomes. One of the most prominent influences on credibility is gender, specifically victim and perceiver gender. This article reports the findings of a systematic search of the literature exploring the impact of these factors on perceptions of victim credibility. Results suggest that overall females tend to rate victim credibility higher than do males; however, this gender effect is minimized when the alleged perpetrator is not the biological parent of the victim. There is little support for a victim gender effect, such that potential jurors' ratings of victim credibility does not appear to be influenced by the gender of the victim. The review highlights the lack of consistent and comprehensive measurement of credibility. Legal implications are discussed.

Effect of criminal defendant's history of childhood sexual abuse and personality disorder diagnosis on juror decision making

This study investigated whether a defendant's history of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and/or personality disorder (PD) diagnosis affected juror decision making in a child sexual abuse trial. The PDs in the study were borderline PD and antisocial PD. Participants were 385 college students, 121 men and 264 women, who read a summary of a mock criminal trial and then made various juror decisions. Trial summaries were prepared by the principal investigator and were all uniform in content, length and detail. For the trial, both the defendant's gender and victim's gender were specified. The defendant was male, and the alleged victim was female. When the verdict was assessed, the results yielded that when the defendant's CSA history was presented, juror guilt ratings were higher than when there was no history of CSA. Similarly, when the defendant had a PD diagnosis, there were higher guilt ratings than when there was no PD diagnosis. CSA history and PD diagnosis were significant predictors of guilt ratings, suggesting that jurors perceive defendants more negatively if they have either been sexually abused as a child or have borderline or antisocial PD.

Adults usually believe young children: the influence of eliciting questions and suggestibility presentations on perceptions of children's disclosures

Do people realize the danger of asking misinformed children yes-no questions? Study 1 confirmed that disclosures children made during free recall in an earlier suggestibility study were more accurate than disclosures following "yes" responses to yes-no questions, which in turn were more accurate than disclosures following "no" responses. In Studies 2 and 3, college students watched interviews of children and judged the veracity of these three disclosure patterns. Participants generally believed false reports representing the first two patterns, although watching expert testimony that included a videotaped example of a false report reduced trust in prompted disclosures. Results document the need to inform forensic decision-makers about the circumstances associated with erroneous responses to yes-no questions.

When does quality count?: Perceptions of hearsay testimony about child sexual abuse interviews

This study assessed how the quality of a sexual abuse investigative interview with a child and the age of the child influence jurors' reactions to either the original interview with the child or to testimony by an adult hearsay witness (the interviewer). Participants (N = 360) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 conditions in a 2 (type of testimony: hearsay testimony vs. child interview) x 3 (interview quality: poor, typical, or good) x 2 (age of the child: 4 years old vs. 10 years old) factorial design. Participants reached individual verdicts, answered a series of questions, and then deliberated in a group with five other participants. As predicted, jurors in the child interview conditions were more likely to find the defendant guilty if they read the good interview than if they read either the poor or the typical interview, but in the hearsay conditions verdicts did not significantly differ by interview quality. These findings suggest that there is a significant loss of information when the testimony of a hearsay witness is used in place of the actual interview with the child, and call into question the appropriateness of admitting hearsay testimony by interviewers.