due in 24 hours for PHILLIS YOUNG

Introduction to this Issue: Children’s Eyewitness Memory and Testimony in Context Rakel P. Larson, Ph.D.* , Deborah Goldfarb, JD and Gail S. Goodman, Ph.D.

Increasingly, children are being called upon to participate in a variety of forensic and courtroom contexts that affect their welfare (Cashmore, 2014; Head, 2011; U.N. General Assembly, 1989). Alongside this movement, research on child witnesses and victims has burgeoned. For this special issue ofBehavioral Sciences and the Law,weinvitedresearchers to share their expertise and contribute current studies about the role of contextual factors on children’s eyewitness memory and testimony, and related matters. Topics cover a wide variety of issues pertaining to child witnesses and victims, including the reliability of chil- dren’s testimony, forensic interview techniques, participation in court proceedings, pro- spective juror-decision making, delays in prosecution, and religion-related abuse.

To begin this special issue, theﬁrstﬁve papers address topics related to children’s involvement in forensic interviews. Given the rising dependence on children’s reports in a variety of forensic and legal contexts, the need for evidence-based methods to elicit sensitive and reliable information from children is clear. Building rapport with children is one procedure that is recommended by virtually all forensic interview protocols and best-practice guidelines, including the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (Lamb, La Rooy, Malloy, & Katz, 2011), the StepWise Interview (Yuille, Hunter, Joffe, & Zaparniuk, 1993), the Memorandum of Good Practice (Davies & Westcott, 1999), the child-adapted version of the Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992), and the Narrative Elaboration Technique (NET; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013), as part of a successful interview strategy to reduce children’s anxiety and increase the quality, quantity, and accuracy of their reports. In ourﬁrst paper, Saywitz, Larson, Hobbs, and Wells (pp. 372–389) report on a systematic review of the research literature to evaluate whether there is a core body of experimental studies with randomized controlled trials that test the effects of rapport on the reliability of children’s reports.

The paper provides insights into and identiﬁes gaps in the current knowledge base regarding the effects of rapport-building on children’s memory accuracy and offers strategies for redeﬁning future research agendas.

Children may be exposed to postevent misinformation before an interview commences and this inaccurate information may become incorporated into their later memory reports (see, e.g., Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman & Bruck, 1994). Schaaf, *Correspondence to: Rakel P. Larson, Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, California, 95616 USA.

E-mail: [email protected] Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behavioral Sciences and the Law Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2196 Bederian-Gardner, and Goodman (pp. 390–406) examine whether explicitly instructing children to ignore misleading postevent information can help bolster their memory accuracy. Four- and 6-year-old children engaged in an interactive play event with a re- searcher and were then interviewed about the play event after a 2-week delay. As part of the experimental manipulation, children were exposed to no postevent misinformation be- tween the two sessions, exposed to misinformation, or exposed to misinformation and given a logic-of-opposition instruction (i.e., an explicit instruction to ignore information that they were exposed to after the original play event) before the start of the memory inter- view. The results suggest that the accuracy of even very young children’s memory reports can be improved by providing children with an explicit instruction to ignore misleading postevent information. The study also provides insights into the sources of malleability in children’s memory reports and, speciﬁcally, the underlying causes of the postevent mis- information effect.

During the course of a forensic interview, investigators may ask children to disclose sensitive, embarrassing, or potentially uncomfortable information. Thus, these kinds of interviews require a level of openness and honesty from children that is not typical in their everyday interactions with adults. Such requirements may make some witnesses reluctant to participate in the criminal justice process. For instance, children may choose not to disclose maltreatment to a forensic interviewer for a variety of reasons (e.g., fear of retaliation, confusion about what occurred). Indeed, delayed disclosures are common among child sexual abuse victims (Goodmanet al., 2003). Omission of abuse details during forensic interviews may lead to later memory impairment given the lack of opportunity for rehearsal. Altering an abuse narrative by self-generating false details about the event may also inﬂuence later recall. Newton and Hobbs (pp. 407–428) addressed these topics in the third paper in this special issue by using a simulated mem- ory impairment paradigm with adults to evaluate how rehearsal and altering narrative details about a child sexual abuse scenario can affect later memory recall. Participants read aﬁrst-person narrative about child sexual abuse, role-played as the child victim, and were then asked to recall the abuse scenario by either omitting details, confabulat- ing details, or not changing any details, or they were not asked to recall the story at all.

Approximately 1 week later, participants’memories for the story were tested. The re- sults have implications for research regarding the effects of delayed disclosure and false confabulations on memory impairment.

Children are commonly questioned by forensic investigators and attorneys about abuse-related conversations, such as what the alleged perpetrator instructed the victim to do (Lyon & Stolzenberg, 2014; Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2014). In our fourth paper, Lawson and London (pp. 429–445) assess 8-year-old children’s ability to provide conversational testimony about a novel event after either a 1-week or 3-week delay.

This paperﬁlls an important gap in extant literature by being one of theﬁrst studies to evaluate children’s memory for dyadic conversations and, speciﬁcally, their ability to recall utterances generated by adults.

Ground rules–that is, instructions provided to children before substantive questioning–are commonly adopted in forensic interview protocols and best-practice guidelines (Lambet al., 2011; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013). These rules are intended to help children navigate the unique expectations that are present in the forensic inter- view context compared with those in children’s typical interactions with adults. For instance, in a typical adult–child interaction, children are not expected to correct an adult if the adult makes a mistake, yet this expectation is present in the forensic 368 R. P. Larsonet al.

Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl interview context. In ourﬁfth paper, Danby, Brubacher, Sharman, and Powell (pp. 446–458) investigate whether providing 5- to 9-year-old children with practice using three ground rules (i.e.,“don’t know,”“don’t understand,”and“correct me” instructions) led to more spontaneous use of the rules during free recall and application of the rules at the end of the interview in response to challenge questions.

The results of this study contribute to our understanding of developmental differ- ences in the ability to apply different kinds of ground rules and the extent to which practice improves children’s use of rules throughout the course of forensic interviews.

Our next set of papers follows the logical course of an investigation after forensic interviewing, namely children’s participation in court proceedings. Research suggests that facing the accused and being cross-examined are two of the most anxiety-provok- ing experiences for children (Goodmanet al., 1992; Hobbset al., 2014; Sas, Austin, Wolfe, & Hurley, 1991). These speciﬁc and other general fears about participating in the criminal justice process may inﬂuence children’s ability to provide sensitive, com- plete, and accurate information (Blocket al., 2010; Nathanson & Saywitz, 2003) and may affect their long-term psychological and emotional welfare (Goodmanet al., 1992; Quaset al., 2005). As a response to these concerns, pretrial court preparation programs have begun to be developed across the world (e.g., Kid’s Court School in the United States). In our sixth paper, Nathanson and Saywitz (pp. 459–475) evaluate the effectiveness of one such pretrial preparation program, which includes legal knowl- edge education, stress inoculation training, and a mock trial that offers opportunities for practice using stress reduction strategies and answering questions, on reducing an- ticipatory court-related anxiety of 4- to 17-year-olds. This study provides preliminary evidence that children’s participation in Nathanson and Saywitz’s preparation program before testifying in court is associated with anxiety reduction.

As previously mentioned, ground rule instructions and the use of rapport are recommended procedures in most forensic interview protocols and best-practice guidelines. The extent to which attorneys actually incorporate these recommendations into practice during direct questioning with children is addressed in the seventh paper.

Ahern, Stolzenberg, and Lyon (pp. 476–492) reviewed transcripts of felony child sexual abuse cases in Los Angeles county to evaluate the quality and frequency with which prosecutors deliver key ground rule instructions, build rapport, and rely on open-ended prompts before the topic of abuse is introduced. The results of the study are important in illuminating discrepancies between best-practice guidelines and actual implementa- tion of recommendations in real-world contexts.

The next two papers examine whether innovative techniques and changes in the courtroom context can bolster witness credibility and potentially inﬂuence juror decision-making. In the study described by Golding, Wasarhaley, Lynch, Lippert, and Magyarics (pp. 493–507), participants read a trial summary in which a 6- or 15-year-old child accused her stepfather of rape. The trial summary included testimony from a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), a registered nurse who was not a SANE, or no nurse. Mock jurors’ratings (e.g., sympathy toward the victim, defendant guilt) were then obtained. McAuliff, Lapin, and Michel (pp. 508–527) assessed whether the use of support persons (i.e., adults who accompany children testifying or attending legal proceedings to provide emotional comfort) inﬂuence judgments about the credi- bility of child witnesses and verdicts. In this study, adults viewed simulated testimony from an 11-year-old female victim of sexual assault either with a support person sitting Children’s eyewitness memory 369 Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl next to her or without. Participants then made judgments regarding the child’s accu- racy and trustworthiness as well as the defendant’s guilt. The results of both of these studies suggest that factors associated with the courtroom context, such as the presence or absence of a SANE or support person, may inﬂuence jurors’verdicts and evaluations of child witness credibility.

Delays in prosecution may result in the decay or distortion of memories.

Additionally, the lack of resolution and continued anticipatory anxiety about testifying may take a toll on the emotional and psychological well-being of child witnesses (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 1995). The next two papers in this special issue address delays in prosecution. Walsh, Lippert, Goldberg Edelson, and Jones (pp. 528–545) used a mixed methods approach (i.e., retrospective caseﬁle analysis on chargesﬁled between January 1, 2007 and December, 31, 2008 that were decided by December 31, 2012; and in-depth interviews) to assess the court culture of three Oregon counties, the length of time with which it took to resolve felony child sexual abuse cases compared with other felony cases, and the effect of“churning”(i.e., rescheduling of court cases) on case resolution time. Connolly, Chong, Coburn, and Lutgens (pp. 546–560) conducted an archival analysis of child sexual abuse complaints that were heard in criminal courts in Canada between 1986 and 2012. The researchers compared delayed and timely complaints and evaluated whether systemic factors (e.g., legal barriers) or intrinsic factors (e.g., nature of the offense) were associated with delayed prosecutions. Both of these studies provide important insights into the factors that increase the probability of delayed prosecution.

To conclude this special issue, theﬁnal two papers address contextual factors concerning child maltreatment through discussion of religion-related abuse cases.

Bottoms, Goodman, Toulou-Shams, Diviak, and Shaver (pp. 561–579) identiﬁed 249 cases of religion-related abuse from 86 district attorney ofﬁces, social service depart- ments, and law enforcement agencies. The researchers evaluated characteristics of the abuse cases (e.g., types of maltreatment, settings in which the abuse or neglect took place), the characteristics of victims and perpetrators in these cases (e.g., perpetrator and victim gender, victim age, relationship to the perpetrator, religious afﬁliation of the victims and perpetrators), the credibility of the allegations, and case outcomes.

Calkins, Fargo, Jeglic, and Terry (pp. 580–594) investigated the caseﬁles of 1,121 North American Catholic clergy accused of child maltreatment. Guided by a social–ecological model of violence, researchers evaluated individual-level (e.g., dating history), relation- ship-level (e.g., quality of interaction with youth), and community-level (e.g., sought opportunities to work with youth) risk factors associated with a higher probability of abuse among clergy. Both the Bottomset al. and Calkinset al. studies contribute to our knowledge base of the contexts and circumstances in which religion-related abuse occurs and provide potential avenues for intervention.

In summary, this special issue offers important insights into the various contexts in which child maltreatment occurs, is disclosed, and is evaluated and processed by the legal system. Speciﬁcally, the reader will be guided through issues concerning children’s eyewitness memory and testimony as it related to contexts in which abuse occurs, to disclosure and early stages of a forensic interview, all the way to child witnesses’participation in court proceedings. Taken together, the research presented here will hopefully further your understanding of the many complex issues that pertain to child witnesses and victims and inform future research, practice, and policy.

370 R. P. Larsonet al.

Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl REFERENCES Block, S. D., Oran, H. S., Oran, D., Baumrind, N., & Goodman, G. S. (2010). Abused and neglected children in court: Knowledge and attitudes.Child Abuse & Neglect,34, 659–670. doi:10.1016/j.

chiabu.2010.02.003.

Cashmore, J. (2014). Children living away from home. In G. Melton, A. Ben-Arieh, J. Cashmore, G. S.

Goodman, & N. K. Worley (Eds.),The Sage handbook of child research(pp. 197–207). London: Sage.

Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. D., & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers.International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,42, 304–320.

Davies, G. M., & Westcott, H. L. (1999).Interviewing child witnesses under the Memorandum of Good Practice:

A research review. London: Home Ofﬁce Police and Reducing Crime Unit.

Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992).Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springﬁeld, IL: Thomas.

Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Quas, J. A., Edelstein, R. S., Alexander, K. W., Redlich, A. D.,…Jones, D. P.

H. (2003). A prospective study of memory for child sexual abuse: Newﬁndings relevant to the repressed- memory controversy.Psychological Science,14, 113–118. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01428 Goodman, G. S., Taub, E. P., Jones, D. P. H., England, P., Port, L. K., Rudy, L., & Prado, L. (1992).

Testifying in criminal court.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,57(5, Serial No.

229), 1–142. DOI: 10.2307/1166127 Head, B. W. (2011). Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation.Children and Youth Services Review,33, 541–547. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.015.

Hobbs, S. D., Goodman, G. S., Block, S. D., Oran, D., Quas, J. A., Park, A, Widaman, K. F., Baumrind, N.

(2014). Child maltreatment victims' attitudes about appearing in dependency and criminal courts.Children and Youth Services Review,44, 407–416. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.001 Lamb,M.E.,LaRooy,D.J.,Malloy,L.C.,&Katz,C.(2011).Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/9781119998495 Lyon, T. D., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2014). Children’s memory for conversations about sexual abuse: Legal and psychological implications.Roger Williams University Law Review,19, 411–450. http://docs.rwu.edu/ rwu_LR/vol19/iss2/5 Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J. (2003). The effects of the courtroom context on children’s memory and anxiety.Journal of Psychiatry and Law,31,67–98.

Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (1995).Prosecuting child abuse: An evaluation of the government’s speedy progress policy. London: Blackstone.

Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Alexander, K. W., Edelstein, R., Redlich, A. D., Cordon, I. M., & Jones, D. P. H. (2005). Childhood sexual assault victims: Long-term outcomes after testifying in criminal court.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,70(2, Serial No. 280), 1–128. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-5834.2005.00337.x Sas, L., Austin, G., Wolfe, D. A., & Hurley, P. (1991).Reducing the system-induced trauma for child sexual abuse victims through court preparation, assessment and follow-up(Final Report, Project No. 4555-1-125, National Welfare Grants Division, Health and Welfare Canada). London, Ontario: London Family Court Clinic.

Saywitz, K. J., & Camparo, L. B. (2013).Evidence-based child forensic interviewing: The Developmental Narrative Elaboration Interview. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saywitz, K. J., Geiselman, R., & Bornstein, G. (1992). Effects of cognitive interviewing and practice on children’s recall performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 744–756.

Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,20,19–30. doi:10.1037/ a0035000.

U.N. General Assembly. (1989).Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989(United Nations Treaty Series, 1577). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm on July 20, 2015.

Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In G. S. Goodman, & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.),Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 95–115). New York: Guilford.Children’s eyewitness memory 371 Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Copyright ofBehavioral Sciences&the Law isthe property ofJohn Wiley &Sons, Inc.and its content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.