Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown.
Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most.
Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures.
Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved.
The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/266228 |
| Date | January 2009 |
| Creators | O'Neill, Sarah Christine, n/a |
| Publisher | University of Otago. Department of Psychology |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | http://policy01.otago.ac.nz/policies/FMPro?-db=policies.fm&-format=viewpolicy.html&-lay=viewpolicy&-sortfield=Title&Type=Academic&-recid=33025&-find), Copyright Sarah Christine O'Neill |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds