Abstract
The adversarial legal system allows an opposing party to challenge a witness’s veracity in a process known as cross-examination. Cross-examination-style questions, however, have repeatedly been shown to be detrimental to children’s accuracy. Recently, a brief preparation intervention—comprising practice with cross-examination-style questions on an unrelated topic, and feedback on responses—has been effective in helping children maintain accuracy. In this thesis, we further explore the efficacy of this intervention.
In studies conducted so far, researchers have prepared children using the same cross-examination challenges that they would encounter during the subsequent cross-examination interview. It is unknown whether the intervention will still be effective when children later face novel cross-examination-style questions. In Experiment 1, 6- to 11-year-old children (n = 132) took part in a staged memory event, and were then interviewed with analogues of direct-examination (1 to 2 days later) and cross-examination (6 to 8 weeks later). One week prior to the cross-examination interview, some children participated in the preparation intervention. For half of these children, the cross-examination-style challenges they encountered during the preparation intervention were the same as the challenges they subsequently faced during cross-examination; for the others, there was no overlap. Relative to a control group that did not receive the intervention, the preparation intervention resulted in better performance during cross-examination, regardless of the degree of overlap.
In Experiment 2, we investigated whether individual differences in three psychosocial variables would influence the effect of the preparation intervention on children’s cross-examination performance. To answer this question, we utilised a subset of the children from Experiment 1 (n = 88). Half of these children participated in the preparation intervention; the remaining children did not. Each child’s teacher provided ratings of self-esteem, self-confidence, and assertiveness. Low levels of self-esteem and self-confidence were correlated with poor cross-examination performance. None of the psychosocial variables, however, moderated the positive effect of the preparation intervention.
Finally, we examined the effect of the preparation intervention on fabricated responses. To date, laboratory cross-examination studies have always involved children who are making a genuine attempt to provide accurate responses during the direct-examination interview. It is critical, however, that our preparation intervention does not prevent cross-examination from uncovering the truth from a dishonest witness. In Experiment 3, 6- to 11-year-old children (N = 82) played three computer games with one of their parents. The parents—who acted as confederates—coached their children to lie about the occurrence of two target activities. Children were then interviewed about the computer game paradigm with analogues of direct examination and cross-examination. Children who lied about one, or both, of the target activities during direct examination were retained in the final sample (n = 79). Immediately prior to the cross-examination interview, half of the children received the preparation intervention. Again, the preparation intervention helped children maintain accuracy when responding to cross-examination challenges about truthful reports. However, the intervention also appeared to assist children to maintain their deceit on the coached items.
Taken together, the findings from Experiment 1 and 2 suggest that the preparation intervention is effective in negating the detrimental effect that cross-examination questions has on children’s accuracy. Experiment 3, however, raised concern that the preparation intervention may help some dishonest children maintain their lies. Given that legal professionals remain concerned about children’s ability to effectively participate in cross-examination, it is imperative that psychological scientists continue to work towards a feasible solution. Future research should investigate how the preparation intervention interacts with other established legal practices, such as the child-friendly oath.