Are Children Reliable

Witnesses?

Ben F. Cotterill
 Are Children Reliable Witnesses?

“This is an excellent book. The book explains when children can be relied on to
give accurate eyewitness testimony and provides important insights into why chil-
dren can sometimes be inaccurate. Best of all the book includes many relevant
examples of real life cases in which children have had to give evidence during
police interviews or in courts of law. The book is well researched with extensive
references to academic research. The book is very well written, and will be acces-
sible to anyone. This book can be highly recommended to parents and to students
of developmental psychology, sociology, law and linguistics, and to everyone who
is involved with children who, for whatever reason, may be involved with the
police and the courts.”
—Dr. Mark Blades, Senior Lecturer in Developmental Psychology, Department of
Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

“I am delighted to endorse the book “Are children reliable witnesses” by Ben

Cotterill. If you want to know more about how reliable children’s eyewitness
accounts are, this is the book for you. There is a nice coverage of how well children
can serve as witnesses to a crime with reference to social and cognitive factors that
influence their accuracies. The author used a wide range of relevant high-profile
cases drawn from a variety of jurisdictions and regions to anchor the development
of each chapter. I am recommending this book as a valuable resource for academics
and students in psychology, criminology, and law because there isn’t another in the
market that fully captures children’s experience in the courtroom. Not only is it
good for academics, but a great resource for social workers, forensic investigators
and practitioners working within the Youth and Criminal Justice.”
—Dr. Tochukwu Onwuegbusi, University of Lincoln, UK
 Ben F. Cotterill

Are Children Reliable

Witnesses?
Ben F. Cotterill
Psychology
Clemson University
Clemson, SC, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-10381-0    ISBN 978-3-031-10382-7 (eBook)

[Link]

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Introduction  1
The Scope of Children in the Legal System   4
An Introduction to the Book Chapters   6

2 The Witch Hunts  7

The Salem Witch Trials   8
Day Care Sexual Abuse Panic  11
Conclusions  17
Suggested Further Reading  18

3 An
 Introduction to Suggestibility 19
Case Study  20
Suggestibility  20
Historic Views of Suggestibility  21
Binet  22
Modern Views of Suggestibility  25
Source Monitoring  28
Conclusions  29
Suggested Further Reading  30

v
vi  Contents

4 Memory
 Mechanisms and Developmental Factors of
Suggestibility 31
Memory  32
Externally Driven and Internally Driven False Memories  33
Case Study  36
Henry Otgaar’s Argument  36
Age-Related Differences in Memory  37
Knowledge Differences  38
Language Differences  38
Theory of Mind  40
Own-Age Bias  40
Social Influences  41
Other Influences  42
Children’s Ability to Lie  42
Conclusions  43
Suggested Further Reading  44

5 True
 Cases of Child Eyewitnesses 45
Nevis Nursery Case  45
Devil’s Dyke Rape Case  47
Case of Jimmy Guard  48
Poland Abduction Case  50
Kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart  52
Murder of Courtney Smith  53
Disappearance of Maria Ridulph  57
Conclusions  61

6 Children’s
 Describing and Identifying Capabilities 65
Are Children Capable Witnesses?  65
Everyday Conversations with Children  66
Children Answering Nonsensical Questions  67
Forensically Relevant Conversations with Children  68
Accuracy of Child Eyewitnesses at Describing  71
Accuracy of Child Eyewitnesses at Identifying  73
Conclusions  75
Suggested Further Reading  76
  Contents  vii

7 External
 Factors of Suggestibility 77
Question Types  78
Question Repetition  80
Delay and Repeated Interviews  82
Interviewer Bias  83
Stereotype Induction  85
Interviewer Status  85
Emotional Tone  85
Current Interviewing Formats  86
Case Study  89
Case Study: Analysis  89
Conclusions  91
Suggested Further Reading  91

8 Individual
 Differences Relating to Suggestibility 93
Interview Extract One—Child A  94
Interview Extract Two—Child B  95
Age  97
Gender  97
Socioeconomic Status  98
Cognitive Factors  98
Temperament  99
Conclusions 106
Suggested Further Reading 107

9 Juror Perceptions109
Case Study 110
Case Study: Analysis 113
Effects of Witness Age 114
Effects of Interviewing Technique 115
Effects of Witness Confidence and Shyness 116
Juror Gender 117
Juror Age 118
Juror Personality 118
Prosecution of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse 119
Conclusions 120
Suggested Further Reading 121
viii  Contents

10 Conclusion123

References129

Index161
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract  This book will discuss the reliability and credibility of children
as eyewitnesses, exploring practices and influences that can increase or
decrease accuracy. Chapter 2 discusses the witch-hunt mentality of the
1980s and early 1990s, which led to many false imprisonments during the
day care sexual abuse hysteria cases, while also mentioning some of the
interviewing practices which led to false accusations being made. Chapter
3 explores historic views and modern views over children’s suggestibility.
Chapter 4 outlines memory mechanisms and general developmental fac-
tors that influence the capability of witnesses. Chapter 5 discusses true
cases where children were the primary eyewitness to a crime and their
testimonies were needed for trial. These cases showcase how both accurate
and inaccurate a child eyewitness can be. Chapter 6 explores the describ-
ing and identifying capabilities of young children when performing as wit-
nesses. Chapter 7 discusses external factors (i.e., those relating to the
interviewer) that influence children’s suggestibility and eyewitness perfor-
mance, while Chapter 8 outlines dispositional and demographical factors
(i.e., those relating to the child). Finally, Chapter 9 explores jurors’ per-
ceptions of children as eyewitnesses.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Memory • Eyewitness testimony •

Suggestibility

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
2  B. F. COTTERILL

A six-year-old boy arrives at the neighborhood park with his mother and
baby sister. A light breeze whips against the boy’s face so he zips up the
jacket that his mother made him bring. Some older boys he knows from
school are playing football in the field. He turns to his mother, who is
helping his baby sister down the slide, and asks if he can go join the boys.
She says he can, so he runs off with a big grin. A man in a sweatshirt stands
at the edge of the field and stops the boy. He asks him where he is going.
“To play football,” the boy responds. “You like football?” the man asks.
The boy nods and tells the man the name of his favorite team. “I’ve got
some of their signed jerseys in my car,” the man tells him, and then asks if
the boy would like one. The boy thinks about this but shakes his head; his
mother has warned him against going with strangers.
Suddenly, the man attempts to pull the boy by the arm. The boy, how-
ever, manages to avoid him and run back to his mother. When he takes his
mother over to the field, the man is gone. His mother phones the police,
and they ask the boy for a description. The police will then use this to
check who was in the area, if anyone nearby has prior offenses of a similar
nature, and hopefully eventually produce a suspect to show the boy in a
lineup. Lastly, the boy may need to testify in court. Ideally, there will have
been some other witnesses in the park who remember seeing the man.
This way, their descriptions and identifications can be compared against
that of the boy’s to make sure they are all in agreement. What if, however,
no one else caught a glimpse of the man, and there is only the word of the
boy to go off? How much can we trust the boy’s description of the man?
Then, how much can we rely on the boy to accurately pick the right man
from a lineup? Lastly, how much will a jury trust the boy’s credibility as a
witness? Unfortunately, young children are the sole eyewitness to crimes
far too often, and so it is imperative that we can get accurate, detailed, and
compelling accounts from them.
Faulty eyewitness accounts are the leading cause of wrongful arrests;
since the Innocence Project was founded in 1992, they have helped over-
turn 360 wrongful convictions with post-conviction DNA evidence. Of
these 360 cases, witness misidentifications were present in 71% of them
(Innocence Project, 2020). To date, the National Registry of Exonerations
(2020) has a record of 2,625 cases of men and women wrongfully con-
victed in the United States. Collectively, these men and women have spent
over 23,000 years in prison for crimes they did not commit.
Evidence shows that children make poorer eyewitnesses than adult on
average, both remembering less and performing worse at facial
 1 INTRODUCTION  3

recognition (Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Hershkowitz et al., 2012; Pozzulo &
Dempsey, 2006). Ricardo Rachell is one of these 2,625 cases. In 2002, an
eight-year-old boy ran down a street in Houston, crying and screaming.
He was taken back to his mother and made a statement to the police that
someone had held a knife to his throat and tried to kill him. The next day,
he and his family saw neighbor Ricardo Rachell riding his bike in town.
The boy identified Rachell as his attacker and added that Rachell had sexu-
ally assaulted him. Rachell was charged with sexual assault of a child and
was sentenced to 40 years in prison. In 2007, Rachell requested DNA
testing after doing some investigating of his own. He argued that the
actual person responsible was Andrew Hawthorne (a known serial rapist in
the area). In 2008, DNA tests proved that Rachell was innocent, and that
Hawthorne had committed the crime.
Disclosures of sexual abuse by children are only treated seriously by
parents and reported to police in the United Kingdom and the United
States 26% to 30% of the time (Royal College of General Practitioners and
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 2014; Snyder,
2000), even though it is estimated that only about 6% of child sexual
abuse accusations in the United Kingdom and the United States are false
(Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Everson & Boat, 1989; for a review, see O’Donohue
et  al., 2018). This means many offenses against children occur without
ever resulting in an arrest. Since the child’s testimony is often the only
available evidence in cases involving child witnesses (Brewer et al., 1997;
Lamb & Brown, 2006), it may be that forensic interviews with children
are not eliciting sufficient evidence and this is a contributing factor to low
arrest rates. A 14-year-old French girl in 2013 reported to her school
counsellor that her father had been sexually assaulting her. She was told
that her words would not be evidence enough to convict him, so she set
up a camera in her room and filmed the next sexual assault (Goodman
et  al., 2014). The contrasting examples of the American boy and the
French girl show the dilemmas that investigators face when children are
the primary eyewitnesses. It must be carefully considered how much
weight should be placed on the importance of eyewitness testimony. If
testimonies are believed without question, it could result in wrongful
arrests, but if they are not believed at all then guilty and dangerous offend-
ers will not be apprehended.
Things are made more complicated when the complaints come from a
parent, teacher, or guardian, and not the child themselves. Often, an adult
will have a suspicion that a child has been a victim of sexual abuse, though
4  B. F. COTTERILL

the child has made no accusations. In these instances, it is important to

ease children into making statements, but to not coax them into making
false accusations as so many cases have previously done. The Hunt (2012)
is an excellent Danish film on the subject, starring Mads Mikkelsen as a
teacher who is accused of sexually assaulting one of his pupils. Unlike
other films on the subject, it is made clear to the audience at the beginning
of the film that Mikkelsen’s character is innocent. The film portrays how
the pupil is led to state things she clearly does not understand in response
to suggestive questioning. It is worth reiterating, however, that false accu-
sations of child sexual abuse are not very common (Ceci & Bruck, 1995;
Everson & Boat, 1989; for a review, see O’Donohue et al., 2018).

The Scope of Children in the Legal System

Young children were included as eyewitnesses in even the earliest European
records of criminal proceedings, dating as far back as the mid-1500s (Ceci
& Bruck, 1993). In 1736, Sir Matthew Hale noted that children appeared
in English courts most often as witnesses for crimes of rape, buggery, and
witchcraft (Edelstein, 1998). However, things were quite different in
North America. Following the devastation of the Salem witch trials (dur-
ing which a group of young girls accused 200 people of being witches, and
19 of them were sentenced to death), children were viewed as unreliable
witnesses, and were largely prohibited from testifying in courts. Canada
did not enact its first legislation on child eyewitnesses until 1893 (Bala,
2018), and the US Supreme Court did not permit child eyewitnesses to
testify until 1895 (Pantell, 2017). Currently, in North America and the
United Kingdom, jurisdictions have no minimum age requirement for tes-
tifying in courts. Instead, it is up to the judge to decide whether or not the
child is competent to testify. American judges must determine if the child
knows fact from fiction, as well as the difference between telling the truth
and a lie. In England and Wales, the emphasis is upon whether the child is
“capable of giving understandable evidence or being cross-examined”
(Crown Prosecution Service, 2019). In October 2017, newspapers
reported that a two-year-old girl became the youngest eyewitness to testify
in an English court (Bowcott, 2017).
The reliability of child eyewitnesses is especially a point of concern
given the large number of children who become involved in the legal sys-
tem every year. In Scotland (a country with a population of about 5.25
million people; National Records of Scotland, 2012), children were asked
 1 INTRODUCTION  5

to give testimony in a criminal court 4297 times in 2017 (Crown Office

and Procurator Fiscal Service, 2018). Of these witnesses, 537 were below
the age of ten and 209 were below the age of eight. These numbers only
include criminal proceedings, and so do not include the numerous court
appearances of children in civil cases or divorce proceedings. In 2009, the
BBC uncovered that 47,817 court witnesses were 17 years old or younger
during the previous year across England and Wales. The figures showed
that 1116 of the witnesses were under the age of ten. Of these numbers,
667 were also the victim of the crime. Unlike in Scotland, courts in
England do not share witness details on a joint system, so it is difficult to
gather more recent statistics. To the author’s knowledge, there are no
known statistics for the United States; in 1993, Ceci and de Bruyn esti-
mated that about 100,000 children appear in court each year across the
country based upon the data they had available for New York State. This
would mean that the number of child witnesses in American courts are
proportionally half of that in Scottish courts. If this is accurate, it may be
because testimonies from child witnesses are still treated with greater skep-
ticism in America. The difference cannot be explained by lower crime rates
in America as the rates of child sexual abuse are reported to be higher in
the United States than in the United Kingdom (Radford et  al., 2011;
Townsend & Rheingold, 2013). Given that Scottish law requires all evi-
dence presented during trials—particularly in regard to identifications—to
be corroborated, this may also help explain why children are called to
courts in Scotland proportionally more often than in North America
(Andrews & Lamb, 2016).
Sexual abuse is the most common crime against children, and, thus, the
crime they are most often witness to and asked to testify about in court.
Studies reveal that 1  in 10 children have been sexually abused in the
United States (Townsend & Rheingold, 2013), while at least 1 in 20 chil-
dren have been sexually abused in the United Kingdom (Radford et al.,
2011; Royal College of General Practitioners and National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 2014). In reality, the numbers are
probably higher than the studies suggest. Radford et al. (2011) found that
only 66% of children sexually abused in the United Kingdom report the
matter to an adult. Other studies in the United States have suggested that
as few as 38% of child victims report their sexual abuse (London et  al.,
2008; Ullman, 2007). In England and Wales, 13,700 people were con-
victed of sexual offenses in the business year of 2016/2017 (Crown
Prosecution Service, 2017). About 27% of the victims in these cases were
6  B. F. COTTERILL

younger than 18 years old, and about 9% of them were younger than 13
years old. Children are also frequently required to testify in cases of domes-
tic violence and intrafamilial murders. Annually in the United States,
about 15.5 million children witness intimate partner violence (McDonald
et al., 2006).

An Introduction to the Book Chapters

This book will discuss the reliability and credibility of children as eyewit-
nesses, exploring practices and influences that can increase or decrease
accuracy. Chapter 2 discusses the witch-hunt mentality of the 1980s and
early 1990s, which led to many false imprisonments during the day care
sexual abuse hysteria cases, while also mentioning some of the interview-
ing practices which led to false accusations being made. Chapter 3 explores
historic views and modern views over children’s suggestibility. Chapter 4
outlines memory mechanisms and general developmental factors that
influence the capability of witnesses. Chapter 5 discusses true cases where
children were the primary eyewitness to a crime and their testimonies were
needed for trial. These cases showcase how both accurate and inaccurate a
child eyewitness can be. Chapter 6 explores the describing and identifying
capabilities of young children when performing as witnesses. Chapter 7
discusses external factors (i.e., those relating to the interviewer) that influ-
ence children’s suggestibility and eyewitness performance, while Chapter
8 outlines dispositional and demographical factors (i.e., those relating to
the child). Finally, Chapter 9 explores jurors’ perceptions of children as
eyewitnesses
 CHAPTER 2

The Witch Hunts

Abstract  Like anyone, children’s memories and testimonies are vulnerable

to a number of influences. This chapter will explore cases in which poor
interviewing practice and widespread hysteria led to a number of false con-
victions during a time of paranoia that sexual abuse was occurring in
American day care centers. It will be shown how these cases mirror the
infamous cases of witch trials nearly 300 years previously. In later chapters,
these poor interviewing methods will be discussed in more detail. In sum,
research has made it apparent that children will often answer questions that
they do not understand or know the answer to, especially if it is repeated
(because they think there must, therefore, be an answer, or they previously
answered incorrectly; Krähenbühl & Blades, The effect of question repeti-
tion within interviews on young children’s eyewitness recall. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 94(1), 57–67. [Link]
jecp.2005.12.002, 2006), poses options (e.g., questions requiring a yes/
no response; Roberts & Cameron, Observations from Canadian practitio-
ners about the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving child and
adult witnesses. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(1), 33–57.
[Link] 2015), or suggests
that a certain answer is correct (i.e., leading questions; Lyon, Interviewing
children. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10(1), 73–89. https://
[Link]/10.1146/annurev-­lawsocsci-­110413-­030913, 2014). A large
reason for these false convictions was interviewer bias (i.e., a preconceived
notion of the truth), meaning questions were conducted in a way that

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 7

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
8  B. F. COTTERILL

would support the beliefs of the interviewers, and evidence that may have
proven otherwise was never sought. In some cases, positive reinforcement
(i.e., when an interviewer rewards a child for saying what the interviewer
wants to hear) and peer pressure (i.e., when a child is told their friends
already said one thing, and so they should say the same) were also used to
influence the statements of children.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Memory • Eyewitness testimony •

Suggestibility • Interviews • Day care • Witch hunts • Salem •
McMartin

Like anyone, children’s memories and testimonies are vulnerable to a

number of influences. This chapter will explore cases in which poor inter-
viewing practice and widespread hysteria led to a number of false convic-
tions during a time of paranoia that sexual abuse was occurring in American
day care centers. It will be shown how these cases mirror the infamous
cases of witch trials nearly 300 years previously. In later chapters, these
poor interviewing methods will be discussed in more detail. In sum,
research has made it apparent that children will often answer questions
that they do not understand or know the answer to, especially if it is
repeated (because they think there must, therefore, be an answer, or they
previously answered incorrectly; Krähenbühl & Blades, 2006), poses
options (e.g., questions requiring a yes/no response; Roberts & Cameron,
2015), or suggests that a certain answer is correct (i.e., leading questions;
Lyon, 2014). A large reason for these false convictions was interviewer
bias (i.e., a preconceived notion of the truth), meaning questions were
conducted in a way that would support the beliefs of the interviewers, and
evidence that may have proven otherwise was never sought. In some cases,
positive reinforcement (i.e., when an interviewer rewards a child for saying
what the interviewer wants to hear) and peer pressure (i.e., when a child is
told their friends already said one thing, and so they should say the same)
were also used to influence the statements of children.

The Salem Witch Trials

In 1689, Reverend Samuel Parris became minister of Salem in
Massachusetts, New England. He was the fourth minister in only 16 years.
Due to the town’s dispersed layout, there was little feeling of community,
 2  THE WITCH HUNTS  9

and the town lived in constant fear of attacks from Native Americans. They
blamed these attacks, as well as other troubles such as outbreaks of small-
pox, on the wrath of God. During this time, the reverend’s 12-year-old
niece, Abigail Williams, was sent to live with the reverend and his family
after her parents were beaten to death by Native Americans at their home.
Abigail was likely traumatized after having witnessed the brutal death of
her parents. Nevertheless, she was expected to earn her place within her
uncle’s home by doing most of the chores and by caring for her sick aunt.
After chores were done, there was little to do during the cold winter
months except to stay inside and read stories (books about fortune-telling
were popular at the time). Abigail, her cousin, and friends from town
formed a circle in the evenings to share with each other what they had
learned from their reading. This earned them their nickname—“the
Circle Girls.”
At some point, one of the girls offered to tell the others their fortune
by putting egg whites into water, and then interpreting the shapes that
formed. Whatever happened, Abigail was apparently unhappy with the
result of her fortune, and she soon started acting out in bizarre ways. She
screamed, ran around the house, waved around her arms, threw things,
contorted into strange positions, and uttered unintelligible words. The
reverend called a doctor, but he was not able to identify any medical rea-
son for Abigail’s behavior and so concluded that she must be possessed by
the supernatural. Once children in town too started behaving strangely,
including the reverend’s own daughter, he pressed Abigail over who had
bewitched her, or perhaps over whether or not she was a witch herself.
Eventually, the 12-year-old girl claimed to the reverend that she had been
possessed by his Barbadian slave, Tituba.
People at the time believed witches were those who had entered into an
agreement with the devil, gaining powers in exchange for committing acts
of evil. At last, the townspeople had an answer as to why their town had
been continuously punished by God—they were harboring witches. Now,
in order to please God, they knew what they had to do—eradicate their
town of witchcraft. The townspeople questioned Abigail and the rest of
the Circle Girls over who else might be a witch in town, eventually gaining
the names of Sarah Osborne and Sarah Good. Meanwhile, the reverend
managed to collect a confession from his slave. As well as admitting to
10  B. F. COTTERILL

being a witch, Tituba also confirmed the guilt of Sarah Osborne and
Sarah Good.
Even after harsh questioning, both Sarah Osborne and Sarah Good
maintained their innocence. Their negative reputations in town and poor
financial standing, however, made them prime suspects for witches; Sarah
Osborne was an older woman who no longer attended church, and Sarah
Good was a homeless woman who cursed people under her breath for not
giving her charity. Sarah Good called for her husband to speak in her
defense. Unfortunately for her, he broke down in tears under questioning
and claimed he loved his wife, but that she probably was a witch because
she was just that mean and spiteful. All three women were sent to be held
in the Boston jail until their trials, though Sarah Osborne died of natural
causes in jail shortly after her arrest.
By May 1693—more than a year after the first accusation—the Circle
Girls had accused over 200 people in town of being witches. Those who
spoke publicly about doubting the accusations, such as John Proctor, were
arrested under charges of witchcraft, along with their families. Trials were
held, and 19 of the accused were found guilty of being witches and sen-
tenced to death; Sarah Good and 17 others were hanged, while another
woman was pressed to death. About a dozen more were spared execution
by pleading guilty, including Tituba. Eventually, as support for the trials
swiftly declined, the governor ended the trials by pardoning the remaining
accused. The change in public opinion was mostly due to large crop short-
ages stemming from the fact so many workers were in prison and the fields
were being untended. The townspeople, therefore, were being left to
starve, and many felt they were being punished by God for executing
innocent people.
Reverend Parris gave a public apology for giving so much weight to the
accusations of young girls, but he was never able to win public support
again. By 1697, he had been replaced as minister of the town and had
moved away with his family. It is unknown what happened to Abigail
Williams, as it does not appear that she moved away with the reverend.
Some historians believe she passed away of an illness during the trials, and
others say that the reverend forced her away because he blamed her for the
trials and executions. Other members of the Circle Girls later publicly
apologized and admitted they had made a mistake in accusing anyone of
witchcraft. No one was ever executed for being a witch in America after
the Salem witch trials, but the taking of 19 innocent lives surely took its
toll on the people involved for many years to come.
 2  THE WITCH HUNTS  11

Day Care Sexual Abuse Panic

Most people consider offenses against children to be the most heinous of
crimes. Unfortunately, this can result in a desperation to get those thought
of as guilty locked up before the necessary facts have come to light, not
too dissimilar from the Salem witch trials. This has resulted in many infa-
mous cases of poor interviewing practice which resulted in wrongful
imprisonment. In both the Country Walk case and the Wee Care Nursery
School case, for example, investigators repeatedly used peer pressure to
acquire statements from children (e.g., “Some of the children said so and
I believe the children because I don’t think children make up stories like
that. Do you?”; “All the other friends I talked to told me everything that
happened … And now it’s your turn to tell. You don’t want to be left out,
do you?”; “Boy, I hate having to tell your friends that you didn’t want to
help them.”). In other cases, aggressively leading questioning was used,
and, in some instances, children were even prevented from going to the
bathroom before disclosing information to investigators. In sum, the
witch hunts are not just some part of ancient history, but are in liv-
ing memory.
The day care sexual abuse panic occurred mainly in the 1980s and early
1990s throughout the USA, as well as Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and
South America. It started with the 1982 Kern County case in California,
which remained in the news headlines for nearly a decade. During the
second half of the twentieth century, more women were working in the
United States than ever before, and an unprecedented number of day care
centers opened to accommodate this transformation, including within
people’s homes and basements. Stemming from this was anxiety about
leaving children, followed by an enormous increase in reports of child
sexual abuse and opportunities for children to provide eyewitness testi-
mony. An opinion poll in 1983 showed that nearly all parents in the
United States were aware of the problem of sexual abuse occurring in day
care centers. Considering that only two decades earlier child abuse was just
starting to be recognized by physicians, this was an astounding transfor-
mation in opinion. The public previously were largely only aware of
“stranger danger,” even though child abusers are very rarely strangers to
the child. The subject of intrafamilial abuse, however, was brought to pub-
lic attention via the television movie, Something About Amelia, starring
Ted Danson, which received 60 million views in just one week, and was
nominated for eight Emmy awards (winning three of them).
12  B. F. COTTERILL

The McMartin Preschool case in California was the first in America to

receive major national coverage, and is often described as the longest and
most expensive criminal trial in American history (Linder, 2007). The case
started in 1983 when a mother, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia,
reported to her son’s pediatrician that a worker at the preschool had sexu-
ally assaulted him. This was followed by an investigation, during which
hundreds of children were interviewed. Eventually, the children made 41
uncorroborated complaints (though 27 were withdrawn by the time of
the preliminary hearing), and seven arrests were made. The complaints
contained statements about underground tunnels beneath the school and
that the children had been led to a farm where they saw animals butchered
and then were raped. Additionally, the children claimed the day care work-
ers could fly and wore witch hats when other adults were not around.
Criminal trials lasted six years, and, once they ended in 1990, over $15
million of public taxes had been spent and all charges had been dropped.
The interviewing practice by investigators has since been widely criticized.
It has been argued that the questions used were incredibly leading, and
that questions were continuously repeated until investigators managed to
get the responses they desired from the children (Ceci & Bruck, 1995;
Cheit, 2014; Garven et al., 1998; Schreiber et al., 2006).
The Country Walk case is probably the most controversial of the day
care sexual abuse cases. In Florida, Frank and Ileana Fuster ran an illegal
babysitting service in their home, and were arrested in 1984 for multiple
charges of sexual abuse. At the time, the case was considered a prime
example of how a sexual abuse case with multiple victims should be han-
dled, but in the 1990s was criticized by researchers. A leading authority on
children’s suggestibility, Jeopardy in the Courtroom by Stephen Ceci and
Maggie Bruck in 1995 used the Country Walk case as an example of how
stereotype induction and interviewer bias can coax desired responses from
young children. Certainly, there are at least some examples of poor inter-
viewing practice from the Country Walk case, including examples of inves-
tigators trying to get children to disclose information via telling them
what their friends had previously disclosed and by saying that the children
could help protect their friends if they revealed information that would
incriminate Frank and Ileana. Additionally, it is clear that a lot of the chil-
dren believed Frank and Ileana to be bad people because of things their
parents had told them and not because of any personal experiences. For
example, one child was asked by an investigator, “What is it that makes
you think he’s bad?” The child responded, “My mom told me.”
 2  THE WITCH HUNTS  13

A year after the arrest, Ileana accepted a plea bargain in exchange for
testifying against her husband, though she made it clear at the time that
she was not pleading guilty because she had committed any crime but
because she thought this was her safest course of action. Ultimately, she
only served two years, instead of risking the same fate as her husband, who
received a 165-year sentence. Ileana has also since claimed that she was
kept naked in solitary confinement and physically assaulted before agree-
ing to testify against her husband. If this is true, then her treatment is not
too different from how the accused witches of Salem were treated nearly
300 years previously. Despite the uncertainty over the credibility of Ileana’s
testimony and the evidence of some poor interviewing practice, there still
remains persuading factors regarding Frank’s guilt. First, he has a prior
offense of fondling a nine-year-old girl. Second, unlike many of the other
day care sexual abuse cases, there was physical evidence to support the
children’s statements (e.g., they had rashes on their penises and/or anuses
and had been drugged). Third, Frank’s own six-year-old son tested posi-
tive for an STD. This raises the question of why none of the other children
would have tested for an STD, but virtually all of the children were taking
antibiotics at the time due to fevers and being suspected of having throat
infections.
Following this, many more cases of sexual abuse against children in day
care centers arose over the next two decades. In 1983, Gerald Amirault
was charged with abusing children at the Fells Acre Day Care. He was
released in 2003 after the Massachusetts Board of Pardons expressed great
doubt over his guilt. In 1984, Bernard Baran, a 19-year-old teacher’s
assistant was accused of molesting a boy at his work. The boy’s parents
were both drug addicts and police informants. Police interviewed the par-
ents of other children in Baran’s class, finding many of them were uncom-
fortable with the fact that Baran was gay and had long worried he might
be a danger to their children. Charges against Baran were not dropped
until 2009, when the Massachusetts Appeals Court declared there was not
and had never been any convincing evidence of his guilt. He died of a
heart attack in 2014, meaning only five years of his nonteenage life were
spent as a free man. In the Georgian Hills Day Center case (Tennessee,
1984), case of the Bronx Five (New York, 1984), Rogers Park case
(Illinois, 1984), Craig County’s Day Care case (Maryland, 1985),
Felix’s Day Care case (Nevada, 1985), Old Cutler case (Florida, 1989),
Oak Hill case (Texas, 1991), Faith Chapel Church case (California,
1989), Martensville case (Canada, 1992), and Wenatchee case
14  B. F. COTTERILL

(Washington, 1994–1995), defendants were all found guilty of multiple

accounts of sexual abuse, only then to be declared innocent and released
from prison after spending up to 26 years in prison.
Probably the most known of the day care sexual abuse hysteria cases is
that of Kelly Michaels (New Jersey, 1985). She was an employee at the
Wee Care Nursery School and was sentenced to 47 years in prison for 299
offenses against 33 different children. The statements included that she
had penetrated anuses and vaginas with knives, forks, and Lego blocks,
that she had made the children eat her own urine and feces, that she had
licked peanut butter off their genitals, that she had played the piano nude,
and that she had made the children lie in the shape of a Satanic pentagram
while naked. The case was widely criticized by journalists (such as the
Village Voice and Harper’s Magazine) and by academics, who argued that
suggestive questioning was used to gain statements. Those interested
should read The Amicus brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels
presented by Committee of Concerned Social Scientists by Maggie Bruck and
Stephen Ceci, which summarized what was known at the time about the
suggestibility of preschool children and was highly influential in securing
the release of Kelly Michaels. The case resembled too much the McMartin
case—the most expensive case in American history and one that resulted
in zero guilty verdicts—and so an Appeals Court reversed the conviction
in 1993. Following the devastation of the McMartin trial and reversal of
Kelly Michaels’ conviction, similar day care sexual abuse cases came to be
viewed by the public with skepticism, resulting in many of the previously
mentioned cases then being overturned. One might wonder how a jury
could be convinced by the outrageous claims outlined above in this case,
but, presumably, jurors believe that while many of the claims are exaggera-
tions or fabrications, they must stem from some truth.
In the 1990s, there was a surge of research being conducted in the area
of children’s suggestibility, showcasing how easily they can be led to state
things that never happened. In the case of Kelly Michaels, some children
were rewarded with police badges in return for incriminating evidence,
and some were berated when they failed to do so. Nevertheless, some have
cast doubt over Kelly Michael’s innocence, such as Ross Cheit (author of
The Witch-Hunt Narrative, 2014). Certainly, similar to the Country Walk
case, there was some medical evidence corroborating the statements of the
children in the case of Kelly Michaels, including reports of vaginal and
rectal pain. Additionally, psychological evaluations of Kelly Michaels
revealed some irrational statements, including that she did not believe
 2  THE WITCH HUNTS  15

parents understood what was normal and natural about the bodies and
sexual curiosity of children. A woman Kelly befriended in prison also testi-
fied that Kelly had said that she had not meant to hurt the children.
Usually, jailhouse informants can be dismissed as self-serving, but, in this
case, the individual had already been sentenced and was not rewarded with
any deals for her testimony. Some have argued that Kelly Michaels was in
fact guilty and that her release was part of a hysteric reaction to the devas-
tating McMartin case and fear over how poor interviewing practice can
lead to false convictions, but this is only speculation at best. The truth is
that because of the interviewing methods used, it is impossible to know if
many of the defendants in these cases were guilty or innocent.
Lastly, one more case worth discussing in some detail is the Little
Rascals Day Care case (North Carolina, 1989). One of the children at
the day care made a sexual abuse allegation against Bob Kelly, who owned
the day care with his wife. Officer Brenda Toppin and Child Protection
Services advised the other parents to have their children evaluated for sex-
ual abuse and supplied them with a list of recommended therapists. At
first, very few children made any disclosures, but after many sessions of
therapy (in some cases, only after ten months of sessions), 90 of the chil-
dren made allegations against Kelly and 6 other adults (including some
who did not work at the day care and claimed to have never stepped foot
inside the building). The allegations included being hung upside down
from trees, being set on fire, watching babies be murdered, and being
thrown into a sea full of sharks, as well as claims of rape. Despite these
claims, there was zero physical or medical evidence of sexual abuse or tor-
ture. Granted, some forms of sexual abuse do not leave any evidence, but
claims were made that forks and knives had been inserted into the chil-
dren’s anal and vaginal openings, which would certainly cause injury, yet
no scarring, tearing, or lesions were discovered. Additionally, no parents
ever spotted anything unusual when visiting the day care during the days
unannounced. The only evidence in the case was the coaxed claims of the
children via repeated interrogations. Bob Kelly’s trial lasted eight months,
and it became the most expensive criminal trial in North Carolina history,
and all of the defendants were charged. By 1995, however, all the convic-
tions had been reversed by the Court of Appeals.
It seems that the seeds of the case may have been planted a few months
before the first accusation was made. Police officers and social workers had
been warned about the present danger of day care sexual abuse at a confer-
ence. Additionally, one of the children at the day care had reported to
16  B. F. COTTERILL

their mother that Bob Kelly had slapped him across the face. The mother
demanded an apology from the day care owner, but he denied the accusa-
tion, so she pulled her son from the day care and warned other parents
about the slapping. As parents then asked their children whether Kelly had
hit them like he had hit another child, it is possible they developed a nega-
tive stereotype of the day care owner. Interestingly, when questioned by
authorities, many of the children reported that Kelly had hit one of the
children, without claiming to have been hit themselves by the day
care owner.
While the parents were instructed to take their children to therapists for
evaluations, they were discouraged from taking their children to indepen-
dent therapists (who might have questioned some of the accusations).
Instead, Officer Toppin recommended a small list of intertwined thera-
pists, who kept in regular contact with her and the district attorney. There
seems to have been little, if any, theories considered by the therapists that
were not related to sexual abuse. While bedwetting and a reluctance to go
to school can be a sign of abuse, they can also be signs of many other
causes, but no other cause seems to have ever been entertained. Instead,
children were pressed with leading questions about touching and pre-
sented with anatomically correct dolls to point out where they had been
touched. For example, one child—Lisa—became upset when the day care
closed. She stated that she missed Mr. Bob because he had been nice to
her. Her mother became suspicious of this and sent her to one of the rec-
ommended therapists. Lisa had never made any accusation that she had
been sexually touched, but by using one of the anatomical dolls, she even-
tually claimed to the therapist after many sessions of therapy that Mr. Bob
had touched her buttocks, and also expressed curiosity over how babies
are made. It did not seem to occur to the therapist that perhaps Lisa was
curious about how babies are made because she had just gotten a new
baby sister, or that perhaps she had touched the doll because she had just
been subject to intensive questions about sexual touching. Instead, the
therapist concluded that Lisa’s question about how babies are made was
her way of leading to a disclosure and her touching of the doll was an
indication of penetration. Lisa then went on to make this claim in court
against Bob Kelly.
As mentioned previously, this widespread hysteria was not restricted to
the United States. In the United Kingdom, there are similar prominent
examples, including in Rochdale, Merseyside, and Orkney, Scotland.
Typical of these cases, the Rochdale case began with a six-year-old boy
 2  THE WITCH HUNTS  17

spreading stories about ghosts and zombies, only for social workers to
then become convinced he had been the victim of satanic ritual abuse after
a lengthy period of coercive interviews with the child. The case led to 20
children being taken from their families. It later turned out that the boy
had been watching horror movies and then recounting them to his friends
(Pendergrast, 2017). Children during these cases were subject to multiple
interviews and harsh questioning. In the Craig County’s Day Care case,
for example, children were interviewed as many as 54 times before inves-
tigators got the information they wanted.

Conclusions
What all these cases have in common is that they started with vague claims
or suspicions and led to serious allegations that had drastic consequences
for the defendants. Certainly, in some cases, there were definite injustices.
In the case of Bernard Baran, homophobia and an incompetent defense
played a role in his conviction. During his trial, only edited versions of the
children’s interviews were shown to the jury by the prosecution.
Remarkably, the defense never requested to see the full interviews. After
his conviction, the full interviews were supposedly lost, meaning only the
prosecution’s edited versions of the interviews were available as evidence
and Bernard had zero chance for an appeal. It was not until 21 years after
his arrest, following the death of the district attorney, that the original
interviews were “discovered” by the new district attorney, leading to all
charges being dropped. In other cases, however, it is possible that fear over
children’s suggestibility led to guilty individuals being released. In the
Country Walk case (the only case outlined in this chapter with convictions
not yet overturned), the poor interviewing practice was perhaps exagger-
ated. There were more spontaneous accusations in this case than in the
others, and the claims were not as outrageous as often claimed. There will
often be examples of bad practice within interviews, but that does not
necessarily mean that convictions should be overturned.
A study by Schreiber et al. (2006) analyzed the police’s interview tran-
scripts of the McMartin case and Kelly Michaels’ case, revealing that 64%
and 56% of the questions respectively could be classed as leading, while
only 7% of questions from the McMartin case and 11% of questions from
the case of Kelly Michaels could be classed as inviting free narrative. An
overwhelming 78% of questions from the McMartin case and 67% of ques-
tions from the case of Kelly Michaels were classed as option-posing.
18  B. F. COTTERILL

However, analysis of another 20 random transcripts (from random cases,

not necessarily sexual abuse cases) found that 20% of questions were lead-
ing, only 12% invited free narrative, and 60% were option-posing. While
panic over day care sexual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s caused some
false arrests to be made, a different kind of hysteria in the mid-1990s
caused people to unquestionably doubt children as eyewitnesses and latch
on to any poor interviewing practice as evidence for the overturn of con-
victions. Thankfully, interviewing practice has improved immensely, and in
the following chapters it will be demonstrated not just how accurate child
eyewitnesses can be but also how necessary their testimonies can be for
justice.

Suggested Further Reading

Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). Amicus brief for the case of State of New
Jersey v. Michaels presented by Committee of Concerned Social
Scientists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2), 272–322. https://
[Link]/10.1037/1076-­8971.1.2.272
Cheit, R. E. (2014). The witch-hunt narrative: Politics, psychology, and the
sexual abuse of children. Oxford University Press.
Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R. S., & Shaw, J. S., III. (1998). More
than suggestion: The effect of interviewing techniques from the
McMartin Preschool case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3),
347–359. [Link]
Noblett, J. (2020). From Salem to Eden: Satanic ritual abuse and American
Law. The Macksey Journal, 1(43), 1–15.
Schreiber, N., Bellah, L.  D., Martinez, Y., McLaurin, K.  A., Strok, R.,
Garven, S., & Wood, J.  M. (2006). Suggestive interviewing in the
McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case
study. Social Influence, 1(1), 16–47.
 CHAPTER 3

An Introduction to Suggestibility

Abstract  Before discussing the capability of children as witnesses any fur-

ther, it is important to understand the role of suggestibility to have some
context. Specifically, one needs to know the extent to which children’s
claims might be the result of real events or of suggestive techniques and
misremembrances. It is also important to consider if younger children are
more suggestible than older children and adults. This chapter will define
suggestibility and outline studies that have explored our understanding of
the concept.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Memory • Eyewitness testimony •

Suggestibility • Elizabeth Loftus • Stephen Ceci • Source monitoring

Before discussing the capability of children as witnesses any further, it is

important to understand the role of suggestibility to have some context.
Specifically, one needs to know the extent to which children’s claims might
be the result of real events or of suggestive techniques and misremem-
brances. It is also important to consider if younger children are more sug-
gestible than older children and adults. This chapter will define
suggestibility and outline studies that have explored our understanding of
the concept.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 19

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
20  B. F. COTTERILL

Case Study
In 1990, Donna Smith was a teenager who began therapy with social
worker, Cathy Meyers. Despite having no prior suspicions over the fact,
Meyers repeatedly interrogated Donna over whether or not her father had
sexually abused her as a child. Eventually, following months of suggestive
questioning and urges to dig deeper into her memory, Donna began to
consider the possibility. She then gave some specific accounts, and Meyers
reported Donna’s father to the authorities. In 1992, he was arrested and
charged with 12 counts of sexual abuse dating back eight years. Donna
argued for him to be released, but her therapist explained that victims
often try to recant their statements after an arrest is made. They continued
therapy, and Donna began to believe that she had been a victim for years
of sexual abuse by her father, recounting specific incidents and satanic ritu-
als that her father used to perform. It was not until after stopping therapy
that Donna’s mind began to clear, and she became sure that no abuse had
occurred. She was diagnosed with a hormonal condition, explaining some
of her emotional troubles.

Suggestibility
Suggestibility is when memories are altered as a result of deliberate or
undeliberate suggestion. For example, in the day care sexual abuse hysteria
cases (Chap. 2), some of the children’s accusations clearly stemmed from
police coaxing them into making certain statements, or because parents
had previously characterized the defendants negatively to their children.
Even now—30 years later—some of the children from the McMartin case
still believe that they were sexually abused at day care, despite having no
independent memories of any abuse (CBS Los Angeles, 2014). This shows
the potentially long-lasting and tragic consequences of suggestion. The
case of Donna Smith is not an isolated incident. There are many cases of
adults entering therapy for various reasons and then uncovering “repressed
memories” of traumatic abuse, before later realizing that no abuse
occurred.
Elizabeth Loftus and Jaqueline Pickrell (1995) conducted an experi-
ment to test how easy it would be to plant false memories. They found
that college students could recall vivid descriptions of times they were lost
in a mall as young children, even though such an incident never occurred.
They achieved this after repeatedly asking participants to recall the event
 3  AN INTRODUCTION TO SUGGESTIBILITY  21

with suggestive questioning. After the study was complete, the subjects
were amazed that their memories were false because they felt so real.
Similar studies have had college students “remember” times they nearly
drowned as young children (Heaps & Nash, 2001) or times they were
attacked by a bear (Porter et al., 1999), even though the events were com-
plete fabrications.
Suggestibility does not solely refer to believing things occurred that in
fact did not, but also believing things transpired differently than they actu-
ally did because of suggestion. For example, Pezdek (2003) revealed that
about 73% of Americans “remember” watching footage on 9/11 of both
planes crashing into the World Trade Center buildings, even though foot-
age of the first plane crashing was not shown until the next day. Similarly,
Ost and colleagues (2008) found that 28% of a sample of participants
“remembered” watching a video of the Number 30 London bus explod-
ing in the July 2005 London bombings when asked three months after the
incident, even though no such video exists. When interviewing eyewit-
nesses about events that have been heavily publicized in the news—such as
plane crashes—it is common for eyewitnesses to include details they have
heard elsewhere as part of their own testimony and to mistake those details
as being part of their own memories. Pynoos and Nader (1989) inter-
viewed 113 children who attended a school that had been a victim of a
sniper shooting five years previously. Even children who had been absent
the day of the shooting claimed to have “memories” of the event. It seems
the children heard about the event from their peers and then incorporated
their reports into their own autobiographies.

Historic Views of Suggestibility

Generally, the first studies on children’s suggestibility were conducted in
mainland Europe (e.g., Binet, 1984, as cited in Nicolas et al., 2011; Binet,
as cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Stern, 1910, as cited in Ceci & Bruck,
1993; Stern, 1939; Varendonck, 1911, as cited in Hazan et  al., 1984).
Similar research was not conducted in the United Kingdom or North
America until the late 1970s, except for a small handful of studies (Burtt
& Gaskill, 1932; Hurlock, 1930; McConnell, 1963; Messerschmidt,
1933; Otis, 1924, as cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Sherman, 1925, as
cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993). A large reason for this is the repercussions
of the Salem witch trials. The general attitude following the trials was that
children could not be trusted as witnesses, and so there was no need to
22  B. F. COTTERILL

investigate factors that influenced their testimony because their testimony

was not much valued in the first place. There were indeed others, but this
section will briefly outline the theories and work of Binet, Stern, and
Varendonck, whose findings are still relevant today.

Binet
Alfred Binet was a French developmental psychologist, best known for
developing the IQ test. While he is less known for his work on children’s
suggestibility, he was one of the first researchers in the field, and his find-
ings were not investigated in the United Kingdom or USA until nearly a
century later. His 1894 article, Natural suggestibility (translated by Nicolas
et al., 2011), outlined his work with children aged between 7 and 14 years
old. This consisted of an experiment in which the children were shown a
series of lines progressively increasing in length until the lines in the series
eventually remained the same length. When asked to replicate the series of
lines in writing, the children drew the lines as though they continuously
got longer, without ever remaining constant in length. He theorized that
this type of suggestion came from the subject themselves (autosugges-
tion). Other studies by Binet also showed however that suggestion can be
due to influence from another person in the form of leading questions. In
one experiment, he had children view various objects and then asked them
either open-ended or misleading questions surrounding details about the
objects they had seen (e.g., color). He found that children were likely to
agree with the interviewer’s misleading question, rendering them less
accurate than those who were asked the open-ended equivalent question.
Interestingly, when asked if they thought they had made any mistakes,
children in Binet’s first experiment were immediately able to correct them-
selves, but children in the other study refused to admit they had been
inaccurate. It would seem that when children make a mistake because of
autosuggestion, they may be aware on some level that they are inaccurate.
However, when children report errors due to external suggestions, they
have a strong and misplaced confidence in their statements. Binet sum-
marized his work within a book, La Suggestibilit in 1900, though there
has still never been an English translation of the book published.
 3  AN INTRODUCTION TO SUGGESTIBILITY  23

Stern
William Stern (another pioneer in the field of intelligence research) was a
German psychologist, who conducted two types of experiments that are
still used by eyewitness memory researchers today. In the first, children
between the ages of 7 and 18 years old were shown pictures to study for a
brief period of time, and then were asked questions surrounding what they
remembered from the picture (Stern, 1910). Though we typically use
video footage now to better reflect real life, this is a very similar arrange-
ment to current studies. Stern found that open-ended questions and state-
ments inviting free recall (e.g., “Tell me what you remember”) produced
more accurate responses than misleading questions (questions that
requested information about nonexisting objects). He also found that
younger children reported the highest inaccuracies. In his second study, to
better reflect real life, he organized staged events to occur in classrooms,
and then asked the students afterward what they remembered (Stern,
1939). For example, he had two children pretend to argue during a class
and then had one of them draw a gun. The students each reported between
4 and 12 errors. Additionally, he found that inaccuracies over the second
half of the scenario were higher, when the subjects were at their most
stressed. Along with Otto Lipmann, Stern cofounded the Journal of
Applied Psychology, where he communicated to a wide range of other
researchers that most eyewitnesses do not intentionally falsify their reports
during testimony, but rather most inaccuracies are unintentional. He
explained that an eyewitness’s confidence in being accurate does not nec-
essarily equate to accurate reports, and that certain factors like leading
questions and repeated questioning can taint testimonies. Furthermore,
he highlighted that there were differences between how accurate an adult
witness was likely to be and how accurate a child witness was likely to be.
This was because in both of Stern’s studies children performed poorer
than adults.

Varendonck
It is difficult to identify exactly when the first psychologist testified as an
expert witness, but Hale (1980, as cited in Davis, 2020) suggested that it
was perhaps Albert von Schrenck-Notzing in 1896. He was asked to tes-
tify at the trial of a Munich man who was accused of murdering three
women. Since the press had reported on the incident so extensively, he
24  B. F. COTTERILL

wondered if witnesses would be able to distinguish between what they

actually remembered witnessing during the event and what they had read
in the papers. He found that they could not. While the defendant was still
convicted, his expert testimony drew the attention of many European psy-
chologists. Karl Marbe incorrectly promoted himself as the first German
psychologist to testify as an expert witness (though he perhaps was the first
to testify in regard to the accuracy of children’s memory). In 1911, he was
asked to testify during a case in which several German teenage girls had
accused their teacher of sexually molesting them. Later that year, several
psychologists were asked to testify in a Belgium murder trial in which a
man was accused of raping and murdering a nine-year-old girl, named
Cecile. Two of her friends had played with her on the day of the murder
and had apparently witnessed Cecile be led away by her murderer. They
led police to the spot where they had played (not far from where Cecile’s
body had been found) and, were then questioned over what they remem-
bered about the man. One of the children—Louise—reported that the
man had been tall and dark with a mustache. The next day, they were
interviewed again but their reports were inconsistent with the details they
reported previously. During further questioning, the children were pro-
vided with the names of potential suspects. Eventually, after over a month
of questioning, police felt they had enough details to make an arrest based
upon the descriptions by the two girls.
Julian Varendonck was a Belgian psychologist and one of the expert
witnesses who testified during the trial. While several psychologists testi-
fied during the trial, Varendonck stood out because of the experiments he
designed and then presented in the courtroom. His subjects were approxi-
mately the same age as the two witnesses (eight and ten years old). In one
of his experiments, he questioned a classroom of 18 children about the
color of a teacher’s beard. Even though the teacher did not have a beard,
16 of the children provided a response and only 2 said that they did not
know. In another study, a teacher had entered a classroom to speak to the
children for about five minutes, all the while wearing a hat. After he left,
the children were asked whether or not he had held his hat in his hand.
Only 3 of the 27 children correctly reported that he had not removed his
hat. Several other similar studies led Varendonck to the conclusion that
children’s testimonies were simply unreliable. Ultimately, he convinced
the jurors of his argument, and they found the defendant not guilty.
Unlike Binet and Stern, who believed that children were only occasionally
inaccurate due to suggestive questioning, Varendonck maintained that
 3  AN INTRODUCTION TO SUGGESTIBILITY  25

children were inherently unreliable as witnesses and should not ever be

allowed to testify in courtrooms (Varendonck, 1911, as cited in Hazan
et al., 1984).

Modern Views of Suggestibility

There were very few further developments in the field following the onset
of the world wars. There were less than two dozen studies in Canada, the
United Kingdom, and the United States combined over children’s sug-
gestibility during the twentieth century until the late 1970s, and even
these studies failed to discover anything that had not already been found
by researchers in mainland Europe. Studies in the late 1970s began to
show children short films, rather than pictures. They mirrored the results
of studies earlier in the century, showing that misleading questions led to
less accurate responses than open-ended questions. By placing the inter-
view either hours, days, weeks, or months after subjects had viewed the
film, studies also began to understand for the first time the negative effects
of delay (Oates & Shrimpton, 1991). Experiments by Elizabeth Loftus
during the 1970s and 1980s showed for the first time how the wording of
questions, the introduction of post-event information, and misinforma-
tion can all influence recall accuracy. For example, if an officer initially asks
a witness how fast a car was going as it passed a barn, even when there was
never a barn witnessed, they will later be more likely to misreport having
seen a barn than someone who was simply asked how fast the car was
going (Loftus, 1975). In another experiment, Loftus asked for estimates
of speed in a crash, after showing footage of a simulated crash to partici-
pants, and found if she used the term “smashed” rather than “bumped” in
her question, then she would receive estimates that were on average 10
mph faster (Loftus & Palmer, 1974).
While these studies demonstrate how vulnerable memory is to post-­
event information, they only do so within lab settings. It may be argued
that memory of a unique and/or traumatizing event like a crime would be
stronger, and a witness would be less likely to misremember any details.
For example, a study by Goodman et al. (1991) showed that children who
were more distressed while getting inoculations were later able to remem-
ber the event better than children who had been less distressed and were
also more resistant to misleading questions. However, a recent study by
Morgan et al. (2013) showed that even during times of high stress, such
as interrogation simulations for military training, post-event information
26  B. F. COTTERILL

can still cause misremembrances when it comes to adults. In this instance,

military personnel underwent simulated interrogations, and afterward
were asked either open-ended or leading questions about items that were
not actually in the room. Results showed that if participants underwent
leading questioning, they were significantly more likely to misreport wit-
nessing the items in the room. It seems that even during highly stressful
situations our memories are susceptible to the negative influences of lead-
ing questions.
In a similar, but more recent, study to the one by Goodman et  al.
(1991), Chae et al. (2014) found children who were more distressed while
receiving an inoculation later provided significantly more errors during an
interview about the event. However, this was mediated by the child’s
attachment style. Indeed, only those with high avoidant attachment styles
and who were rated as being highly distressed while receiving an inocula-
tion were significantly more likely to provide more errors. As will later be
discussed, therefore, there are significant dispositional factors at play,
regardless of the situational impactors and context.
Taking the early findings of Elizabeth Loftus’ experiments, develop-
mental psychologists in the 1980s and 1990s started to think how they
might be able to apply these discoveries about suggestibility to the testi-
monies of children. One of the most notable researchers in the field is
Stephen Ceci. In the early 1980s, his colleagues at Cornell University
believed they knew a great deal about children’s memories. However,
when Ceci got a call from a judge in New York State, asking for help over
whether or not to trust the testimony of a child witness, Ceci felt psy-
chologists did not currently know enough to appropriately assist. A young
boy’s mother had disappeared when the boy was four years old, and he
had gone to live with his aunt. Several years later, his mother’s remains
were found in the backyard of his old home, and so the boy’s aunt started
asking him questions over whether or not the boy remembered his mother
ever being hit by his father. Eventually, the boy stated that he remembered
his father hitting his mother over the head with a baseball bat and then
carrying her body to the backyard. The judge wanted to know if he should
trust the boy’s testimony. Ceci realized that there was not currently
enough understanding in the field to even begin answering that question
accurately.
In order to investigate this, Ceci wanted to know if you could take a
child who did not have a particular experience at all and lead them into
believing that they did. He took a group of children whose parents said
 3  AN INTRODUCTION TO SUGGESTIBILITY  27

they had never got their hands caught in a mousetrap and asked them
whether or not they had ever got their hands caught in a mousetrap and
had to go to hospital to get it removed. They all said that they had not,
then he came back and asked them again in a week. Again, they all said
that they had never got their hands stuck in a mousetrap. By the sixth,
seventh, and eighth week of questioning, children were not only “remem-
bering” about times they got their hands stuck in mousetraps but were
recounting incredibly detailed accounts of how it had happened, who had
taken them to hospital, and how they had got there. When confronted
with the fact that it had never happened, but had all been part of an experi-
ment, some of the children refused to believe it was all fake and still main-
tained that they really had got their hands caught in a mousetrap (Ceci
et al., 1994). Similar to the previously mentioned case of the school shoot-
ing, these findings have been linked to source-monitoring errors (see
below), meaning the children were perhaps misattributing the source of
the information (i.e., confusing the specific event of getting their hand
caught in a mousetrap with information they had heard in previous
interviews).
When reinterviewed some months later by Ceci and Hoffman, the
number of children in the mousetrap study who believed they had caught
their fingers in the trap dropped dramatically (Lyon, 2014), suggesting
some element of compliant responding. Compliance is when people are
motivated to please and/or avoid conflict with an authority figure
(Gudjonsson, 2003; Milgram, 1963). Therefore, as highlighted in the
studies mentioned earlier by Binet, there is a distinction between internal
and external sources of suggestion. For example, in the day care sexual
abuse cases, some children came to genuinely believe the truth of implanted
statements (i.e., cognitive suggestibility), while others acceded to certain
statements but did not internalize them as true.
By the mid-1990’s, Ceci had a much better understanding of how sug-
gestibility may influence the accuracy of children’s reports, and he was
asked to testify in a stay of execution case in El Paso, Texas. Federico
Macias was accused and convicted of murdering someone in his trailer
park. A key witness for the prosecution was a nine-year-old girl, named
Jennifer F. She claimed to have seen the defendant washing blood off his
hands in his trailer, but the defense claimed that it would have been impos-
sible for her to have seen Macias’ sink from where she was in her trailer at
the time. The girl had a negative view of the defendant because her mother
used to tell her to stay away from his trailer because he was a “bad man”
28  B. F. COTTERILL

who had previously been to prison. Furthermore, she had not been inter-
viewed by police until five weeks after the incident. The defendant was
scheduled to be executed by lethal injection in a week, but following the
stay, he was eventually acquitted. The nine-year-old witness later reported
to papers that she had never been certain about her testimony, but her
multiple interviews with police had confused her into making statements
that she was uncertain about.
Following this, Ceci wanted to understand more about stereotype
induction in order to investigate if children could make false accusations
about strangers based upon hearing negative statements about that per-
son. A classroom of young children was visited by a man named Sam Stone
(Leichtman & Ceci, 1995). Some were given false stereotypes about Sam
being clumsy, including that he always broke things and spilled things.
They were then interviewed four times over eight weeks with suggestive
questions about things Sam Stone may have done. At the end of the study,
these children all reported vivid stories about clumsy things Sam Stone
had done in their classroom, even though he had not actually done any of
those things or acted clumsy in any way. This is similar to the day care
sexual abuse hysteria cases of the 1980s and early 1990s, when investiga-
tors would use peer pressure and negative stereotypes of the defendants to
get disclosures from the children.

Source Monitoring
According to Johnson et al. (1993), source monitoring is the process of
knowing when and where a memory came from. A source-monitoring
error, therefore, is when the source of a memory is incorrectly attributed
to a different source. For example, it may include being unsure if you
locked the house door or only thought about locking it, or it may involve
reporting that you heard something from the news when you actually
learned about it from a friend. Contextual cues help identify the source of
a memory. For example, you may specifically remember locking your
house door that morning because you remember dropping your keys
afterward, or you may remember that you heard about a news story from
a friend because you remember how they told it or by certain words they
used. The ability to accurately identify the source of a memory is some-
thing that develops during childhood (Foley, 2014; Ghetti &
Angelini, 2008).
 3  AN INTRODUCTION TO SUGGESTIBILITY  29

Since children retrieve knowledge from a wide range of sources, it can

be difficult to correctly identify the exact source of certain memories. In a
study by Poole and Lindsay (2001), over 25% of seven-year-old partici-
pants and 9% of eight-year-old participants reported during free recall that
a male assistant had touched them, even though this touching had only
been described in a story they had been read. Similarly, other studies have
shown that if children are questioned about a particular event (e.g., a trip
to Disneyland) and those questions trigger memories of other events (e.g.,
conversations with friends and family about their own separate trips to
Disneyland), then the children are likely to incorrectly include details from
those conversations into their own narrative (Price et al., 2016; Principe
et al., 2013). It is important to understand that memory is fallible because
of its constructive nature. Memory is not a literal reproduction of the past
but relies on constructive processes that are sometimes prone to error or
distortion. This will be discussed more in the following chapter.

Conclusions
Ever since the Salem witch trials, children’s accusations were viewed with
incredible skepticism and courts frowned upon allowing children to testify
as witnesses. There was no significant research on the suggestibility of
children after around 1900 in mainland Europe—which had all just rein-
forced the idea that children were too gullible and suggestible to act as
competent witnesses—until the 1980s when American researchers decided
they had to learn more about the subject. As more and more children
testified in sexual abuse trials, research in the field of children’s suggest-
ibility only increased further. All of those studies revealed that memory is
not like a recording device, where we can just play back in our minds
exactly what happened whenever we want. Rather, we can reconstruct
events, but that reconstruction is incredibly sensitive to what types of
questions we are asked, post-event information, and how long ago the
event occurred. Young children are particularly suggestible because of
their difficulties with source monitoring. Children may come to believe
false memories or false stereotypes (in the case of the Sam Stone study) as
they become part of their autobiographies and, at least in some cases, cor-
rupt their memories permanently. The following chapter will discuss chil-
dren’s general capability to stand as witnesses.
30  B. F. COTTERILL

Suggested Further Reading

Davis, T. (2020). Forensic psychology: Fact and fiction. Bloomsbury

Publishing.
Hirtz, A. C., Royer, C. E., Helm, R. K., Burd, K. A., Ojeda, K., & Ceci,
S. J. (2015). Children’s suggestibility research: Things to know before
interviewing a child. Anuario De Psicología Jurídica, 25(1), 3–12.
[Link]
Ost, J., Granhag, P. A., Udell, J., & Roos af Hjelmsäter, E. (2008).
Familiarity breeds distortion: The effects of media exposure on false
reports concerning media coverage of the terrorist attacks in London
on 7 July 2005. Memory, 16(1), 76–85. [Link]
09658210701723323
 CHAPTER 4

Memory Mechanisms and Developmental

Factors of Suggestibility

Abstract  Before one can understand a child’s capabilities as an eyewit-

ness, one must first have insight into the memory mechanisms that account
for these capabilities. There are three stages to memory (Pozzulo, J. D.,
The young eyewitness: How well do children and adolescents describe and
identify perpetrators? American Psychological Association. [Link]
org/10.1037/14956-­000, 2017). First is the process of encoding, which
is when information is initially perceived and converted into memory. A
person may be aware they are encoding new information, or they may not
be (e.g., Yang et al., 2012). Second, memory must be stored. If the mem-
ory is rehearsed enough, it may be stored as a long-term memory, rather
than only lasting as a short-term memory (Cowan, N., What are the dif-
ferences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress
in Brain Research, 169, 323–338, 2008). The final stage is retrieval, when
memories are located and remembered by the individual. Generally, the
process of remembering is viewed as constructive, rather than reproduc-
tive, meaning our minds do not accurately record everything like video
recorders, and we cannot just play memories back in our minds exactly as
they happened (Patihis, L., et al., False memories in highly superior auto-
biographical memory individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy
of  Sciences, 110(52), 20947–20952. [Link]
1314373110, 2013). Rather, when retrieval occurs, our memories must
be reconstructed, and this process is vulnerable to a number of influences,
including leading questions and post-event information (e.g., Ceci, S. J.,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 31

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
32  B. F. COTTERILL

& Bruck, M., Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s

testimony. American Psychological Association, 1995; Schmidt, S.,
Autobiographical memories for the September 11th attacks: Reconstructive
errors and emotional impairment of memory. Memory & Cognition, 32(3),
443–454. [Link] 2004).

Keywords  Memory • Encoding • Storage • Retrieval • False memories

• Gist • Verbatim • Fuzzy-trace theory • Henry Otgaar • Language •
Knowledge • Theory of mind

Memory
Before one can understand a child’s capabilities as an eyewitness, one must
first have insight into the memory mechanisms that account for these
capabilities. There are three stages to memory (Pozzulo, 2017). First is
the process of encoding, which is when information is initially perceived
and converted into memory. A person may be aware they are encoding
new information, or they may not be (e.g., Yang et al., 2012). Second,
memory must be stored. Rehearsal may help some memories to be stored
as a long-term memory, rather than only lasting as a short-term memory,
though not all visual or sensory information even require rehearsal to be
stored as a long-term memory (Baddeley et al., 2020; Cowan, 2008). The
final stage is retrieval, when memories are located and remembered by the
individual. Generally, the process of remembering is viewed as construc-
tive, rather than reproductive, meaning our minds do not accurately
record everything like video recorders and we cannot just play memories
back in our minds exactly as they happened (Patihis et al., 2013). Rather,
when retrieval occurs, our memories must be reconstructed, and this pro-
cess is vulnerable to a number of influences, including leading questions
and post-event information (e.g., Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Schmidt, 2004).
As we typically only remember the gist of an event, rather than all the
exact details, we tend to fill in the gaps with what we think we experienced
and not always with what we actually experienced. Not only may we alter
memories of actual experiences, but we may create completely false mem-
ories of fabricated events, such as seen by Loftus’ Lost in the Mall experi-
ment (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995). Consequently, memories are far less
accurate than most people realize. False memories can be triggered by
stories from family members or even from family photographs (e.g., Wade
 4  MEMORY MECHANISMS AND DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS…  33

et al., 2002). A.R. Hopwood’s False Memory Archive Anthology (Hopwood,

2016) is an interesting collection of people’s false memories that they have
written down and sent to the author. For example, one person “remem-
bered” playing Joseph in their school nativity play as a young child. During
intermission, he ran to the bathroom, still in costume, and accidentally
collided with the girl playing Mary. He cut his face and had to go to hos-
pital. Retelling the story to his mother years later, she informed him that
he had not run into the girl playing Mary, but rather an older woman
called Mary. Essentially, if we think an event happened one way or we are
told that it occurred that way and we play it back that way to ourselves
often enough, then it is very easy to believe that is exactly what happened
even if it is not. We all likely have similar experiences of this. For example,
we are told childhood stories by our family members so many times that
we actually begin to “remember” it ourselves.

Externally Driven and Internally Driven

False Memories
As mentioned previously, adults have historically been viewed as more reli-
able witnesses than children, and this is reinforced by adults being less
prone to developing false memories during research studies (e.g., Ghetti
et  al., 2002; Loftus & Davies, 1984). In a review of studies published
between 1979 and 1992, Ceci and Bruck (1993) uncovered that, when
comparing the suggestibility of children versus adults, the formation of
false memories decreased with age in 83% of the studies. However, more
recently, research is beginning to show greater appreciation for the notion
that there are different types of false memories (e.g., Brackmann, Otgaar,
Sauerland, & Jelicic, 2015). In this case, the research suggests that chil-
dren are in fact less susceptible to certain false memories.
The false memories measured in the previously mentioned experimen-
tal studies are typically those that can be classed as externally driven (or
suggestion-induced false memories). The experiments tend to follow the
format of Loftus’s misinformation paradigm (Loftus et al., 1978). First,
the participant is asked to witness an event (e.g., a video of a theft, a live
event). Second, a piece of misinformation is suggested to them about the
event they just witnessed. Third, they are asked to report what they
remember from the event. Results from studies show that a significant
number of people incorrectly incorporate the piece of misinformation
34  B. F. COTTERILL

supplied to them into their reports, especially in the case of child partici-
pants. Moreover, as already discussed, false memories can be implanted for
entirely fictitious childhood events, such as being lost in the mall (Loftus
& Pickrell, 1995), being attacked by a bear (Porter et  al., 1999), and
nearly drowning (Heaps & Nash, 2001). Other studies have successfully
implanted false memories of hot-air balloon rides that never happened
(Wade et al., 2002), and even alien abductions (Otgaar et al., 2009). In
these cases, also, children were more susceptible to false memories
than adults.
On the other hand, internally driven false memories (or spontaneous
false memories) are those that occur when a person makes assumptions
over what happened or makes an error due to relying on gist information
(Brackmann, Otgaar, Sauerland, & Jelicic, 2015). This difference can be
further understood via the fuzzy trace theory (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005),
which was intended to demonstrate how eyewitnesses encode information
during the event of witnessing a crime and how those memories may be
retrieved at a later point in time. This theory suggests that memories are
encoded, stored, and retrieved using two processes that work in parallel
with each other (i.e., the two processes occur at the same time, but work
differently). First, verbatim traces capture specific details of an event, such
as the make, model, and color of a gun. Meanwhile, gist traces capture
only the general information from an event, such as the mere presence of
a weapon. While both traces stem from the same event, the way they are
encoded, stored, and retrieved are different. For instance, verbatim traces
typically dissipate more rapidly than gist traces.
Gist information relies on prior knowledge and so is viewed as less accu-
rate than verbatim information. For example, a famous study by Bartlett
(1932) had participants read an old Native American story called War of
the Ghosts and then later asked those participants to retell what they had
read. Bartlett found that the participants reported only the gist of the
story, leaving out various details, and that they altered some parts of the
story to be in harmony with their own view of the world, rather than that
of the Native Americans. As previously noted, gist information relies on
previous experiences and prior knowledge; thus, adults are more likely to
use this process than children. For example, an adult might be more likely
than a child to misremember locking their front door. Presumably, the
adult does this every day and so it may be harder to separate one specific
memory of locking their door from the countless other memories of lock-
ing their door.
 4  MEMORY MECHANISMS AND DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS…  35

Research suggests that adults are more likely than children to be vul-
nerable to internally driven false memories, as a result of being more likely
to rely upon gist information (e.g., Brainerd et al., 2008). This is perhaps
due to the fact that adults are more likely to have a schema for a given
event due to their greater life experience. According to Schank and
Abelson’s (1977) schema theory, a schema is a unit of knowledge for a
particular subject or item based upon past experience, such as what hap-
pens and the order in which things happen when we go to the supermar-
ket or visit a restaurant. Even externally driven false memories can increase
with age when the participants use gist information, rather than verbatim.
An experiment by Otgaar et  al. (2014, as cited in Brackmann, Otgaar,
Sauerland, & Merckelbach, 2015) showed a video of a robbery to young
children, older children, and adults. Some related details of the robbery,
such as the culprit’s weapon, were left out of the video. When presented
with misinformation, adults and older children were more likely than
younger children to accept having seen the absent details. Most likely, this
is because adults and older children are more likely to have a schema for a
bank robbery that involves a weapon (e.g., from greater exposure to bank
robberies portrayed on TV and in movies).
In a famous study by Roediger and McDermott (1995), adult partici-
pants were instructed to study a list of words (e.g., dream, pillow, blanket,
and bed) that all centered around a theme (e.g., sleep). When asked to
reproduce the list of words, a significant number of participants incor-
rectly reported having seen the theme on the list of words, even though it
was not present, suggesting the association formed a false memory. The
implication is that verbatim information is item-specific (i.e., the exact
words on the list), while gist information relies on knowledge and associa-
tions (i.e., the fact that all the words on the list were related to “sleep”).
When verbatim information is not available to be retrieved from memory,
we rely on gist information, which can lead to an increase in false memo-
ries. When this study has been replicated with child participants, they are
less likely than adults to misreport having seen the theme on the list of
words (Brainerd et al., 2011), perhaps because they are less likely to make
these associations.
Therefore, it is not correct to view testimonies by adults as always being
more accurate than those by children. Under certain circumstances, chil-
dren may be more reliable witnesses, and less prone to false memories,
than adults. Ironically, this is particularly likely to be the case in situations
that are familiar to an adult, due to the fact they will already have
36  B. F. COTTERILL

established schemas surrounding the situation. In a recent trial, the likeli-

hood of a young girl’s testimony being tainted due to false memories was
debated by two opposing expert witnesses, in a case where there had been
no external influences.

Case Study
“Vicky” (not her real name) was a 16-year-old girl from the Netherlands
who witnessed her mother’s murder in May 2011. When police responded
to calls from the neighbors over noises of screaming, Vicky opened the
door and immediately told the responding officers that her father had just
been. They saw Vicky’s mother lying in a puddle of blood on the floor—
she had been stabbed—and asked Vicky what had happened. She instantly
replied that her father had done it. Later that day, Vicky was officially
interviewed about what had happened. She claimed she had been in her
room when she heard noises from downstairs, so she went to investigate
and found her father stabbing her mother. Two months later, she was
questioned once more, and she told the exact same story. Her father
denied the charges, and Vicky was the primary witness at trial. Two expert
witnesses were called. The defense called a clinical psychologist who testi-
fied that eyewitnesses are vulnerable to autosuggestion (a subtype of spon-
taneous false memories), and that children especially are vulnerable to
misremembrances. The prosecution called Dr. Henry Otgaar, a researcher
from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, who outlined recent
research showcasing why it would be unlikely for Vicky to have been vul-
nerable to spontaneous false memories.

Henry Otgaar’s Argument

First, Vicky’s accusation that she had witnessed her father stabbing her
mother was offered spontaneously to police. Therefore, there was no need
for police to use any sort of leading questions to coax a statement from the
girl. Second, her interview with police had occurred on the same day as
the crime, so it was unlikely that any misinformation would have been sug-
gested to her at any point via family members or other sources. Her state-
ments during the interview also consisted of free recall, and there were no
issues raised by the prosecution or the defense over the types of questions
used by police. Lastly, her story remained consistent across all interviews.
Otgaar brought forth recent studies, contradicting the arguments by the
 4  MEMORY MECHANISMS AND DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS…  37

defense that children are vulnerable to autosuggestion. On the contrary,

the research suggests that children are less likely than adults to produce
internally caused false memories (or spontaneous false memories). The
defense claimed that because it was dark Vicky could possibly have seen a
figure that resembled her father and then developed a spontaneous false
memory of it actually being her father. If Vicky had been an adult witness,
this would not likely have been a reasonable argument. In the light of
recent research suggesting that children are even less likely than adults to
develop spontaneous false memories, it makes the defense’s argument
seem even more unlikely. Ultimately, Otgaar managed to convince the
judge over the merit of his argument. Vicky’s father was found guilty and
sentenced to 18 years in prison for murdering Vicky’s mother. Overall, the
differences between internally and externally caused false memories are
still being understood and require further research, but the results seem
promising in regard to the credibility of children as eyewitnesses. Still, it is
important to realize that every case is unique, and a range of factors must
be considered around each young witness and their reliability.

Age-Related Differences in Memory

One theory as to why adults are generally considered more accurate eye-
witnesses than children is that they have stronger memory traces (Cowan,
2001), meaning there are differences in how adults and children encode
information such as a suspect’s face. Autobiographical memory “integrates
memories of past experiences into an overarching life narrative” (Fivush,
2011, p. 1). While even young children can provide coherent narratives
(Lamb et al., 2003), the complexity and length of the narrative generally
increases as one ages (Fivush, 1997). One reason for this is that the devel-
opment of self-concepts affects the emergence of autobiographical mem-
ory as it requires self-awareness of having experienced the past (Howe
et al., 2003; Tulving, 2002). One starts to develop a sense of self around
the age of two years (Howe et  al., 2003). Furthermore, children learn
how to structure narratives over time as a result of experience from partici-
pating in conversations (Nelson & Fivush, 2004). By around age four,
children can provide just as much information in response to open-­ended
questions as older children, though they may require further prompts due
to brevity in original responses (Lamb et al., 2003).
Indeed, there is a fairly large number of studies indicating that memory
improves to a point with age (e.g., Chance & Goldstein, 1984; Fitzgerald
38  B. F. COTTERILL

& Price, 2015; Schneider & Pressley, 1989). The research suggests that
children have a weaker ability to encode, store, retrieve, and source moni-
tor information (e.g., Davis & Loftus, 2005). Since suggestibility is gener-
ally linked to the strength of memory, this also might explain why children
often are more suggestible than adults. For example, if a child does not
have a clear memory of an event that they are being questioned about
(because their encoding and storing abilities are weaker than that of
adults), then it will be fairly easy to suggest something happened that
actually did not. Similarly, if a child’s memory trace is weaker then they
may be more easily led astray during target-absent lineups (i.e., when the
lineup does not contain the perpetrator) when there is an individual within
the lineup that looks similar to the actual perpetrator (e.g., Pozzulo &
Dempsey, 2006).

Knowledge Differences
While there may be some areas in which children have greater knowledge
than adults, such as cartoon shows, knowledge generally increases with
age. Just like if a memory trace is stronger, it is harder to be led to sugges-
tion, the same is true when one has greater knowledge. For example, Chi
(1978) asked participants to memorize chess board positions.
Unsurprisingly, she found that chess experts performed better than chess
novices. This is supported by Elischberger (2005), who tested five- and
six-year-old children’s resistance to suggestive questioning after only half
of the children received factual information about the topic. Children who
received the factual information before being exposed to suggestive ques-
tioning were significantly more resistant. Therefore, due to their poorer
knowledge base, it may be easier to implant suggestions in children than
in adults, especially when it comes to topics that children know very little
about such as sexual abuse.

Language Differences
Like memory and knowledge, one’s language ability also develops with
age. Adults may make better eyewitnesses than children because they have
more words to express their thoughts and are more successfully able to
articulate what they remember about an event. Since the number of
descriptors that eyewitnesses tend to use increases with age (e.g., Pozzulo
& Warren, 2003), this seems to support this theory. Furthermore, in a
 4  MEMORY MECHANISMS AND DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS…  39

review of 37 studies, including 3071 participants aged 2- to 17-years-old,

language ability emerged as an important predictor of children’s eyewit-
ness performance and suggestibility (Perez et al., 2022).
In the day care sexual abuse hysteria cases of the 1980s and early 1990s,
examples of suggestibility involved instances of children answering ques-
tions they had not correctly understood or investigators misinterpreting
the statements of the children. In a random sample of 66 court transcripts,
misunderstandings were made between a lawyer and a child witness
(between the ages of 5 and 12) in two-thirds of the transcripts (Sullivan
et al., 2021). A study by Goodman and Aman (1990) asked three-year-old
children whether or not a male experimenter had touched their private
parts. Many answered positively, even though no participants had been
touched by the experimenter. Further inspection revealed that the chil-
dren simply did not understand what was meant by “private parts.” This
shows the importance of checking children’s level of knowledge and using
words they are familiar with.
Although by the age of about six years, children typically have large
vocabularies (as many as 6000 to 8000 words, according to Clark & Clark,
1977, as cited in Lamb et  al., 2011), they are still less descriptive than
adults (e.g., Pozzulo & Warren, 2003). Furthermore, some language con-
cepts take longer to develop than others, such as temporal understanding.
Even adults may struggle to report exactly when an event occurred with-
out using significant landmarks (e.g., birthdays and holidays) to guide
their memories. Research shows that significant development occurs
between years 4 and 6 in regard to the understanding of temporal words
(e.g., before and after), but the development of this understanding con-
tinues until about year 10 (e.g., Friedman & Lyon, 2005; Orbach &
Lamb, 2007). Therefore, younger children may not successfully be able to
communicate certain details during forensic interviews. Of course, as
mentioned when discussing the development of autobiographical mem-
ory, there is a clear connection to the development of language; one must
first develop a sense of self, then the ability to describe one’s self, before
forming autobiographical memories (Howe et al., 2003; Tulving, 2002).
In England and Wales, communication specialists called Registered
Intermediaries are available to assist police officers and lawyers who are
interviewing vulnerable witnesses, including children. This is to help make
sure that the witness understands the questions they are being asked.
Research suggests that children are more accurate as witnesses during
identifications when receiving assistance from a Registered Intermediary
40  B. F. COTTERILL

(Wilcock et al., 2018) and are also perceived as having more credibility by
jurors (Collins et al., 2016). Therefore, this is one method to overcome
difficulties stemming from differences between witnesses in language abil-
ity. There is also the possibility for the Registered Intermediary to help the
witness overcome other difficulties. For example, one Registered
Intermediary requested an interview be held in the morning to accom-
modate a child with ADHD and asked for questions to be repeated on the
behalf of a child witness with a speech impediment and heading difficulties
(Thomas, 2018).

Theory of Mind
One aspect of cognitive development that is associated with memory recall
and suggestibility is theory of mind (for reviews, see Bruck & Melnyk,
2004; Klemfuss & Olaguez, 2020). This refers to a child’s growing ability
to understand that other people have different thoughts and beliefs than
they do, typically beginning to develop between years 3 and 6 (de Villiers
& de Villiers, 2014). Research has found conflicting results in regard to
the connection between theory of mind and eyewitness performance (e.g.,
Bright-Paul et al., 2008; Karpinski & Scullin, 2009; Klemfuss et al., 2016;
Melinder et  al., 2006). On one hand, once children develop theory of
mind, they may understand they hold different knowledge of what
occurred than an interviewer, thereby reporting more information and
rejecting any misleading questions by the interviewer. However, if they
understand the interviewer holds different views than they do based upon
suggestive questions by the interviewer, they may assume these views are
more valid than their own and so adjust their testimony accordingly
(Waterhouse, 2016). Klemfuss and Olaguez’s (2020, p. 166) review con-
cludes that theory of mind “may be related to children’s resistance to sug-
gestion … but that the association with interrogative suggestibility is
tenuous.”

Own-Age Bias
Usually, a young eyewitness will be significantly younger than the perpe-
trators they are describing and identifying. Just as people are more likely
to correctly identify perpetrators who are of the same race (Chiroro et al.,
2008; Valentine & Endo, 1992; Young et  al., 2012), witnesses are also
more likely to correctly identify perpetrators who are of a similar age
 4  MEMORY MECHANISMS AND DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS…  41

(Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005; Stein et  al., 2014; Wiese, 2012). The most
likely explanation for this is that people have more experiences with others
in their own age groups, and, thus, are better at recognizing those from
that age group (Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005). The degree to which one has
experiences with those within their own age group therefore has a signifi-
cant influence. For example, older adults recruited from nursing homes
are more likely to have higher levels of daily exposure to people of their
own age, and, thus, have a higher degree of own-age bias than older adults
recruited from the local community (for a review, see Rhodes & Anastasi,
2012). Therefore, children may perform poorer than adults at identifying
adult targets in lineups due to spending most of their time around other
children, especially if they attend nursery or school (Anastasi &
Rhodes, 2005).

Social Influences
Undergoing an interview by police and then identifying a suspect from a
lineup also contains social influences which may impact a child differently
than they would an adult. Children are less likely to give an “I don’t
know” response than adults (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1997), and are more
likely to feel that the mere presence of a lineup demands they choose
someone (Ceci et al., 1987). This is supported by the fact that children are
more likely than adults to make errors during target-absent lineups, but
not during target-present lineups (e.g., for a review, see Havard, 2014;
Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2006). These findings are still true even when
regarding a subject highly familiar to a child. For example, Pozzulo et al.
(2012) asked both children (four to seven years old) and adults to select
familiar cartoon characters from a lineup. Children produced almost 100%
accuracy rates during target-present lineups but were significantly lower in
accuracy than adults during target-absent lineups. Since these characters
were clearly familiar to the children, their incorrect responses can only be
explained by social influences, rather than factors stemming from memory,
knowledge, or language abilities. These findings can be applied to descrip-
tive eyewitness studies, too. For example, if child witnesses feel compelled
to select a target in a target-absent lineup, they may also feel compelled to
answer a question they do not know the answer to (Ceci & Bruck, 1995;
Hughes & Grieve, 1980; Pratt, 1990; Waterman et al., 2000). This will be
explored in more detail later in this chapter, when explaining the various
question types that witnesses are asked. Individual differences (e.g.,
42  B. F. COTTERILL

shyness) within children may help to explain why some children are
affected more significantly by these social influences than other children.
This will be discussed in more detail during Chap. 8.

Other Influences
Stress and arousal are general factors likely to be present in all eyewit-
nesses. Of course, stress is likely to be higher in some cases than others,
such as when the witness is also the victim. In some cases, stress and
arousal appear to increase the accuracy of eyewitness reports (e.g., “I was
so scared, I’ll never forget that face”), and in others it appears to decrease
accuracy (e.g., “I was so scared, it’s all just a blur”). For example, when a
weapon is present, eyewitnesses tend to divert their attention to the
weapon (i.e., weapon focus), and, thus, remember fewer descriptors about
the perpetrator (Ross et  al., 1994). The Yerkes-Dodson law (Yerkes &
Dodson, 1908) suggests that a moderate level of stress and arousal pro-
duces the optimum levels of accuracy in memory. It would appear that a
certain level of arousal is required for an individual to really pay attention
to details, but the individual becomes overwhelmed once a certain level of
arousal is reached. Little research has investigated whether or not these
levels change depending on age. It may be that younger eyewitnesses have
a lower optimal threshold for arousal than adult eyewitnesses. Research,
however, suggests that age has no effect on weapon focus (i.e., the mem-
ory of children is negatively influenced by the presence of a weapon to the
same extent as that of an adult, not more so; Davies et al., 2008). This
does not support the idea that children may become more easily over-
whelmed than adults, but research should still investigate further causes of
emotional arousal to see if there are other differences between adults and
children in terms of responses.

Children’s Ability to Lie

As already mentioned, children rarely make false disclosures of sexual
abuse of their own accord. When they do make false accusations, it is
largely because they mistakenly believe the abuse was real as a result of
suggestion and inappropriate questioning (Loftus, 2005; Otgaar et  al.,
2009). In a small number of cases, however, children have intentionally
made false disclosures of sexual abuse, either due to their own reasons for
 4  MEMORY MECHANISMS AND DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS…  43

lying or because they have been coached to do so (O’Donohue et  al.,

2018). Children may also lie in order to receive a reward or avoid punish-
ment (Talwar & Crossman, 2012). Children as young as two or three
years are capable of lying but are unable to take into account another
person’s knowledge of the situation (Talwar & Lee, 2008). Therefore,
young children are unlikely to successfully stick to a lie during further
questioning (Talwar & Lee, 2002). For example, three-year-old children
are more likely to deny peeking at a toy after being told not to than two-­
year-­olds, but both will accidentally reveal having peeked at the toy after
being asked what type of toy it was (Evans & Lee, 2013). This has led to
researchers arguing that theory of mind development is crucial to lying
successfully (Talwar & Lee, 2008). Evidence shows that children are sig-
nificantly more likely to uphold a convincing lie by the age of six or seven
years (Talwar & Lee, 2002). By this point, children are more likely to be
able to understand their own and the other person’s mental states
(Woodruff & Premack, 1978; Wimmer & Perner, 1983).

Conclusions
This chapter began by defining the mechanisms of memory, and then
went on to explain developmental factors that generally influence the
capability of children as eyewitnesses, including memory, knowledge, lan-
guage ability, and threshold for arousal. It seems logical that memory and
knowledge particularly would be linked to eyewitness performance. For
example, if one is asked about their birthday, their response will likely be
accurate no matter how misleading the question is, since the memory
trace of one’s own birthday is just too strong to be overwritten. However,
if one was to be asked about a friend’s birthday, which has not been rein-
forced in one’s memory to the same extent, then it would likely be signifi-
cantly easier to have that person incorrectly report the wrong day after
planting enough suggestion. Generally, it has been assumed that children
are significantly more likely to generate false memories than adults, but
this is because most of the research has focused on suggestion-induced
false memories, rather than spontaneous false memories. Recent evidence
shows that perhaps children are less at risk to spontaneous false memories
than adults are, but this still needs to be further explored. The next chap-
ter will discuss some true cases of children performing as eyewitnesses.
44  B. F. COTTERILL

Suggested Further Reading

Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Merckelbach, H., & Muris, P. (2018) Who is
the better eyewitness? Adults and children. Current Directions in
Psychological Science. [Link]
 CHAPTER 5

True Cases of Child Eyewitnesses

Abstract  This chapter outlines seven true cases when a child was the pri-
mary (or only) eyewitness to a crime. Some of the cases were addressed by
modern police procedures, while others are more dated. The aim of this
chapter is to portray how police can best elicit descriptions and identifications
from child witnesses. In some of the cases, the children’s testimony was unre-
liable, while in others the account was accurate, detailed, and compelling.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Eyewitness testimony • Memory •

Suggestibility

This chapter outlines seven true cases when a child was the primary (or
only) eyewitness to a crime. Some of the cases were addressed by modern
police procedures, while others are more dated. The aim of this chapter is
to portray how police can best elicit descriptions and identifications from
child witnesses. In some of the cases, the children’s testimony was unreli-
able, while in others the account was accurate, detailed, and compelling.

Nevis Nursery Case

Mark MacLennan was a manager at the Nevis Nursery in Fort William,
Scotland. In 2013, a three-year-old boy (RO) at the nursery reported to
his parents that Mark had placed his private parts into RO’s mouth.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 45

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
46  B. F. COTTERILL

The following day, RO was interviewed by police and social services via a

joint investigative interview. Five days later, questionnaires were sent out
to the other parents of children at the nursery, asking if they had witnessed
any suspicious behavior in their children. When asked by her parents if she
had witnessed anything unusual, a five-year-old girl (ML) told her parents
that Mark had tickled her between the legs. Two days later, Mark was
interviewed about the reported touching and was then arrested. He was
only charged with sexually touching ML, as the interview with RO did not
elicit enough information to substantiate a charge. In order to gain further
details, the three-year-old boy was reinterviewed. Police still struggled to
elicit free narrative from RO, so they used some repeated and leading
questions (e.g., “You don’t like Mark, what does he do that you don’t
like?”; “What does Mark do that’s scary?”). Investigators struggled to
maintain RO’s attention, as he was incredibly distractible; however, he
eventually demonstrated for them what Mark had done by placing his
fingers into his mouth and making choking noises.
Over the next couple of weeks, two more accusations were made against
Mark. One of the complainers (CK) was another boy from the nursery.
The interview with CK was later described by the trial judge as leading in
the extreme (e.g., “Did Mark touch your bum?”). Additionally, CK asked
nine times during the interview to stop so he could see his mother but was
told each time that he had to answer more questions first. The prosecution
subsequently dropped all charges by CK against Mark as CK’s interview
with the police could not be trusted, and CK did not make a credible wit-
ness in court (misstating both the name of his nursery and the name of the
defendant). The other complainer was a 17-year-old girl (AG) from
Stirling. Six years previously, Mark had volunteered at the Macrobert Arts
Center in Stirling, helping children change into costumes and ensuring
they made it to stage in time for their scenes during plays. AG reported
that when removing her lower clothing to take measurements for a panto-
mime costume in 2007, Mark had touched her between the legs. She
added that similar incidents happened with Mark during future theater
productions, with the final incident occurring in 2010.
Ultimately in court, AG made a compelling witness, while RO, ML,
and CK were all unable to freely recall to jurors about the sexual events in
question. Fortunately for the prosecution, RO had been far more convinc-
ing in his interview with police (when he was able to simulate the sexual
assault by placing his fingers into his mouth). This interview had been
recorded and was played to jurors. Additionally, Mark was found to have
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  47

a large amount of child pornography on his computer, adding further

weight to the children’s claims. While charges by ML were not proven,
Mark was found guilty by a jury of the charges relating to both AG and
RO. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. Less than a year after the
trial, Mark filed an appeal on the basis that he had not been able to appro-
priately cross-examine his accusers during the trial, but this was denied by
the appeal court.

Devil’s Dyke Rape Case

In 1986, two nine-year-old girls (Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway)
went missing from their estate in Brighton, England, after going out to
play one evening. They were only to be a brief amount of time, as Karen
and her family were planning to go out that night. After 20 minutes, how-
ever, Karen’s mother went to check on them, and they were nowhere to
be found. Police were called, and eyewitness reports in the area said that
the girls had last been seen across the street from Wild Park, a place Nicola
liked to go to climb trees. Their bodies were found there the next day.
Immediately, it was clear from the marks around their necks that they had
been strangled. Further inspection revealed that both girls had also been
raped. The case came to be known as the Babes in the Woods Murder,
named after the children’s tale. Nicola’s father was briefly a suspect of the
police, as it was believed the girls must have known the killer quite well for
there to have been no signs of a struggle, but there was no motive or con-
vincing evidence unearthed indicating his involvement.
Three weeks later, 19-year-old Russell Bishop was arrested after having
been spotted in the park at the time of the murders. There was also foren-
sic evidence that placed him in the park, and during interviews with police
he slipped details that were never released to the public over how the bod-
ies were positioned. He was a roof tiler and a friend of Nicola’s father,
even having stayed with the family when he had nowhere else to go. A jury
found him not guilty of the charges, and he was released in December
1987. The police made it clear that they still believed Bishop to have been
the killer and that they were not looking for anyone else in relation to the
crime. The families began campaigning to get rid of double jeopardy laws
in England, meaning that Bishop could be tried a second time for the
murders.
About two years later, in February 1990, a seven-year-old girl called
Rachel W., in the suburbs of Brighton, was roller-skating past a parked red
48  B. F. COTTERILL

car with an open trunk. A man grabbed her and tossed her into the vehi-
cle, then drove off to Devil’s Dyke, a valley outside Brighton. The man
raped her and then strangled her until she fell unconscious. Afterward, he
left her for dead in the woodlands. The girl regained consciousness and
came across some walkers, who took her to the police station. Rachel man-
aged to describe to police various tools that had been in the trunk of the
car, as well as her attacker. From her description and the similarities in the
crime to the murders of Nicola and Karen, police immediately thought of
and arrested Russell Bishop. He denied his guilt and argued he was being
harassed because police had failed to prove their case against him previ-
ously. Rachel however was accurate about the tools that they found in the
back of Bishop’s car, the clothes he had been wearing, the watch he had
on, and his facial hair. She picked Bishop from a lineup without hesitation.
DNA evidence then confirmed that Bishop was the man who had raped
Rachel. He was convicted and sentenced in December 1990 to a mini-
mum of 14 years in prison for abduction, molestation, and attempted
murder. In 2005, double jeopardy laws in England were repealed, and
police began rebuilding their case against Bishop over the Babes in the
Woods Murder. In December 2018, he was retried and found guilty of
both murders. He was ordered to serve a further minimum sentence of 36
years, meaning he will be at least 89 years old before he can be released.

Case of Jimmy Guard

In 2004, a nine-year-old girl (CM) was walking home from a school bus
stop in Provo, Utah, when she was attacked. Her attacker grabbed her
from behind, held her hands behind her back, covered her mouth, and
told her to come with him or he would kill her. CM—who attended self-­
defense classes at school—fought back and managed to escape after kick-
ing him in the shin and poking him in the eyes repeatedly. Officer Becerra
was the first police officer to interview CM about the incident. CM
described her attacker’s ethnicity, his hair color, facial hair, and what he
was wearing (white shoes, a black baseball cap, jeans, and a black T-shirt
with a picture of wrestler Steven Austin on the front). Detective William
Devon Jensen arrived shortly after Officer Becerra and took over the inter-
view, having more training and experience interviewing children. He took
the time to calm CM, build a rapport, and was careful to not use any lead-
ing questions. She repeated the same description as she had given Officer
Becerra, though added that the cap had the letter A on it, that the assailant
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  49

had been quite chubby, that he had short afro hair, and that his height was
between 5'7" and 6'1". The detective asked CM if she would be able to
identify her attacker if she saw him again, and she confirmed that she would.
Detective Jensen went to CM’s school the next day to show her a photo
array of six men who he felt matched her description. Among the pictures
was a photo of Jimmy Guard, who the detective had seen on a person of
interest bulletin describing a similar incident in Springfield, Utah. CM was
shown the pictures one at a time. When Detective Jensen presented her
with the photo of Jimmy Guard (the third photo), she announced without
hesitation that he was the man who had attacked her. When canvassing the
area with Jimmy’s photo, Detective Jensen managed to find three eyewit-
nesses to the incident after questioning about 20 people. The first was a
ten-year-old friend of CM’s who had seen the attack from about a block
away. Initially, she had thought it was CM’s brother (perhaps because of
the similar short afro hair). When asked what the attacker had been wear-
ing, she told Detective Jensen that he had been wearing blue pants, a black
shirt, a cap, and white shoes. The second eyewitness was 49-year-old
neighbor, Darwin Goode, who said that he had seen a man standing at a
bus stop across the street from his house for about 30 minutes and then
following a group of girls, though he had not seen the man grab or attack
any of them. When the detective showed Mr. Goode the picture of Jimmy
Guard, Mr. Goode confirmed that was the man he had seen. The third
eyewitness was Kathleen Speckard, who had seen a man run past her home
just after the time of the attack. When shown Jimmy Guard’s photo, she
could not say for sure that he was the man she had seen but said it certainly
looked like him.
Two days after the incident, Detective Jensen arrested Jimmy Guard at
his place of residence, which was about a mile from the attack site. When
searching the house, the detective could not find the baseball cap or black
T-shirt described by CM. He could also only find a pair of blue running
shoes (even though CM and her friend had both separately told police the
attacker was wearing white). Jimmy Guard claimed to have been at the
library in Salt Lake City on the day of the attack (a place he visited fre-
quently). He described the staff members there and claimed to have had
interactions with them that day, but when questioned by Detective Jensen,
none of them remembered seeing Jimmy on the day in question. Detective
Jensen combed through the library’s surveillance but did not find anyone
that he thought resembled Jimmy Guard. Guard still maintained that he
had been at the library that day and hired a private investigator to prove
50  B. F. COTTERILL

the matter. The PI looked at the surveillance and testified at court that she
believed the video showed Guard entering the library. Screenshots of the
man in the surveillance were admitted as evidence at trial, but it was debat-
able as to what extent they resembled Jimmy Guard.
At trial, the defense filed motions to suppress CM’s eyewitness identifi-
cation and to call Dr. David Dodd, an expert witness on eyewitness mem-
ories. The court denied both motions. It was decided to provide the jury
with a “long instruction” on the issues surrounding eyewitness memories,
rather than have expert witnesses testify on the matter. The judge also
ruled that CM’s eyewitness testimony met the five factors set out in State
of Utah v. Ramirez (1991) and thus her identification of Jimmy Guard was
admissible. These five factors state that to be credible, (1) an eyewitness
must have had the opportunity to view the defendant during the event;
(2) must have had a good degree of attention on the defendant during the
event; (3) must have the capacity to observe and recall an event accurately;
(4) must have made the identification spontaneously and not as a product
of suggestion, while also maintaining that identification consistently; (5)
and that the event in question was of a nature that would make it likely for
the eyewitness to perceive and remember it accurately. During the trial,
CM testified that she had seen Guard wearing blue running shoes when he
attacked her (despite stating in both her interview with Officer Becerra
and with Detective Jensen that they had been white). Guard was found
guilty by the jury of child kidnapping and was given a life sentence with a
nonparole period of ten years. In 2013, he was granted a new trial on the
basis of the court’s decision to exclude an expert witness on eyewitness
memories. This was reversed however in 2015 after a review of the case by
the Supreme Court, deciding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the
judge to exclude an expert witness.

Poland Abduction Case

In 1983, three-year-old Lori Poland was kidnapped when playing outside
her home in Sheridan, Colorado. Sergeant Louis Florez immediately can-
vassed the area for witnesses. After speaking to a neighbor and a nearby
house painter who saw a little girl get into a car, Sergeant Florez began
looking for a faded orange or brown Datsun with the partial license plate
of ADV-2 based upon both their descriptions. The local media were called
almost instantly for help in the investigation, and FBI agent John Huyler
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  51

was informed the following morning about the abduction. The same
morning, Agent Huyler received a call stating that a vehicle matching the
description of the abduction vehicle was reported nearly two months pre-
viously by a man in Littleton, less than ten minutes away from the abduc-
tion site. The man, Stanley Ellis, had noted the driver of the car talking to
his five-year-old daughter outside his home. He had taken record of the
license plate (ADV627) and so handed it over to the authorities. The car
belonged to a man named Robert Thiret in Denver, less than a 20-minute
drive from Sheridan.
In the afternoon of the same day, Agent Huyler and three other FBI
agents drove to Thiret’s house. They then called the Sheridan Police
Department after finding the vehicle outside. Chief Joseph Stephenson
and two detectives responded to the call and arrived at the house. They
knocked on the door and introduced themselves to Thiret, explaining that
his car matched that of the one involved in the kidnapping of a young girl
and requested permission to look around his house. He granted them
permission, and they spent about 45 minutes searching the house from
the top floor to the basement, looking inside anything that a small child
might be hiding inside. While the search occurred, one of the FBI agents
interviewed Thiret. He claimed that he had been napping the previous day
and had left his keys in the car’s ignition, suggesting someone may have
used his car to kidnap the girl but he knew nothing of it. The agent asked
Thiret if he would take a polygraph test and he agreed, so they left for the
district attorney’s office. About five minutes after Thiret left with the FBI
agent, his car was towed and impounded for a search. The police also had
one of the eyewitnesses come to confirm the car was the one they had seen
a small girl enter. The car was not searched by a crime lab until after Thiret
gave written consent.
Three days after her abduction, Lori Poland was found by birdwatch-
ers, Steven and Cynthia Gaulin in Stapleton Park near Denver. They dis-
covered her calling for help in a 10-foot pit underneath an outhouse,
wearing nothing but her underpants. When asked what she was doing
there, she replied, “I live here.” She clung to her rescuers and begged to
not be sent back to the pit. At a nearby hospital, she was reunited with her
parents. There were no signs of sexual abuse, but no one could tell how
long she had spent inside the pit, and her feet were badly swollen after so
long of standing in liquid. Lori was shown a photo lineup of 12 men, and
she identified Robert Thiret as her abductor, exclaiming that he was the
man who put her in the hole and that he had been mean to her. When
52  B. F. COTTERILL

shown another lineup, without Robert, she asked where his picture had
gone. Three days later, she was given an additional lineup and again
pointed out Robert Thiret without hesitation.
Police arrested Robert Thiret for the crime, but all evidence obtained
in the initial search of his house was suppressed. In the court’s view,
neither the FBI nor the police had the right to conduct such a search,
and the search exceeded the scope of the defendant’s consent. Any evi-
dence obtained in the search of the car was also ruled as inadmissible,
including a reported hair from Thiret ‘s vehicle that was found to be a
match for Lori Poland’s hair. The only evidence that the prosecution had
remaining to present to a jury was Lori’s identification of Robert Thiret
as her abductor. Uncertain that a jury would convict Robert Thiret
based solely on the identification of a three-year-old child, the prosecu-
tion offered him a deal. With no parole conditions, he was released in
1990 after serving six years, but had to register as a sex offender for the
rest of his life. Lori Poland graduated high school in 1998, chosen as
both homecoming queen and prom queen by her peers. She then gradu-
ated from college in 2003 and now works as a therapist, helping others
overcome trauma.

Kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart

In 2002, 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped from her bed in a
neighborhood of Salt Lake City, Utah. She shared a room with her nine-­
year-­old sister, Mary Katherine Smart, who was the sole eyewitness to the
crime. Mary Katherine pretended to be asleep as she saw a man force
Elizabeth out of bed with what she thought was a gun (in actuality, it had
been a knife). On their way out of the bedroom, Elizabeth stubbed her toe
on a chair and her abductor told her to keep quiet or he would hurt her.
The voice was familiar to Mary Katherine, though she could not place
where from. She did not get a good look at his face, but noted he was
nicely dressed in light clothing with a golf hat (he had actually been wear-
ing dark clothing and a stocking cap), had dark hair, was about the height
of her brother, and was about 30 or 40 years old (he was actually 49 years
old). After they left the room, Mary Katherine ran for her parents’ bed-
room but got a fright when she found her sister and her abductor were still
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  53

in the hallway. She narrowly avoided being seen and snuck back into bed,
where she pretended to be asleep for about two more hours. In the early
hours of the morning, she woke their parents and told them what hap-
pened. At first, they did not believe her but soon realized the truth after
finding the screen of the kitchen window had been cut with a knife.
At first, Mary Katherine’s eyewitness reports were of little value to
investigators; her descriptions were not very detailed (and not very accu-
rate either as it would turn out). About four months after the kidnapping
though, as Mary Katherine was flipping through a Guinness World Records
book, she stopped on a page about a muscular woman and suddenly real-
ized how she knew the voice of Elizabeth’s kidnapper. She claimed to her
parents that the voice had belonged to a man named Emmanuel—some-
one who had worked for the family briefly a long time ago. It is not clear
how this book jolted Mary Katherine’s memory, but her mother has since
suggested that she might have been reading it while Emmanuel was work-
ing at the house. Police were skeptical, but, nevertheless, a sketch of
Emmanuel was released to the media, including via Larry King Live and
America’s Most Wanted. The family of Brian Mitchell identified him from
the sketch and sent pictures to the police.
In March 2003—nine months after the kidnapping—Brian Mitchell
was spotted with two women in Sandy, Utah, by a couple who had seen
his picture on the television. One of the women was his wife and the other
was Elizabeth Smart. Immediately, Elizabeth was rescued, while Brian
Mitchell and his wife were arrested. Mitchell claimed to be a prophet and
said that he kidnapped Elizabeth because God had chosen the 14-year-old
Mormon girl to be his wife. Elizabeth has said that he planned to marry
and bed dozens of young virgins after her. It took about nine years to
convict Mitchell because of differing conclusions regarding his mental
health and whether or not he was competent to stand trial. Eventually, he
was sentenced to life in prison, while his wife received a 15-year sentence
for her role in the kidnapping. Since her rescue, Elizabeth has gone on to
work as an advocate for missing people. Her harrowing tale has inspired
several books and movies (including one produced by Smart herself).

Murder of Courtney Smith

On a Saturday night in 1990, three-year-old Courtney Smith was abducted
from her bedroom in Brooksville, Mississippi. She shared a room with her
two sisters, aged one and five years old. The older sibling, Ashely Smith,
54  B. F. COTTERILL

was the sole eyewitness to the kidnapping. It was not until 7:00 PM the
following evening that people realized Courtney was missing. Before that,
everyone thought she was with another family member. Ashley told her
family in the morning that Courtney was gone, but Ashley had a habit of
telling stories and she had not been believed. When told to stop playing
and to tell the truth, Ashley said that Courtney was still sleeping. When
people finally realized she was missing, friends and family were called to
search. After no luck, they called the police at about 8:00 PM. Within a
few hours, hundreds of townspeople had joined in the search. The small
town’s police chief, Ceci Russell, oversaw the search. He told everyone to
go home at about 1:00 AM, but he never stopped searching, except for a
few hours of sleep in his squad car. He found Courtney’s body a little after
sunrise, in a pond about 80 yards from the house. He pulled her from the
pond, laid her on the ground, and wrapped her in his jacket. She was
dressed in nothing but a T-shirt and was bleeding from both her head
and groin.
The Noxubee County Sheriff’s Office soon took over the investigation.
Further inspection of the body revealed that the girl also had been stran-
gled—though probably died of drowning—and that she had most likely
been penetrated by a blunt object. Deputy Ernest Eichelberger was one of
the first men on the scene from the sheriff’s department and quickly took
control of the investigation, despite only having a few years of experience
in law enforcement. He began his investigation by turning his attention to
all the men who might have had access to the home. William Mickens—
Courtney’s great uncle—was the first man to be arrested. He coached
baseball, was a known alcoholic, and had been known to make inappropri-
ate comments toward women. Also arrested were Robert Goodwin (a
neighbor), John Hodge (the boyfriend of Courtney’s mother), William
McCarthy (a family friend who had visited that night), David Harrison
(who had lent William McCarthy his car that night), Tony Smith
(Courtney’s uncle), Lee Harris (a friend of Tony Smith’s), Ernest Smith
(uncle), and William Smith (uncle).
Despite having been the sole eyewitness to the kidnapping, Ashley
Smith was not officially interviewed until about a week after the crime.
The sheriff’s department had no one who was particularly experienced or
trained in forensic interviews with children, so Officer Robert Williams
was chosen to conduct the interview. He was selected because he had
spent 18 years working on children’s television, sketching animal cartoons
as “Uncle Bunky,” a once-beloved TV personality by the local community.
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  55

During his first interview with Ashley Smith, she constantly contradicted
herself and reported things that the police knew to be false, including that
her sister’s abductor had taken her away on an airplane. Initially, she
reported that there had been several accomplices, then she changed her
story to there being only one accomplice, and then to no accomplices.
During the interview, she said that Courtney’s abductor “had a quarter in
his ear,” and then later added that he “took the quarter out and put it up
in my sister’s ear.” Officer Williams understood this as meaning the abduc-
tor wore an earring (it was a fad at the time to wear a quarter in one’s ear
and a young child, he thought, may have confused this with an earring),
and so that is what he reported.
Levon Brooks was an ex-boyfriend of Courtney’s mother (who she
referred to as “Tie-Tee”) and was one of the few men in town who wore
an earring. He had no history of sex crimes and was working the night of
the murder, though his alibi did not dissuade Deputy Eichelberger.
Instead, Deputy Eichelberger became convinced that Levon Brooks was
Courtney’s killer, and he sent Officer Williams to conduct a photo lineup
with Ashley. The photo of Levon was old, and he was the only one from
the lineup to have afro hair, while the other pictures were all new, all had
short hair, and were all strangers to Ashley. Unsurprisingly, Ashley picked
Levon from the lineup, and he was subsequently arrested, with Deputy
Eichelberger claiming that Levon had always been the prime suspect
(despite having previously arrested nine other men for the crime). He
claimed that he had interviewed Ashley just shortly after the crime, and
that she had first identified “Tie-Tee” as her sister’s abductor to him then,
though there is no record of this interview ever occurring. Furthermore,
Courtney’s mother stated that Levon had not been to the house, had
barely met Ashley, and that Ashley would not have known her nickname
for him.
Ashely confirmed to police and prosecutors that Levon was her sister’s
abductor, adding that he had come back later that night to eat potato
chips and brag to her that he had stolen her sister, and that he had been
carrying a big bag of money. Satisfied with Ashley’s identification, all that
Deputy Eichelberger needed now was some “physical evidence.” There
was no DNA left behind on the body or at the scene, but there were some
bite marks found on Courtney’s wrist. Pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne said
that the marks were human bites, and dentist Dr. Michael West claimed
that he had compared the marks on the body with the teeth of Levon
Brooks. He stated at trial, “it could be no one but Levon Brooks that bit
56  B. F. COTTERILL

this girl’s arm.” Though there is no record of Deputy Eichelberger telling

Dr. West who his prime suspect was, Dr. West was known to frequently
consult with investigators before conducting his tests. After Dr. West’s
tests, the other suspects were released and everyone prepared for Levon
Brooks’ trial, with the prosecution seeking the death penalty. Dr. West
told the jury that teeth marks were like fingerprints and could identify one
person from another. His claims came from a study in the 1980s that has
since been widely discredited. He also added that his examinations were
widely accepted in the medical community, but this simply was not true.
Ashley Smith—seven years old by the time of the trial—was the first of
the prosecution’s witnesses. The judge questioned her over whether or
not she went to Sunday school and whether she knew about God and the
Devil. She replied that she did, and the judge warned her that she would
go to the Devil if she lied during the trial. Her testimony had been well
rehearsed, and she now gave a clear and concise sequence of events that
happened the night Courtney went missing. There were now no inconsis-
tencies, and she claimed to have always said that the abductor was her
mother’s ex-boyfriend. She looked at Levon Brooks in the courthouse and
told the jury that she was sure he was the man who killed her sister. The
judge did not allow for the jury to see the original police interviews, where
they would have seen for themselves how inconsistent she had initially
been. All attempts by the defense to bring up her previous contradictory
statements simply looked to the jury as though the lawyer was bullying a
young girl. Ashley was characterized to the jury as an incredibly consistent
and credible witness. The jury found Levon Brooks guilty, and he was
sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of parole.
In 2007—17 years after the incident—new evidence was found in a
similar case. In 1992, three-year-old Christine Jackson had been snatched
from her bed during the night, raped, and strangled to death. Her body
was found in Noxubee County Creek, and she too had bite marks on her
body. Despite the similarities in the crimes and that both incidents occurred
only three miles apart, the police never noted any connection. Kennedy
Brewer had been convicted for the crime in 1995, also based upon the
testimonies of Dr. Hayne and Dr. West. In fact, Dr. Hayne conducted
between 1200 and 1800 local autopsies per year on average, despite the
National Association of Medical Examiners outlining that a doctor should
do no more than 250. Dr. West also later become infamous for his false
bite mark testimonies, being the subject of 60 Minutes and ABC News in
1994, as well as a book by Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington in 2018
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  57

(The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist: A True Story of Injustice in
the American South). He resigned from the American Academy of Forensic
Science in 1994 after being the subject of an ethics investigation. Tests by
the Innocence Project in 2007 in fact confirmed from DNA on Christine
Jackson’s body that the real rapist was Justin Albert Johnson, a local
51-year-old man with a history of sexual violence. After his arrest, Justin
Johnston confessed not only to Christine Jackson’s murder but also to
Courtney Smith’s.
Justin Johnston was diagnosed with schizophrenia and claimed halluci-
nations taunted him into killing, as well as that he had been under the
influence of alcohol and drugs during the nights of the murders. Deputy
Eichelberger had interviewed him during the original investigation due to
his car being spotted at the pond on the night of the murder, having a
record of previous sex crimes, and not having an alibi for the night of the
crime. Despite all this, he was never considered as a serious suspect, prob-
ably because Deputy Eichelberger had his eyes only on Levon Brooks at
the time. Levon Brooks was released in 2008, after serving 16 years for a
crime he did not commit. He was given half a million dollars in compensa-
tion from the State of Mississippi, and he also filed a lawsuit against Dr.
West and Dr. Hayne in 2009 but it was dismissed in 2014. In 2013—five
years after his release—he was diagnosed with colon cancer, which he then
passed away from in January 2018. During his false imprisonment, Justin
Johnston—the real culprit—had gone on to commit other violent sexual
crimes in the area.

Disappearance of Maria Ridulph

On December 3, 1957, within the town of Sycamore, Illinois, Maria
Ridulph (seven years old) and her friend Kathy Sigman (eight years old)
went outside to play on the first night of snow. The Ridulphs had dinner
every night at about 5:30 PM. It was about 6:00 PM when the two girls
went out to play. At some point, a young man approached them out of
nowhere and introduced himself as Johnny. He asked them if they would
like piggyback rides. Kathy refused, but Maria accepted. After giving Maria
a piggyback ride along the pavement, he asked if the girls liked dolls, and
so Maria ran home to grab her doll to show Johnny. While she was gone,
Johnny told Kathy that he liked her, touched her arm, and asked again if
she would like a piggyback ride. Again, she refused. When Maria returned,
Kathy said she was going home to grab her mittens. Before leaving, she
58  B. F. COTTERILL

asked Johnny for the time, and he told her it was 7 o’clock. When Kathy
returned from her home at the opposite end of the block, neither Maria
nor Johnny were anywhere in sight.
Kathy checked to see if Maria had gone home, but she had not. Both
she and Maria’s family went out searching for the girl to no avail. They
went to inform the police at 8:10 PM, who then organized the towns-
people into search parties. By 8:15 PM, police were stopping and search-
ing every vehicle coming in and out of town. They interviewed Kathy, and
she told them Johnny had been between 25 and 30 years old, had long
blond hair, had gapped teeth, and had been wearing a multicolored
sweater. Maria’s mother told police that she had dropped Maria’s sister off
at piano lessons just after 6:00 PM as always and returned home about
6:15 PM. Both times she drove past Maria and Kathy, they were playing
alone. One neighbor—Roy Paiper—remembered seeing the girls playing
alone at about 6:30 PM, and another neighbor—Stanley Wells—saw them
talking to a strange man sometime after. Maria’s mother, father, and
brother all remembered Maria coming to collect her doll from the house
after 6:30 PM (her father remembered because an episode of Cheyenne
was airing). Kathy’s mother said that Kathy came home to collect her mit-
tens at about 7:00 PM, and the Ridulphs remembered that Kathy came to
their door just after 7:00 PM to look for Maria. Two neighbors (in sepa-
rate homes, interviewed separately) also reported hearing a scream at
about 7:00 PM. Based on all this information, a timeline was established,
stating that Johnny must have approached the girls between 6:30 and
6:40 PM and that Maria must have been abducted at about 6:55–7:00 PM.
The next day, FBI agents were assigned to the case, led under the com-
mand of Special Agent Richard Auerbach. FBI Director Edgar Hoover
demanded and received daily updates on the case, and he also kept
President Eisenhower informed on any progress. They released Kathy’s
description of Johnny to the public, and three days after the kidnapping
received an anonymous tip that 18-year-old neighbor John Tessier fit the
description. He was known for being a little odd and also to have given
younger children piggyback rides. FBI visited his home and interviewed
his parents. They said they had discussed the idea that John might fall
under suspicion because of his approximate height, hair color, and first
name matching that of the kidnapper. According to his parents, John had
been at the Air Force recruitment center in Chicago on the day of the
kidnapping, had gotten a train back to Rockford from Chicago later that
night, and then called at about 7:00 PM for a lift home (there is about 40
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  59

miles between Rockford and Sycamore). After having collected him from
the train station in Rockford, John’s mother claimed that he had been
home all night. The FBI returned when John was home to give him a lie
detector test, and he obliged, claiming he had nothing to hide. He
answered all of their questions via an interview. During this interview, he
added that he had made a second call from Rockford to arrange a date
with his girlfriend for about 9:00 PM. FBI confirmed his alibi by finding
that he had made a call from Rockford to Sycamore at 6:57 PM, and that
he had also been spotted by two eyewitnesses in Rockford at 7:15 PM that
night. They thus ruled him out as a suspect.
Kathy Sigman, meanwhile, found herself with few children willing to
play with her after the kidnapping of her best friend. She was picked up
daily from school by the FBI to go look at lineups of suspects (she never
saw John Tessier in any lineup because the FBI had cleared him). During
the month of December, she viewed dozens of lineups with no results,
until 19 days after the kidnapping when she pointed to a man—Thomas
Rivard—who was much older than her original description (he was 35
years old). Thomas Rivard had a solid alibi (he was working on a farm-
house outside Madison with six other coworkers at the time of the kidnap-
ping). FBI worried that Kathy’s memory was fading and so began having
her repeatedly describe Johnny. Her mother too told her she had to con-
stantly relive the event and play it back in her mind’s eye so that she would
never forget Johnny’s face. Generally, Kathy’s description remained fairly
stable over the following months.
On April 26, 1958—about five months after the kidnapping—Maria’s
body was discovered by two tourists, hunting for mushrooms in the for-
ests along Route 20, nearly 100 miles from the town of Sycamore (and
about 60 miles from the town of Rockford). Her body had been placed
underneath a fallen tree and had been there for at least four months. She
was so badly decomposed that investigators at the time could not identify
exactly when she had been killed or what the cause of death had been. The
FBI immediately withdrew from the case, but local police continued tak-
ing Kathy to lineups, though less and less frequently. The last lineup
occurred in 1961. Even after looking through thousands of suspects, she
never picked anyone out again since that time in late December 1957.
Police had only one other major suspect—Johnny Hilburn, a factory
worker who went through Sycamore often and claimed to have asked two
small girls there for directions the night of the kidnapping. He refused to
take a lie detector test or answer questions, lawyered up, was the right age,
60  B. F. COTTERILL

matched the description, was inconsistent about his whereabouts, and had
a previous conviction of sexually assaulting his own five-year-old daughter.
Police presented him in a lineup to Kathy within the month of May in
1958, but she failed to point him out and so he was released.
Nothing further happened with the case until 1994, when John
Tessier’s mother passed away. On her deathbed, she supposedly confessed
to John’s two sisters that John was responsible for Maria Ridulph’s disap-
pearance and that they had to let people know. They reported the confes-
sion, but neither the local police nor the FBI wanted to take on the
investigation. In 2008, after the death of their father, the sisters approached
the Illinois State Police, who decided to reopen the case. Their investiga-
tion led to John’s girlfriend at the time admitting that she too had lied for
him back in 1957—she had never seen him for a date the night of the
kidnapping. On top of this, she had kept John’s train ticket (bought by the
Air Force to travel from Rockford to Chicago)—it had never been used.
Kathy Sigman was then given a photo lineup containing a picture of John
Tessier from 1955, along with yearbook photos from roughly the same year.
She identified John—who now went by the name of Jack McCullough—as
Johnny. There were, however, several significant problems with the photo
lineup: (1) all of the other pictures had white backgrounds, while John’s
picture had a black background; (2) all of the other men in the pictures had
been wearing suits, except for John; (3) all of the other men in the pictures
were looking to the side of the camera, while John was looking straight
ahead; (4) and all of the other pictures had been professional yearbook pho-
tos, while John’s picture was cropped from a family picture and shone
brightly. When presenting the same photo lineup to strangers, both John’s
family and defense lawyers later found that the vast majority of people would
select John’s photo after being read Kathy’s description of Johnny (even
though all the men were meant to match the description). This indicates
that there was indeed something potentially suggestive about the lineup.
John had a previous conviction of a sex crime against a teenage girl in
Seattle. He had also gone to court in 1962 for being accused of raping his
sister but had been found not guilty by a judge in this case. During an inter-
view with police, he maintained the alibi he had given back in 1957.
However, all the witnesses who had claimed to have seen him in Rockford
had now passed away, as well as the operator who had connected his call
from Rockford to Sycamore the night of the kidnapping, and so had his
parents who had claimed to have given him a ride back and forth between
Sycamore and Rockford. This meant that John’s alibi could no longer be
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  61

presented during trial as there were no living witnesses to confirm any of the
details. He was found guilty in 2012 of murdering Maria Ridulph and was
sentenced to life in prison. John’s wife, stepdaughter, and son-in-law all
vigorously maintained his innocence, and so did Jeffrey Dean Doty’s book
Piggyback (2014). Once the FBI files were released to the public via FOI
requests, it became quite clear that the timeline of events could not have
permitted John to have abducted Maria. It was inarguable that John had
phoned from Rockford to Sycamore at 6:57 PM on the night of the kidnap-
ping, and the reports of at least 11 different people testified to the theory
that Maria had been kidnapped around the same time. Based upon this,
John was released after an appeal in 2016 and was then officially declared
innocent of the crime by the State of Illinois in 2017. Unfortunately, it is
likely that no one will ever know for sure what happened to Maria Ridulph,
but many people of Sycamore (including Maria’s siblings) still believe that
John Tessier was Johnny due to the identification made by Kathy Sigman.

Conclusions
In some of the cases, there is no reasonable doubt over the guilt of the
defendants. In the Nevis nursery case, the initial complaint from a three-­
year-­old boy was both spontaneous and detailed, and a large amount of
child pornography was found on Mark MacLennan’s computer only after
the accusations by the children were made. Unlike some of the previously
mentioned day care cases (Chap. 2), the case did not start with suspicions
by parents and the investigation did not consist of trying to coax accusa-
tions from dozens of children. In the case of Russell Bishop, DNA con-
firmed that he was the man who raped Rachel at Devil’s Dyke (statistically,
there is about a 1 in 80 million chance that the DNA found on the victim
belonged to a man other than Russell Bishop). On top of this, Rachel was
able to describe him, his clothes, his car, and the contents of his car all
impeccably. His arrest then also successfully led him to being convicted for
two other murders for which he had previously evaded capture.
In other cases, it is at least more difficult to conclude on the guilt of the
defendant. Jimmy Guard, for example, was convicted based solely on the
accounts of eyewitnesses who all either saw Jimmy from far away or were
initially uncertain. In her first interview with Officer Becerra, CM stated
that she was uncertain about the face of her attacker but was both incred-
ibly specific and detailed about what clothes he was wearing, yet none of
these clothes were found to be owned by the defendant. Of course, it is
62  B. F. COTTERILL

possible that Jimmy threw these items of clothing away after the crime,
but his guilt would be far more convincing if the prosecution had been
able to find someone (i.e., an old friend or neighbor) who could testify to
ever having seen Jimmy wear such clothes items (i.e., the Steve Austin
T-shirt and the cap with an A). It is also interesting that CM said in both
her earlier interviews that the attacker had been wearing white shoes but
stated in court that he had been wearing blue shoes. This seems unlikely
to be a coincidence, meaning police likely told her at some point what
color of shoes they found in Jimmy’s house. This is not something that
police should ever have discussed with CM, as it had the potential to taint
her testimony. Of course, it is possible that CM had originally been incor-
rect about the color of the shoes in her earlier interviews, and then remem-
bered closer to the trial that the shoes had been blue. However, this seems
unlikely given that CM’s friend had also reported the shoes being white in
a separate interview.
There are many cases like the one of Levon Brooks when an innocent
person was sentenced to prison due to the misidentification of a child eye-
witness (e.g., Michael Caesar Seri, Joseph Lamont Abbitt, James Anderson,
Randall Lynn Ayers, James Bain, Jimmy Ray Bromgard, Knolly Brown,
Jr., Ronnie Bullock, Juan Carlos Gonzales-Barboza, Donald Wayne Good,
Marshall Hale, Leonard McSherry, Guy Randolph, Jacques Rivera, George
Rodriguez, Peter Rose, Mario Vasquez, David Lee Wiggins, George
Wilcox, Jimmy Williams, Johnny Williams, Jr., and Larry Youngblood),
just like there are numerous cases when mistaken identifications sent the
wrong person to prison from eyewitnesses of all ages. The National
Registry of Exonerations lists thousands of cases, so examples of children
making poor eyewitnesses are not hard to find.
There are, however, thousands of children every year who are eyewit-
nesses to crimes and are asked to give evidence in court. Only a tiny minor-
ity of these cases end with exonerations. It would be wrong, therefore, to
explore more examples of children as poor eyewitnesses just because these
cases make more publicity and are easier to research. Instead, it is the
author’s hope that the true cases outlined in this chapter portray the many
differing concerns surrounding children as eyewitnesses. Not only do the
cases show that children can be sometimes accurate, and sometimes inac-
curate (especially as a result of suggestions), but they show that insuffi-
cient interviews with children can lead to charges being dropped (such as
in the Nevis nursery case), and that there are concerns over how credible
a jury will find a child witness (such as in the Poland abduction case). They
 5  TRUE CASES OF CHILD EYEWITNESSES  63

also show that a child witness can be correct about some details, while
incorrect about others, as well as that accounts can come both spontane-
ously, or after significant delay such as was the case with Mary Katherine
Smart. The murder of Courtney Smith portrays the tragedy that can ensue
when child witnesses are treated and presented as being credible when
they are simply unreliable, as well as the dangers that can arise when inves-
tigators alter the facts to make an arrest stick.
As previously discussed, regarding the day care sexual abuse hysteria
cases (Chap. 2), interviewing children requires nonsuggestive questioning
and an understanding in regard to a child’s ability to discern fact from fic-
tion. Officer Williams, however, thought he could get Ashley Smith to
report the truth simply by drawing her pictures. When asked about his
forensic interviews with children, he told the local newspaper in Tupelo,
“I’ll sit down with them, draw for them, and before long, they’re telling
me everything—who’s done what to them.” It took about a week before
Ashely Smith was even interviewed after the crime. During this time, her
memory had become tainted by both things she had heard other people say
and by things that she had imagined. Officer William completely believed
all the parts of the interview that made sense to him, and just ignored those
parts of the interview that he did not like or that did not make sense.
Moreover, he took the things that Ashely said and made them fit with his
own understanding, such as in regard to the kidnapper having an earring.
Sometimes, eyewitnesses are unfortunately just too young, too prone to
suggestion, or too prone to fantasy, or their memory is simply too inaccu-
rate in order for them to be credible witnesses, never mind the sole eyewit-
ness in a death penalty trial. In these instances, the evidence is just not
there, and investigators need to explore other avenues. If DNA evidence
was insufficient, competent investigators would not just simply plant DNA
to get the evidence they wanted, and manipulating the statements of wit-
nesses in any form should be regarded as just as unacceptable.
What is interesting about the disappearance of Maria Ridulph case is
that to this day Kathy Sigman believes wholeheartedly that John Tessier
was the man who once asked if she wanted a piggyback ride and then
abducted her best friend. This identification was the main reason as to why
prosecutors took the case so seriously and why so many people believed
(and still believe) so strongly that John committed the crime. It does not
seem likely, however, that a person could see someone when they are eight
years old and then identify them from a black-and-white photograph 55
years later. In addition to this, there were clear unconscious cues regarding
64  B. F. COTTERILL

what picture Kathy should select from the lineup, meaning that her mem-
ory is forever tainted because there is no way of knowing to what extent
the photo lineup has influenced her subsequent memory. Of course, it is
possible for a picture to jog a memory, but it does not seem reasonable
that Kathy would not have seen John at some point when she was a child;
she played with his siblings, lived only a few doors down, and her father
had once hit John with his car when John was a kid. Despite this, Kathy
claims that she had never seen John as a child (other than the time he
offered her and Maria piggyback rides as Johnny). However, she also does
not remember ever selecting Thomas Rivard from a lineup (even though
selecting out a suspect before the FBI would probably be a significant
event for a child), and has also forgotten many other details from her ini-
tial report (including that Johnny touched her arm while they waited for
Maria to grab her doll and that Johnny had told her the time was 7 o’clock
before she left to grab her mittens).
As already discussed, sexual abuse cases, domestic violence cases, and
intrafamilial murders are the cases in which children are most often eyewit-
nesses. Children know their abuser in between 75% and 90% of cases
(Davies & Noon, 1991; Finkelhor & Jones, 2012, as cited in Carroll
County Child Advocacy Center, 2015; Whealin, 2007, as cited in Carroll
County Child Advocacy Center, 2015). In these cases, the abuser is often
a family member or a friend of the family. Furthermore, the abuse is fre-
quent, if not every day. Therefore, though it is important to understand
the identifying capabilities of children, it should be highlighted that some
of the cases described in this chapter are some of the more unusual sort.
Much like in the Nevis nursery case, teachers, babysitters, school volun-
teers, and school employees are also responsible for a large number of
child abuse cases, as securing employment that involves working with chil-
dren is one effective way for a child sex abuser to get close to children
(Miller, 2013). When it comes to more ordinary cases involving family or
friends of family, the quality of the interview matters more than the child’s
describing and identifying capabilities. Therefore, such cases will be dis-
cussed in Chap. 7. Later chapters will also give details regarding court-
room arguments that occur when children testify in murder trials (e.g., the
Clarence Elkins case, the Jessie Dotson case, the Frederico Martinez
Macias case (already discussed in Chap. 3), and the Quincy Norton
case). In later chapters, the factors that can make children more or less
suggestible to making false identifications will be discussed while making
further reference to these cases.
 CHAPTER 6

Children’s Describing and Identifying

Capabilities

Abstract  Now that developmental factors related to memory are under-

stood, the capability of children as witnesses can be discussed. This section
will assess children’s capability as witnesses by exploring everyday conver-
sations with children, children’s responses to questions concerning foren-
sically relevant material, and children’s ability to recall descriptors about
suspects they may have witnessed.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Eyewitness testimony • Memory •

Suggestibility • Describing • Identifying • Lineups • Sexual touching •
Closed-ended questions

This chapter will assess children’s capability as witnesses by exploring

everyday conversations with children, children’s responses to questions
concerning forensically relevant material, and children’s ability to recall
descriptors about suspects they may have witnessed.

Are Children Capable Witnesses?

To answer this question, one must first address how accurately children
remember everyday events, and then how accurately children remember
stressful or emotionally charged events that may have occurred sometime
ago, as well as how likely they are to forget or alter those memories.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 65

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
66  B. F. COTTERILL

Of  course, the true cases outlined in Chap. 5 show just how much the
accuracy and amount of information provided by child witnesses can vary.
They usually contain at least some inaccurate details, like in the initial
reports of Mary Katherine Smart and Ashley Smith, and are almost always
brief. Indeed, Pozzulo (2017) claims that investigators should be wary if
initial reports are too detailed. However, there are clear exceptions to this.
Most notably, Rachel W. in the Devil’s Dyke rape case. Not only were her
descriptions of the man—Russel Bishop—who raped and strangled her
incredibly detailed and accurate, but she also recounted the items that had
been in the back of his car impeccably, even though she was doubtlessly
afraid for her life while she was held there. In sum, children can be accu-
rate witnesses, and they can also be inaccurate.

Everyday Conversations with Children

Many parents will know that it can be difficult to get some young children
talking, even about everyday events, such as what happened at school or
day care. Common responses may be: “I don’t know” or “Nothing.”
Obtaining details from young children about events that happened long
ago or coherent narratives about upsetting events can be even trickier. It
is at least partly because children have limited language skills (see Chap.
4), and that it takes substantial work for children to express what they
want to say. To get more information, parents will often ask specific ques-
tions using details they are already familiar with (e.g., “Who did you play
with on the playground today?”; “What did you learn at school today?”).
If parents still receive unsatisfactory answers, they may repeat the question
or use leading questions (e.g., “Did you play tag with Johnathan?”; “What
did you learn in Math today?”). While these questions are assuming cer-
tain things, they are reasonable things to assume, so long as the child usu-
ally has Math lessons and usually pays with a friend named Jonathan.
When the parent is not familiar with any details, they can have great diffi-
culty interpreting the responses of the child. In an experiment by Ceci and
Bruck (1995), a four-year-old child tried to describe to his mother a
crayon that contained sparkles (i.e., glitter). The mother was not familiar
with this kind of crayon and misunderstood her child as meaning that fire
sparks emitted from the crayon.
 6  CHILDREN’S DESCRIBING AND IDENTIFYING CAPABILITIES  67

Children Answering Nonsensical Questions

Research suggests that even when children do not understand a question,
they will sometimes still provide an answer (Hughes & Grieve, 1980;
Pratt, 1990). The likely reason for this is that children often respond in a
way that they think an adult might want. They are generally compliant and
trust that adults know more than them or their peers (Ceci & Bruck,
1995). Often when the same question is repeated, a child will change their
answer, probably fearing that they must not have given the correct response
the first time and so should change it to please the adult. Hughes and
Grieve (1980) and Pratt (1990) designed questions that were intended to
be unanswerable (e.g., “Is red heavier than yellow?”). They found that the
large majority (as high as 90%) of young children (between five and seven
years old) would provide answers to these bizarre questions. These studies
have since been frequently cited in the courtroom, showcasing that a
child’s answer to a question is not necessarily an indication that they
understand the question, thus decreasing their credibility as a witness.
There are some problems with these studies, however. First, they only
used closed-ended questions (e.g., questions requiring a “yes” or “no”
response), yet it has been assumed that the same finding would be true for
open-ended questions without any direct evidence to believe so. Second,
when parents were asked to judge the questions of Pratt’s (1990) study as
sensible or silly, 25% of the adults judged the silly questions to be sensible.
Waterman et al. (2000) found that children would indeed answer nonsen-
sical questions, but only ones that required a “yes” or “no” response.
They were unlikely to answer bizarre questions that were open-ended or
that required a response other than “yes” or “no.” Therefore, previous
studies have likely exaggerated children’s tendency to answer nonsensical
questions, and this exaggeration has probably been incorrectly reported to
judges and juries during trials. Instead, the results of Waterman et  al.
(2000) suggest that children are only likely to answer nonsensical ques-
tions if they call for a “yes” or “no” answer. Furthermore, Waterman and
Blades (2011) found that preinterview instructions could be used to
increase the number of appropriate “I don’t know” responses from young
children to unanswerable questions. The instructions had no effect on the
number of correct responses to answerable questions.
68  B. F. COTTERILL

Forensically Relevant Conversations with Children

When considering whether or not children are capable enough to stand as
witnesses in sexual abuse trials, perhaps one of the most important ques-
tions to consider is whether or not children ever claim to have been sexu-
ally touched when they have not; this is the crime children are most likely
to be witnesses to (see Introduction), and the trial will likely involve the
use of language they do not fully comprehend. Considering that children
will answer certain nonsensical questions to please interviewers, one could
assume that children will be just as likely to answer questions about sexual
touching even if they do not understand the question. A recent review by
Dupree et  al. (2016) uncovered five empirical studies that investigated
children’s reports after undergoing a genital examination, though none of
the studies were more recent than 2003, likely due to tighter ethical con-
straints on researchers.
In the most interesting of the studies, due to the larger number of vari-
ables examined, Saywitz et al. (1991) examined the reports of five- and
seven-year-old girls in regard to a previous pediatrician’s appointment.
Half of the girls had their spine examined during the appointment and the
other half underwent a genital exam. The children were then asked ques-
tions that could be construed as abuse related (e.g., “Did the doctor put
something in your mouth?”; “Did the doctor take your clothes off?”) and
nonabuse related. None of the seven-year-old children made a false report
in regard to the abuse-related questions, and less than 1% of responses
from the five-year-old children were incorrect.
Children were also asked misleading questions about touching that had
not occurred; so, children in the spinal examination condition were asked
questions about genital touching, and children in the genital examination
condition were asked about spinal touching. Three of the children (out of
35) incorrectly stated they had been vaginally or anally touched. Even
after a month, children still responded overall incredibly accurately to
questioning. On the other hand, more than 20% of the children in the
genital examination condition incorrectly stated they had been touched
on their spine. Overall, the results suggest that children cannot easily be
misled into making false statements that sexual touching has occurred
when it has not.
Importantly, even children who had been genitally touched in the study
were hesitant to reveal so. Only 8 (22%) and 4 (11%) of the 36 girls in the
genital examination condition admitted to vaginal touching and anal
 6  CHILDREN’S DESCRIBING AND IDENTIFYING CAPABILITIES  69

touching, respectively, in response to free recall requests. Most children

within the genital examination condition only disclosed they had been
touched if asked specific leading questions (e.g., “Did the doctor touch
you here?”). When asked direct questions, 31 (86%) and 25 (69%) admit-
ted to vaginal and anal touching, respectively. Therefore, it would appear
that direct questions are sometimes necessary in order to elicit certain
information from young children as they do not easily share information
regarding some details. It is concerning that 14% and 31% of the children
who underwent vaginal and anal touching, respectively, still refused to
disclose this information even after specific questioning. This would sug-
gest that some sexually abused children will not disclose the details even if
given specific questions. Since this study was published, however, a num-
ber of interview guidelines have been implemented to improve the likeli-
hood of sexually abused children providing disclosures (see next section).
Furthermore, as already outlined, Registered Intermediaries are available
in England and Wales to assist police officers and lawyers in interviews
with children.
These results seem encouraging regarding the capability of children to
stand as witnesses, but it is important to note that accuracy rates for some
direct questions (e.g., “Did you take your clothes off?”) were as low as
77%, meaning that about 23% of children incorrectly agreed to something
occurring that did not happen. A significant limitation of the study was
that, for the children who underwent the spinal examination, the experi-
ence may have been far more similar to a typical doctor’s visit, meaning
their answers to questions may have been more likely to be automatic.
However, the results of this study remain significant today as they allowed
researchers to examine how children respond to questions about sexual
touching in regard to an event the researchers were able to control.
According to Dupree et al.’s (2016) review, there is additional support for
the finding that children given a genital examination make significantly
more omission errors in subsequent interviews about the event than chil-
dren who undergo a nongenital examination (e.g., an exam for scoliosis).
Several of these studies examined the use of anatomical dolls in the aid
of disclosures. Though they are suggestive in their very nature and invite
sexual play even when there has been no experience of sexual abuse, ana-
tomical dolls are still frequently used by a number of practitioners (Everson
& Boat, 1994, 1997; Faller, 2005; Hlavka et al., 2010). The benefit of
them is that they allow the child to overcome any limitations to their ver-
bal ability and any feelings of embarrassment. In some studies, highly
70  B. F. COTTERILL

trained professionals have not been able to tell the difference between
abused and nonabused children based upon their behavior with anatomi-
cal dolls (e.g., Realmuto & Wescoe, 1992). A significant problem is that
there is little consistency to how abused children interact with the dolls,
and so there is no way to devise a pattern of behavior. For example, some
abused children will avoid the dolls, and other abused children will show
high levels of sexual and aggressive behavior with the dolls (e.g., Bruck
et  al., 2000). According to Dupree et  al.’s (2016) review, however, a
child’s temperament may impact how beneficial anatomical dolls are likely
to be. For instance, they have been found to be less beneficial to children
higher in emotionality (Gordon et  al., 1993), perhaps because they are
more likely to play aggressively with the doll, regardless of sexual abuse
history.
A number of factors can impact how likely a child is to disclose details
over sexual touching. A child is significantly less likely to disclose sexual
abuse if the perpetrator is a family member or if the child is experiencing
feelings of guilt or shame (Leander et al., 2005, 2007). Younger children
are also less likely to disclose (Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Lippert et al.,
2009). Furthermore, they are less likely to understand that the abuse con-
stitutes a crime (Shannon & Törnqvist, 2011, as cited in Ernberg et al.,
2016; Sjöberg & Lindblad, 2002) or to question claims by the perpetrator
that the abuse is a secret between the two of them (Shannon & Törnqvist,
2011, as cited in Ernberg et al., 2016).
One method to get disclosures of sexual abuse from children other than
specific leading questions is the putative confession technique. This is
when the investigator tells the child that the suspect has already made a
full confession and that the investigator now wants to hear it from the
child. This may be beneficial to children who are afraid of how the suspect
will react once hearing that the child has reported any abuse. A study by
Evans and Lyon (2020) found that putative confessions increased the
number of children who disclosed having witnessed someone destroy a
laptop from 13% to 62%. Importantly, putative confessions in this study
did not lead to any false disclosures. Of course, witnessing someone
destroy a laptop is quite different from being a victim of sexual abuse, and
so further research is required on the impact of putative confessions in
this regard.
 6  CHILDREN’S DESCRIBING AND IDENTIFYING CAPABILITIES  71

Accuracy of Child Eyewitnesses at Describing

As seen from the true cases (Chap. 5), while a perpetrator is often some-
one familiar to the child such as a family member or a teacher, they may
sometimes be a stranger to the child. One study has suggested that about
a quarter of suspects involved in cases with child eyewitnesses are strangers
to the child (Davies & Noon, 1991). In cases of child sexual abuse, statis-
tics suggest that abusers are strangers in at least 10% of cases (Finkelhor &
Jones, 2012, as cited in Carroll County Child Advocacy Center, 2015;
Whealin, 2007, as cited in Carroll County Child Advocacy Center, 2015).
It therefore becomes crucial that children can accurately describe a person
they saw only once and identify that person from a lineup. To assess a
person’s ability to describe a stranger, studies often have participants watch
a short video or have a target interact with the participant briefly, then ask
that participant what they remember about the target. Studies have gener-
ally found that adults usually remember about seven descriptors about a
target’s appearance (Kuehn, 1974; Lindsay et  al., 1994; Pozzulo &
Warren, 2003), while young children (between 5 and 7 years old) remem-
ber one or two details (Davies et al., 1989; Karageorge & Zajac, 2011;
Pozzulo et al., 2009), and older children (between 10 and 14 years old)
remember two or three (Davies et al., 1989; Pozzulo & Warren, 2003;
Karageorge & Zajac, 2011; Zajac & Karageorge, 2009).
Of course, these studies have several limitations. In real life, witnesses
may be fearing for their life or enduring a traumatic experience, and so this
may affect the number of descriptors they remember. Additionally, the
studies will not all ask identical questions to each other or exactly the ques-
tions asked by real-life investigators. There is also disagreement over what
constitutes a descriptor. For example, describing hair as long, brunette,
and parted could be taken as three descriptors (hair length, hair color, and
hair style) or could be classified as only one descriptor (hair). One would
also suspect that witnessing a target on a video rather than in real life may
produce a difference in results in regard to how many descriptors are
remembered, especially if the quality of the video is questionable. The true
cases from Chap. 5 suggest that even young children are capable of report-
ing far more descriptors than the results of these studies suggest (e.g., R v.
Russell Bishop, 2018). Furthermore, they remember details not included
in lab studies, such as voice (e.g., U.S. v. Mitchell, 2010) and facial hair
(National Registry of Exonerations, 2020).
72  B. F. COTTERILL

Research suggests that hair color is probably the most often reported
descriptor by eyewitnesses, both in lab studies (Pozzulo, 2017) and in real
life (e.g., Kuehn, 1974). Pozzulo and Warren (2003) found that hair color
was the most frequently reported and the most accurate of descriptors
provided by both child (10 to 14 years old) and by adult participants.
Other than hair color, clothing, gender, height, and race are all also fre-
quently reported descriptors. Research suggests that children of any age
are far more likely and far more accurate at describing exterior features
(e.g., hair and clothes) than interior features (e.g., eye color and nose
shape; Campbell et  al., 1995; Davies et  al., 1989, as cited in Pozzulo,
2017; Pozzulo & Warren, 2003). In fact, Pozzulo and Warren (2003)
found that their child participants struggled significantly with all interior
features compared to exterior significantly more than adult participants
did. This is unfortunate as while a perpetrator is likely to change their
clothes or may change their hair style, interior features are far more likely
to remain constant and thus be more valuable to police.
Within the true cases outlined in Chap. 5, Rachel W. (Devil’s Dyke rape
case), CM (case of Jimmy Guard), Mary-Katherine Smart (kidnapping of
Elizabeth Smart), and Kathy Sigman (disappearance of Maria Riduph) all
described their target’s hair color and clothing. It is worth noting though
that Mary-Katherine Smart was incorrect about what clothes Brian
Mitchell was wearing and that CM was inconsistent over what color of
shoes her attacker had been wearing. Only one of them described an acces-
sory worn by their target (Rachel W. described Russell Bishops’ watch),
and only one of them described an interior feature of their target (Kathy
Sigman described Johnny as having gapped teeth). At least most of them
guessed their target’s age and height (but usually only after prompting), as
well as their target’s race.
As part of their study, Pozzulo et  al. (2009) had child participants
engage with a target for about 20 minutes in the classroom and then
describe everything they remembered after the target left. Descriptors
mentioned included hair color (mentioned by 58% of the children), cloth-
ing color (47%), hair length (20%), clothing type (17%), height (7%), eyes
(1%), body type (1%), and accessories (1%). Similarly, Karageorge and
Zajac (2011) had children (between 5 and 11 years old) view a target for
between 30 and 45 seconds at a trip to the fire station, then asked some of
the children to describe the target after a period of one to two days and
the other children to describe the target after a period of two weeks.
Overall, children provided an average of 2.47 descriptors after being given
 6  CHILDREN’S DESCRIBING AND IDENTIFYING CAPABILITIES  73

an open-ended format and then prompted until they provided no further

information. There was no age significant difference for children within
the short-delay condition, but young children (5 to 7 years old) reported
significantly fewer descriptors than older children (8 to 11 years old)
within the long-delay condition. Overall, 86.8% of children mentioned a
clothing descriptor, 58.9% recalled a descriptor regarding the target’s hair,
14% mentioned facial features, and 7% of the children described the tar-
get’s age. Accuracy rates ranged from 0% to 100%, with an average of
about 70%.
Age, height, and weight are often descriptors that police will specifically
ask about if children do not initially volunteer. Generally, children are not
very accurate with age, height, and weight descriptors (e.g., Davies et al.
1989, as cited in Pozzulo, 2017; Pozzulo & Warren, 2003), probably
because they have little knowledge of height and weight measures and
have fewer life experiences. Research suggests that accuracy in regard to
these descriptors does increase with age (Pozzulo, 2017), but that they
remain among the least accurate of descriptors reported. Police are aware
of this issue however and will normally ask children to compare these fac-
tors to people they know in order to generate an estimation. For example,
in the case of Jimmy Guard, Detective William Devon Jensen asked CM if
her attacker was taller or shorter than him and if her attacker was taller or
shorter than Officer Becerra. CM responded that her attacker was taller
than Officer Becerra, but shorter than Detective Jensen, producing a
height estimation between 5'7" and 6'1". Unfortunately, this strategy has
serious limitations. For example, the height range given by CM would
cover the majority of men.

Accuracy of Child Eyewitnesses at Identifying

After a child eyewitness has described their target to the police, they may
be asked to look through a lineup. Usually, the lineup contains the police’s
suspect and several people that the police know to be innocent. They are
usually shown to the eyewitness one at a time and the eyewitness is then
asked if they recognize anyone in relation to the alleged crime they wit-
nessed. At this time, witnesses are told that the perpetrator may or may
not be in the lineup (referred to as nonbiased lineup instructions). In
2008, a survey revealed that about a third of identification parades con-
ducted in Scotland were viewed by witnesses younger than 16 years old
(Memon et  al., 2011). Fifty-six per cent of these witnesses selected the
74  B. F. COTTERILL

suspect, 34% selected a known innocent, and 10% failed to make any iden-
tification from the lineup.
Lab research suggests that during target-present lineups, children as
young as six years old can be just as accurate as adults (e.g., for a review,
see Havard, 2014; Lindsay et al., 1997). However, during target-absent
lineups, children are significantly more likely than adults to make a false
identification (e.g., Dekle et al., 1996; Gross & Hayne, 1996; Humphries
et al., 2012; Keast et al., 2007; Lindsay et al., 1997; Parker & Carranza,
1989; Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006; Pozzulo & Warren, 2003). The main
reason is probably because children feel pressured into selecting a photo
even when they do not recognize anyone from the array (e.g., Pozzulo
et al., 2012). Additionally, children are likely less aware than adults toward
the potential consequences of false identifications. While research suggests
that adults tend to make less false identifications when photos in a lineup
are presented one at a time (sequential lineup) compared to when they are
all presented at once (simultaneous lineup), this perhaps makes children
more likely to make guesses. Wells and Olson (2003) found that children
made multiple identifications when presented with a sequential lineup.
Furthermore, Park (2014) suggests that even adults provide less correct
identifications during sequential lineups. Therefore, sequential lineups are
not necessarily more accurate than simultaneous lineup, but are still widely
recommended (Park, 2014).
One successful method of reducing false identification rates is by add-
ing an additional photo to the lineup consisting of a silhouette with a
question mark. Zajac and Karageorge (2009) introduced the idea and told
children to point to the silhouette card if they did not see the target in the
lineup. When testing the idea on children aged between 8 and 11 years,
they found that correct rejections increased from 46% to 71% during
target-­absent lineups. They then replicated the findings with children aged
between five and seven years old (Karageorge & Zajac, 2011). This time
correct rejections increased from 29% to 84%. Importantly, they also found
that there was no negative influence of the silhouette card on positive
identification rates during target-present lineups. There are a number of
reasons as to why this could be beneficial. First, if children feel compelled
to select from the lineup due to pressure, then they can still do so without
incorrectly identifying an innocent person. Second, it allows the child to
still give a positive response rather than feel they are disappointing the
interviewer.
 6  CHILDREN’S DESCRIBING AND IDENTIFYING CAPABILITIES  75

Havard and Memon (2013) applied this study within a UK setting.

Unlike the United States, England and Wales no longer use photo lineups,
but rather use video lineups (as does Scotland when it comes to witnesses
younger than 16 years). While research has shown that video lineups
reduce false identifications for adults (Valentine et al., 2007) and teenagers
(Havard et al., 2010), this conclusion has not yet been supported in regard
to children (Beresford & Blades, 2006; Havard et al., 2010). However,
Havard and Memon (2013) found that by including a silhouette photo
within the video lineup, false identifications significantly decreased. This
may be an important avenue for future researchers and investigators to
explore.

Conclusions
Generally, young children are indeed capable of making competent wit-
nesses. First, they are unlikely to make disclosures of sexual touching if no
such touching has occurred. However, they are also unlikely to make dis-
closes of sexual touching without the presence of specific questioning,
even if such touching has occurred. Children are more likely than adults
to respond to questions that they do not understand—including those
about sexual touching—but only if the questions are presented as closed-­
ended or option-posing. Second, while young children are likely to pro-
duce fewer descriptors than adult eyewitnesses, they are still likely to be
accurate with those descriptors, especially when it comes to descriptors
regarding hair and clothing. Third, young children are just as likely as
adults to accurately identify a perpetrator from a target-present lineup.
However, young children are more likely than adults to inaccurately iden-
tify a perpetrator from a target-absent lineup. There is still research needed
to be conducted within this area, but it would appear that by including an
additional mystery target during a target-absent lineup, one might be able
to decrease the number of inaccurate identifications made by young chil-
dren. Even though children are generally capable of making competent
witnesses, some children certainly make more competent witnesses than
others. This is due to a mix of situational factors (discussed more in Chap.
7) and individual differences (discussed more in Chap. 8). For instance, it
is also critical to consider the developmental stage of the child when esti-
mating their capacity to serve as a witness (see Chap. 8).
76  B. F. COTTERILL

Suggested Further Reading

Pozzulo, J. (2017). The young eyewitness: How well do children and adoles-
cents describe and identify perpetrators? American Psychological
Association. [Link]
 CHAPTER 7

External Factors of Suggestibility

Abstract  This chapter will investigate factors of eyewitness performance

and suggestibility that are external to the child. External factors relate to
the characteristics of the interviewer, the types of questions contained
within the interview, and the context of the interview. Arguably, these fac-
tors are more important than internal ones as these are influences that the
interviewer has control over.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Eyewitness testimony • Memory •

Suggestibility • Interviews • Question types • Free recall • Open-ended
questions • Closed-ended questions • Leading questions • Repetition •
Delay • Bias • NICHD • Stepwise • Status

This chapter will investigate factors of eyewitness performance and sug-

gestibility that are external to the child. External factors relate to the char-
acteristics of the interviewer, the types of questions contained within the
interview, and the context of the interview. Arguably, these factors are
more important than internal ones as these are influences that the inter-
viewer has control over.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 77

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
78  B. F. COTTERILL

Question Types
The type of questions asked by investigators can significantly affect chil-
dren’s responses (e.g., Lamb et  al., 2018). Investigators are typically
encouraged to apply a “funnel approach,” which involves exhausting free
recall invitations and other open-ended prompts before reverting to more
focused questions (Lamb et al., 2009). Therefore, police will usually begin
by eliciting free recall (e.g., “Tell me everything that happened from the
beginning until the end” or “Tell me what the suspect looked like”), both
with children and adults, when they are questioning eyewitnesses about a
criminal event or about a suspect. This way, the witness reports only what
comes to mind without influence or suggestion from the interviewer.
During free recall, young children’s responses are generally just as accu-
rate as adults’, however not very detailed (Lamb et al., 2018). For exam-
ple, when asked about the appearance of a suspect, a child witness may
only list one or two descriptors, rather than report everything they remem-
ber. Children aged five years and younger do not always realize that adults
may not know information that they themselves know (see Flavell, 2004
for a review on taking the perspective of others (theory of mind)). By
about the age of six years, children are significantly more forthcoming
when it comes to reporting information and are significantly less suggest-
ible (e.g., Eisen et  al., 2007; Goodman & Reed, 1986). As previously
mentioned, however, it remains a developmental progression (McWilliams
et al., 2013).
In order to elicit more information so that the police can narrow down
on a suspect, follow-up questions are required. Due to this, interviewers
often struggle to maintain best practice, and an overuse of improper ques-
tioning is reported (e.g., Luther et al., 2015; Roberts & Cameron, 2015;
Waterhouse et al., 2018). The safest types of follow-up questions are those
that are open-ended as they generate more detailed, accurate, and coher-
ent responses than any other type of follow-up questions (e.g., Feltis et al.,
2010; Hershkowitz et al., 2012; Orbach et al., 2000; Lyon, 2014; Snow
et al., 2009). According to Cronch et al. (2006), cued invitations are the
safest types of open-ended follow-ups (e.g., “You mentioned the man
touched you. Tell me more about that”) as these types of questions only
ask the witness to expand on points that were first mentioned by the wit-
nesses themselves. Other types of invitations are general invitations (e.g.,
“Then what happened”) and time segmentation invitations (e.g., “Tell me
 7  EXTERNAL FACTORS OF SUGGESTIBILITY  79

everything that happened from the first time he touched you until he
ran away”).
In order to narrow in on specific details, investigators will then typically
use open-ended directive questions (e.g., “What did he do when he
touched you?” or “How did he touch you?”). Directive questions require
a more direct response and usually begin with “How,” “What,” “Where,”
or “Who,” but so long as they do not force the child to choose from a
limited number of possible answers, then the question may still be consid-
ered open-ended (Lamb et al., 2018).
Even open-ended follow-ups may not elicit enough information, and
so police may then proceed to use closed-ended follow-ups. These may be
directive questions that require a one- or a two-word response (e.g., “You
mentioned he touched you in the house. What room in the house?”), or a
question that option poses in some other form (e.g., “Was he alone or was
he with someone?”). Most often though, these types of questions require
only a “yes” or “no” response (e.g., “Was he tall?”). Research shows that
option-posing often makes young children more likely to answer a ques-
tion even when they do not know the answer or understand the question
(e.g., Peterson et al., 1999; Waterman et al., 2000, 2001, 2004).
Lastly, if investigators still do not elicit enough information from open-­
ended or closed-ended follow-ups, they may resort to using suggestive or
leading questions (Lamb et al., 2018). These are questions that force the
response in a specific direction (e.g., “He touched you, didn’t he?”) or
introduce information not already mentioned by the child during the
interview (e.g., asking about touching when the child has not mentioned
touching). Unlike in lab settings, investigators in real life have no way to
know if their question is misleading (a leading question that uses false
information) or not. In sum, free recall and open-ended follow-ups may
not elicit a whole lot of information from young children, but they are the
best way of guaranteeing that responses will be accurate.
In a study by Hill and Davies (2013), researchers carefully analyzed
transcripts of forensic interviews with child witnesses from England and
Wales, examining how frequently each type of question was uttered by
investigators. This study examined 13 interviews between 1993 and 1998
using the Memorandum of Good Practice (MoGP) and 12 interviews
between 2002 and 2009 using the latest implemented guidelines in
England and Wales for interviewing child witnesses (i.e., Achieving Best
Evidence; ABE). In both samples, free invitations only made up about 8%
of the overall questions asked by investigators. There was also a similar
80  B. F. COTTERILL

number of option-posing questions in both cases (MoGP—47% vs.

ABE—44%), as well as directive questions (42% vs. 43%), and suggestive
questions (3% vs. 5%). This research, as well as similar findings (e.g.,
Luther et  al., 2015), shows that, even after the implementation of new
guidelines, investigators do not always follow the advice of asking as many
free invitation questions as possible.

Question Repetition
Children do not have to be asked a leading or misleading question to pro-
vide inaccurate information. Evidence suggests that when children are
asked the same question repeatedly, they seem to sometimes think they
must have previously given an incorrect response and so should change
their answer, or if they did not answer to begin with then they may suspect
that the interviewer is looking for an answer and so give one even if they
are uncertain. Importantly, the more children repeat an answer, the less
their uncertainty becomes detectable (Poole & White, 1991).
Unfortunately, there are numerous examples from real cases over the neg-
ative effects of question repetition. Below is an extract from an interview
with a child from the Little Rascals case:

Prosecutor: Do you remember telling Miss Judy that you had to put
your private next to her private? Did you have to do
that, Bobby?
Bobby: No, sir.
Prosecutor: What did you say?
Bobby: No, sir.
Prosecutor: Did you say no or yes?
Bobby: Yes, sir.

Below is an extract from an interview with a child from the Kelly

Michaels case:

Interviewer: When Kelly kissed you, did she ever put her tongue in
your mouth?
Child: No.
Interviewer: Did she ever make you put your tongue in her mouth?
Child: No.
Interviewer: Did you ever have to kiss her vagina?
 7  EXTERNAL FACTORS OF SUGGESTIBILITY  81

Child: No.
Interviewer: Which of the kids had to kiss her vagina?
Child: Me.

Clearly, the use of repeated questions can confuse children and cause
their statements to be inconsistent. Now that judges and lawyers are more
informed about how suggestible children can be, inconsistent statements
can cause the child to appear as an unreliable witness and have their testi-
mony be excluded from trial. The use of improper questioning, therefore,
benefits no one. If the child is incorrectly swayed by improper questioning
and their testimony is given at trial, it may result in a wrongful arrest. On
the other hand, if the child is correctly swayed by improper questioning,
their testimony may be suppressed, and the guilty suspect could walk free.
Nowadays, the negative effects of repeated questioning are well under-
stood by researchers, but their recommendations are still solemnly fol-
lowed by investigators (e.g., Luther et  al., 2015; Roberts & Cameron,
2015). The issue of question repetition has been largely ignored by most
interviewing protocols, such as the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD) interview protocol in America and the
guidelines in Norway and Sweden (Cederborg, 2004; Cederborg et al.,
2000; Myklebust & Alison, 2000). In England and Wales, the Achieving
Best Evidence (Home Office, 2007) interviewing protocol warns against
the use of verbatim repetition (using the exact same words each time).
Verbatim repetition is the only type of question repetition that has been
widely addressed by research (e.g., Howie et  al., 2004; Krähenbühl &
Blades, 2006; Memon & Vartoukian, 1996; Poole & White, 1991; Powell
& Thomson, 1996); however, Krähenbühl (2007) found that verbatim
repetition only accounted for 10% of repetition by police interviewers
when analyzing transcripts of police interviews in England and Wales. It
would seem that when warned against repeating questions verbatim,
investigators still repeat questions, but just in another form. Though every
type of question repetition had a negative influence on the accuracy and
consistency of children’s reports, Krähenbühl and Blades (2009) found
that verbatim repetition had the least effect when comparing the effects of
four different types of question repetition. Gist repetition (maintaining
the meaning, but not the wording of the question) was the most fre-
quently found form of repetition, accounting for over half of all types of
repetition, and was found to have only a slightly worse effect than verba-
tim repetition. Specific to closed (repeating a specific question in the
82  B. F. COTTERILL

form of an option-posing question) and closed to specific (repeating an

option-posing question in the form of a specific question) both had a
much more negative influence on the accuracy and consistency of chil-
dren’s reports than either verbatim or gist repetition. This may be because
the children interpret the change in structure to mean that a change in
response is required (Krähenbühl & Blades, 2009).
In Scotland, the guidelines (The Scottish Government, 2014) state that
it is not advised to repeat questions in any form and that open-ended
prompts (e.g., general invitations, cued invitations, and time segmenta-
tion invitations) should be used instead. The guidelines also state that if
questions are repeated, then it should be explained to children that the
question is not being repeated because the child’s answer was incorrect the
first time, but rather because the interviewer may not have heard correctly.
These guidelines, however, are rarely followed exactly (La Rooy et  al.,
2013), and so clearly more research and educating of investigators over
the negative effects of question repetition and the different forms of ques-
tion repetition is required.

Delay and Repeated Interviews

It is common for children to be interviewed multiple times after witness-
ing a crime. When examining 217 random sexual abuse cases from the Los
Angeles Dependency Court (1999–2000), Malloy et  al. (2007) found
that children were interviewed an average of 12 times. Importantly, this
only counts official police interviews; it does not consider questioning by
friends and family. Lab studies have shown that when children are repeat-
edly interviewed with leading questions, this increases suggestibility (for a
review, see Quas et al., 2000). For example, the mousetrap study by Ceci
et al. (1994) showed that repeatedly interviewing a child with suggestive
questions over an event that never happened (e.g., getting one’s hand
caught in a mousetrap) could lead to children later reporting detailed
accounts over that event and mistaking it as a true memory.
More recently, research has shown that so long as interviews do not
contain any leading questions, repeated interviews may be beneficial, espe-
cially if these interviews follow the format provided by the NICHD (e.g.,
Hershkowitz & Terner, 2007). Repeated interviews will strengthen a
child’s memory of an event, and, so long as there is no suggestive ques-
tioning used, these memories are unlikely to be false (e.g., Baker-Ward
et  al., 1993; Memon & Vartoukian, 1996). Additionally, repeated
 7  EXTERNAL FACTORS OF SUGGESTIBILITY  83

interviews may increase one’s resistance to later suggestions (e.g.,

Goodman, Bottoms, et  al., 1991). So long as there is not a large delay
between interviews, new disclosures stemming from repeated interviews
can be accurate (e.g., Hershkowitz & Terner, 2007). For example, La
Rooy et  al. (2005) reported a 92% accuracy rate for new information
obtained from a second interview, one day after the first interview.
In these cases, repeated interviews lead child witnesses to disclosing
certain details they had not previously disclosed (referred to as reminis-
cence). Little research has shown, however, that repeated interviews lead
to the recall of more new information in comparison with the amount
forgotten (referred to as hypermnesia; Hershkowitz & Terner, 2007).
More likely, children forget or omit certain details in later interviews com-
pared to their original statements. While child witnesses may also provide
new information during repeated interviews after long delays, even after as
much as five or six years (e.g., Fivush et al., 2004; Peterson & Whalen,
2001; Salmon & Pipe, 2000), this new information is unlikely to be accu-
rate, due to a mix of greater decay and opportunities for incorporating
misinformation (Peterson & Whalen, 2001; Salmon & Pipe, 2000).
Overall, repeated interviews may be beneficial for uncovering new forensic
information so long as there is little delay between interviews and that
there is no use of suggestive questioning.

Interviewer Bias
Another factor thought to affect the quality of eyewitness testimony is
interviewer bias. This is when an interviewer has prior beliefs about the
subject of the interview and only asks questions that seek to elicit state-
ments in support of those beliefs, while consciously or unconsciously
avoiding questions that may result in statements that are in conflict with
those beliefs (Ceci et al., 2016). For example, in the day care sexual abuse
cases, investigators often thought that abuse had happened before chil-
dren had even mentioned anything about abuse. The questions during
these interviews revolved around coaxing the children into making state-
ments that would reveal details about the abuse (e.g., Ceci & Bruck, 1995;
Garven et al., 1998; Schreiber et al., 2006), and the interviewers avoided
questions which may have provided alternative explanations over the
behavior of the children.
To demonstrate interviewer bias, a study by Clarke-Stewart et al. (1989,
as cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1995) introduced five- and six-year-old children
84  B. F. COTTERILL

to a janitor named Chester during their class. For some groups of children,
Chester merely cleaned some dolls and toys in the classroom. For other
children, Chester handled the doll far more roughly. Later, the children
were interviewed about what they had witnessed. Some of the interviewers
were accusatory (suggesting that Chester had been playing inappropriately
with the toys), some were exculpatory (suggesting that Chester was merely
cleaning the toys), and some were completely neutral and nonsuggestive.
When interviewed by a neutral interviewer, the children’s accounts were
incredibly accurate with what they had witnessed. However, when the
interviewer contradicted what the child had witnessed, the accounts of the
children conformed to the suggestions of the interviewer. By the end of
the study, 90% of the children gave answers that were in agreement with
what the interviewer was suggesting, rather than with what had actually
happened.
Often, interviewer bias is reflected by emotional tone and by body lan-
guage. For example, if an interviewer is getting the responses they desire,
then they may give the child positive feedback or nod their head.
Interviewer bias may also be demonstrated via question repetition, option-­
posing, leading questions, stereotype induction, or any kind of feedback.
Either way, it is extremely risky for an interviewer to pursue one single
theory over an event. In a study by Leichtman and Ceci (1995), for exam-
ple, preschool-age children were interviewed about a man’s visit to class.
For some of the children, the interviewer provided highly biased state-
ments that indicated the man was clumsy. By the end of the questioning,
a significant portion of these children had provided false reports of the
man damaging property and behaving clumsily, even though the visit had
been brief and ordinary. In a similar study, Quas et al. (2007) found that
children interviewed by a highly biased interviewer about a play session
were significantly less accurate than those interviewed by a less-biased
interviewer. These studies suggest that biased statements and interviewer
pressure can increase the chances of false reports. This is similar to the day
care sexual abuse hysteria cases of the 1980s and early 1990s, when inves-
tigators would use peer pressure and negative stereotypes of the defen-
dants to get disclosures from the children (Ceci & Bruck, 1995). A range
of factors may impact the potential impact of interviewer bias upon a child,
including those relating to the child and to the interviewer, such as per-
ceived interviewer status (for a review, see Hritz et al., 2015).
 7  EXTERNAL FACTORS OF SUGGESTIBILITY  85

Stereotype Induction
Stereotype induction is one method that reflects interviewer bias. For
example, in the Little Rascals case, at least some of the children had been
given negative statements about the day care workers before they were
ever questioned. This may then have influenced their responses when
being interviewed. A demonstration of stereotype induction is the Sam
Stone study by Stephen Ceci (Chap. 3).

Interviewer Status
Children are more likely to believe adults than other children based solely
upon their status as being older (e.g., Ceci et al., 1987). More than this,
young children seem to recognize status to a certain extent and are more
suggestible when they are interviewed by police officers with a more senior
position (e.g., Tobey & Goodman, 1992). Overall, there is little evidence
that this is a serious concern so long as proper interviewing practice is
applied (i.e., proper questioning and no interviewer bias). For example, in
the case of Kelly Michaels, one of the police officers told a young witness
that he could put bad people in prison, and if the boy told him what he
wanted to hear, he would introduce him to the other important men who
put Kelly in prison (Ceci & Bruck, 1995). In this instance, the police offi-
cer abused his status to coax the response that he desired from the young
witness. Once this happens, children are vulnerable to suggestion and,
thus, to making inaccurate statements.
Though it may seem reasonable that recognition of status may impact
a child’s suggestibility, little research has further investigated this. Bull and
Corran (2002) argue that this is because many researchers consider it to
be a resolved issue, given that the American Psychological Association
(1998, as cited in Bull & Corran, 2002) instructs psychologists, when
interviewing children, to appear relaxed and informal. Therefore, a num-
ber of researchers, inspired by this line of research, have instead investi-
gated the potential impact of emotional tone on suggestibility.

Emotional Tone
Young children provide more accurate information when they feel com-
fortable during the interview, and when the interviewer is both supportive
and positive in tone (e.g., Goodman, Bottoms, et al., 1991). Furthermore,
86  B. F. COTTERILL

authoritative interviewing styles increase the number of errors in response

to suggestive questions (Bull & Corran, 2002). In order to achieve a com-
fortable atmosphere, it is important that rapport is built, perhaps by talk-
ing to the child first about their interests. There is a problem when
investigators adjust their tone based upon the responses of the child, rather
than providing a positive and supportive tone throughout. For example, if
the investigator only provides a positive tone in response to statements
that they want to hear, then the child may construe this as positive feed-
back and then state what they think the interviewer wants to hear, as
opposed to what actually happened.

Current Interviewing Formats

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

(NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol
The NICHD investigative interview protocol is the most widely studied
interviewing format (Lamb et al., 2007). It can be used with children as
young as four years. Since it was first introduced in 1996, research on the
format has studied over 40,000 forensic interview transcripts with chil-
dren. Currently, it is available in 15 different languages and is used in the
United States, Bulgaria, China, Canada, Finland, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Israel, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the
Netherlands. The technique uses a semi-structured interview format,
along with step-by-step instructions, therefore removing a lot of the
guesswork on the part of the investigator that is present in the use of other
formats. An issue, however, is that interviewers lapse into old habits shortly
after being trained to use the NICHD if only given one training session
(Lamb, 2016). Therefore, regular training workshops are required to
make sure interviewers maintain best practice.
The format begins with an introduction and by establishing the ground
rules of the interview (e.g., the child should not respond to a question
they do not understand or do not know the answer to), as well as by ensur-
ing the child understands the difference between a truth and a lie (Lamb
et al., 2007). A forensic interview is a very different type of conversation
than a child will be used to. In most cases, a child converses with an adult
about a topic that the adult knows more about than the child. Furthermore,
in school if a child answers a question incorrectly, then they expect the
teacher to set them right. Therefore, it needs to be carefully explained to
 7  EXTERNAL FACTORS OF SUGGESTIBILITY  87

the child that they may know information the adult does not during a
forensic interview.
There is then a rapport-building phase, in which the investigator should
attempt to generate a positive relationship with the child witness. This
may involve asking the child about something they like to do (Lamb et al.,
2018). As children may be asked to provide information that is potentially
embarrassing or that makes the child uncomfortable, they will be more
likely to provide details if a sense of trust is created between the child and
the investigator (e.g., Saywitz et  al., 2015; Vallano &  Schreiber
Compo, 2015).
The third stage is a practice interview, sometimes referred to as training
in episodic memory. This is an interview about a neutral, unrelated event
(e.g., a holiday, a hobby that came up during rapport building). This
allows the child to become familiar with what is expected during the actual
interview (i.e., that they should provide lots of details in response to open-­
ended questions). During this stage, it is important for the investigator to
use open-ended questions. Research shows that children produce 2.5
times as much information during the actual interview if they are asked
open-ended questions during the rapport-building (or practice interview)
phase compared to closed-ended questions (Sternberg et al., 1997).
As it transitions to asking about the crime in question, the following
stages of the protocol rely on free recall and uses open-ended follow-up
questions (e.g., general invitations, cued invitations, and time segmenta-
tion invitations) to prompt further information as it transitions to asking
about the crime in question. It is recommended that the use of directive
questions be deferred and that closed-ended and suggestive questions are
avoided, if possible (e.g., Lamb et al., 2018).
A study by Lamb et al. (2006, as cited in Lamb et al., 2018) compared
50 interviews using the NICHD protocol with 50 interviews not using
the protocol in the United Kingdom with child witnesses. They found that
the NICHD interviews produced a significantly higher number of free
invitations (34% vs. 7%), and that there was also a decrease in how many
of the questions were phrased as option-posing (18% vs. 27%). Furthermore,
56% of the details elicited during NICHD interviews were in response to
free invitations, as opposed to only 14% during non-NICHD interviews.
Similar results have been found in different countries, comparing question
types and details elicited by question types between NICHD interviews
and non-NICHD interviews (e.g., Sternberg et al., 2001).
88  B. F. COTTERILL

Cognitive Interview
Another commonly used interviewing format is the cognitive interview.
This was developed by Geiselman et al. (1984 as cited in Pozzulo, 2017)
to be used with both adult and child eyewitnesses. The main focus of the
protocol is to aid with reconstructing events so that minor details may be
uncovered that were not previously reported. To achieve this, the format
makes use of four recall techniques that have each individually been shown
to improve memory recall (for a review, see Memon et  al., 2010): (1)
reinstating the context (i.e., having the witness put themselves back to the
time and place of the event); (2) limiting cognitive resources (e.g., having
witnesses close their eyes during memory recall to avoid cognitive over-
load); (3) reversing order, as witnesses may be more accurate reporting
what happened most recently rather than starting at the beginning; (4)
and changing perspective (e.g., asking what the perpetrator was looking
at). Saywitz et al. (1992) adapted the protocol to be used specifically with
children. It has been found that this was more effective than standard
interviewing protocols; however, it was more effective with older children
than younger children, unlike the NICHD protocol which has been found
to be effective with children of all ages (Hayes & Delamothe, 1997;
Saywitz et al., 1992). Recent research has revealed cognitive interviewing
may improve accounts among intellectually disabled children (Gentle
et al., 2013).

Stepwise Interview
One other widely used protocol is the Stepwise Interview, developed by
Yuille et al. (1993, as cited in Pozzulo, 2017). The Stepwise Interview is
the precursor of the Scottish procedure, used in all areas of Scotland except
for one, and the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interviewing protocol in
England (Home Office, 2001, as cited in Krähenbühl & Blades, 2006). It
has the interviewer follow specific steps, similar to the NICHD, including
the establishing of rapport, asking for free recall, and then the use of fol-
low-up questions. Like the NICHD protocol, the Stepwise Interview
includes a practice interview (though this step is not included in England’s
ABE). A quality analysis (La Rooy et al., 2013) of interviews conducted
with children in Scotland, however, examined 74 random transcripts, and
found that none of 74 interviews included the practice interview. It would
appear that though practitioners in Scotland are urged to follow the
 7  EXTERNAL FACTORS OF SUGGESTIBILITY  89

specific steps of the Stepwise Interview, certain steps are largely ignored in
practice. The quality analysis did reveal that there are significantly fewer
leading and closed-ended questions being used by practitioners in Scotland
compared to interviews conducted two years previously, which is indeed
promising.

Case Study
On July 22, 2006, Tamika Mack-Norton was stabbed to death by her
36-year-old husband—Quincy Norton—in their home in Daly City,
California. All three of their children were home at the time of the murder,
including their nine-year-old son (QN), seven-year-old son (DN), and
one-year-old daughter (JN). Both the sons heard their mother screaming
from her bedroom. QN went to investigate and found his father standing
over his crying mother. Quincy Norton told QN to go back to his room.
The nine-year-old boy did as he was told. Moments later, Norton took all
three children from their beds and into the car. He drove them to his
cousin’s house, where he left them before going to stay at the home of one
of his girlfriends. Weeks later, she requested him to leave, and he was soon
arrested at a nearby bus stop. He claimed to police that he had returned
home to find his wife already dead, probably killed by one of his girl-
friends. When asked why he fled the scene and did not call police, Norton
explained that he thought he would be suspected because of his long his-
tory of domestic violence and other criminal behavior. The detectives
informed him that they had already interviewed his sons and that their
claims did not corroborate his story. At court, Quincy Norton argued that
their memories must have become tainted by leading questions from
detectives and family members. This matter was debated by legal experts
presented by both the defense and prosecution (see Chap. 9). The convic-
tion was overturned by the trial judge due to inadequate representation.
Two years later in 2010, there was a second trial. Quincy Norton was
given a life sentence for his wife’s murder with a minimum of 26 years to
be served in prison.

Case Study: Analysis
QN and DN were not interviewed following any formal protocol.
However, the style taken by the investigators is similar to that of the
NICHD. Investigators began by building rapport with QN and DN,
90  B. F. COTTERILL

asking them about school and sports. They also established some rules,
making sure QN and DN knew the difference between the truth and a lie.
For example, one investigator asked QN, “If I say my T-shirt is white, is
that a truth or a lie?” This is similar to the examples suggested by the
NICHD’s script. The investigators in this case used a number of question-
ing styles, however, that would have been discouraged by the NICHD or
other formal interviewing protocols. For example, there were a number of
leading questions used that had the potential to taint testimony (e.g.,
“Didn’t you hear your mom crying again or yelling your guys’ names?”).
There were also a number of option-posing questions used. As already
discussed in this chapter, young children often do not realize they possess
information that adults do not. For example, one investigator asked DN,
“Do you know whether your father had a bulletproof vest?” DN replied,
“I didn’t know that.” During the interviews, questions were also repeated
in a potentially harmful way. For example, QN was asked seven times if his
father or mother were holding anything when he saw them in the bed-
room. QN responded “no” every time. In this sense, he was resistant to
the pressures of repeated questioning. Generally, QN was more resistant
to suggestive questioning and more consistent in his testimony than his
younger brother, as you would expect based upon what has already been
discussed in this text. For example, DN was inconsistent about the color
of shirt worn by his father.
There were, however, a number of positives about the interviewing
process in this case. First, QN and DN were first interviewed on the same
day as their mother’s murder, and then were interviewed again the next
day. As already discussed, children’s memory accounts are more likely to
be accurate after minimal delay. This also helps reinforce the memory,
making their statements more consistent in subsequent interviews and
making them more resistant to suggestive questions. Generally, accounts
by both QN and DN remained incredibly consistent across the years dur-
ing legal hearings. Second, the event took considerable time, as opposed
to only seconds. Research suggests that prolonged events such as this will
be more accurately remembered (Goodman & Hahn, 1987). Third, the
event involved the parents of QN and DN, as opposed to observing
strangers. Research suggests that events will also be more accurately
remembered when the people involved are familiar, and also when there
is personal significance for the witness (McWilliams et al., 2013). Finally,
the event of witnessing their mother’s murder would have been undoubt-
edly stressful. Research suggests that negative and more emotionally
 7  EXTERNAL FACTORS OF SUGGESTIBILITY  91

arousing events are better remembered than neutral and/or mundane

events. For example, in the study of children’s reactions to vaccinations
(see Chap. 3), children were later better able to recall the event if they
had been more distressed during the event in question and were also
more resistant to misleading questions. However, as already discussed
previously in the text, while a degree of arousal might produce optimal
results in regard to eyewitness performance, eyewitnesses might become
overwhelmed once a certain level of arousal is reached.

Conclusions
Back at the beginning of the twentieth century, it seemed misleading
questions were the only suggestive technique. Now, research has indicated
various other factors that can increase suggestibility, including repeated
questioning, emotional tone, negative feedback, and stereotype induction.
These techniques are at their highest level of negative influence when in
the presence of interviewer bias. So long as the interviewer is testing alter-
native hypotheses, challenging the statements, and allowing the conclu-
sions to come straight from the words of the eyewitness, then at least most
of these factors should not pose serious problems. The next chapter will
discuss factors of suggestibility that are internal to the child.

Suggested Further Reading

Böser, U., & LaRooy, D. (2018). Interpreter-mediated investigative inter-

views with minors: Setting the ground rules. Translation and
Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and
Interpreting Studies Association, 13(2), 208–229.
Brown, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (2015). Can children be useful witnesses?
It depends how they are questioned. Child Development Perspectives,
9(4), 250–255.
Davies, G. M., Bull, R., & Milne, R. J. (2016). Analysing and improving
the testimony of vulnerable witnesses interviewed under the ‘Achieving
best evidence’ protocol. In P. Radcliffe, G. H. Gudjonsson, A. Heaton-­
Armstrong, & D.  Wolchover (Eds.), Witness testimony in sexual cases:
Evidential, investigative and scientific perspectives. Oxford
University Press.
92  B. F. COTTERILL

Lamb, M. E. (2016). Difficulties translating research on forensic interview

practices to practitioners: Finding water, leading horses, but can we get
them to drink? American Psychologist, 71(8), 710–718.
Lamb, M.  E., Brown, D.  A., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin,
P. W. (2018). Tell me what happened: Questioning children about abuse
(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
 CHAPTER 8

Individual Differences Relating

to Suggestibility

Abstract  As already discussed, some children will agree immediately with

misleading questions by interviewers, and some will continuously deny
that a suggested event ever occurred. This section will explore some of
those individual differences that may play a role, primarily focusing on
temperament.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Eyewitness testimony • Memory •

Suggestibility • Individual differences • Dispositional • Temperament •
Personality • IQ • Age • Gender • Activity • Adaptability •
Distractibility • Persistence • Shyness • Emotionality

Below are interview extracts from a study by Clarke-Stewart et al. (2004),

in which children lay beside a confederate called Patrick in a Ghostbusters-­
themed house. Though Patrick did not touch either of the children, both
Child A and Child B responded very differently to the misleading ques-
tions about touching. Child A was highly suggestible, and he falsely
reported to the interviewer during questioning that Patrick had touched
him. Child B, however, resisted all the interviewer’s suggestions.
Interestingly, Child A was older than Child B, even though older children
are usually less suggestible (for a review, see Bruck & Melnyk, 2004).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 93

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
94  B. F. COTTERILL

Interview Extract One—Child A

Interviewer: Remember when you went in the Ghostbusters House and

Patrick asked you to lie down on a blanket next to him?
Child A: [Pause.]
Interviewer: Do you remember that?
Child A: [Nods slightly.]
Interviewer: What was that like?
Child A: Um, I liked that pretty much.
Interviewer: Well, did Patrick touch you when you were in the
Ghostbusters House lying down?
Child A: [Shakes head.]
Interviewer: No? Are you sure? Now think hard. Other kids have said
that Patrick touched them. Do you remember now?
Child A: [Nods.] He did.
Interviewer: He did?
Child A: [Nods.]
Interviewer: How did that make you feel?
Child A: Bad.
Interviewer: Bad?
Child A: [Nods.]
Interviewer: Yeah? Tell me about that, when he touched you. What was
that like?
Child A: Um, it was like painful.
Interviewer: It was painful? Where did he touch you?
Child A: [Puts hand on side.] Um, I think right here.
Interviewer: Right on your side there?
Child A: [Nods.]
Interviewer: How did he touch you?
Child A: Um, ah, he moved over and touched me.
Interviewer: He moved over and touched you? Well, I bet that made
you feel uncomfortable when Patrick touched you in the
Ghostbusters House. Now think about when Patrick lifted
you up so you could get your prize in the pink piñata, did
he touch you then?
Child A: [Nods.]
Interviewer: Where did he touch you?
Child A: [Puts hands on sides.] Um, on my sides.
 8  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RELATING TO SUGGESTIBILITY  95

Interviewer: On your sides? And did he touch your bottom?

Child A: [Shakes head.] Nope.
Interviewer: No? Didn’t he touch you on your behind?
Child A: Uh, yeah.
Interviewer: Yeah? Other kids have told me that they didn’t like it when
Patrick touched them. Did he ever touch you in a way that
you didn’t like?
Child A: [Nods.]
Interviewer: Yeah? Tell me about that.
Child A: Um, it made me feel bad and painful.
Interviewer: It made you feel bad and it was painful?
Child A: [Nods.]
Interviewer: I’m sorry to hear that. I bet that made you feel yucky, am
I right?
Child A: [Nods.]

Interview Extract Two—Child B

Interviewer: Remember when you went inside the Ghostbusters house

and Patrick asked you to lie down on the blanket
next to him?
Child B: [Nods.]
Interviewer: What was that like?
Child B: Like being in bed.
Interviewer: Like being in bed? Did Patrick touch you when you were
in the Ghostbusters House lying down?
Child B: [Shakes head.]
Interviewer: No? Are you sure? Now think hard. Other kids have said
that Patrick touched them when they lay down in the
Ghostbusters House. Do you remember now?
Child B: He didn’t touch me.
Interviewer: He didn’t touch you? How do you think it made you feel?
Did it make you feel yucky?
Child B: [Shakes head.]
Interviewer: No? Are you sure it didn’t make you feel uncomfortable?
You can tell me about it. Did it make you feel yucky?
Child B: [Shakes head.] Uh-uh.
96  B. F. COTTERILL

Interviewer: No? Other kids have kind of worried about Patrick touch-
ing them. They didn’t feel very comfortable at all. Didn’t
it make you feel yucky when Patrick touched you in the
Ghostbusters House?
Child B: He didn’t touch me.
Interviewer: He didn’t touch you? Well think about when he lifted you
up so you could reach the prize in the pink piñata. Did he
touch you then?
Child B: [Shakes head.]
Interviewer: Did he touch you on your bottom?
Child B: [Shakes head.] No.
Interviewer: No? Didn’t he touch you on your behind?
Child B: No.
Interviewer: Are you sure?
Child B: [Nods.]
Interviewer: Some other kids told me that they didn’t like it when
Patrick touched them. Did he ever touch you in a way that
you didn’t like?
Child B: [Shakes head.] Uh-uh.
Interviewer: No? Are you sure?
Child B: [Nods.]
Interviewer: Yes? I bet it made you feel kind of yucky when he touched
you, am I right?
Child B: No.

Clearly, there were individual differences at play, other than age, which
influenced whether or not the children went along with the interviewer or
resisted. Some children will agree immediately with misleading questions
by interviewers, and some will continuously deny that a suggested event
ever occurred. In their review of 69 published and unpublished studies
involving 4848 children, Bruck and Melnyk (2004) examined the impacts
of various cognitive and personality factors on suggestibility, including,
but not limited to, attachment style, creativity, intelligence, and tempera-
ment. In 2020, Klemfuss and Olaguez’s updated review uncovered a fur-
ther 55 studies, including 6455 children, investigating similar dispositional
factors. In both reviews, intelligence and language ability were the factors
most frequently reported by studies to be significant factors. This chapter
will explore some of these factors in more detail.
 8  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RELATING TO SUGGESTIBILITY  97

Age
As stated earlier in this text, age is one of the most reliable predictors of
memory recall in witnesses, with younger children (especially below the
age of six years) typically reporting less details than older children and
adults (e.g., Ceci & Bruck, 1993, 1995; Hershkowitz et al., 2012). During
free recall, though older children provide more details, there are often no
age-related differences in accuracy (e.g., Sutherland & Hayne, 2001). In
some cases, however, older children still perform significantly more accu-
rately than younger children even during free recall (e.g., Eisen et  al.,
2002). As explained, younger children are typically more vulnerable than
older children and adults to external suggestive influences (e.g., Ceci &
Bruck, 1993; Ceci & Huffman, 1997; Ghetti et  al., 2002; Loftus &
Davies, 1984; Otgaar et al., 2009; Wade et al., 2002).

Gender
Early theorists believed that boys were less suggestible than girls, and,
thus, made better eyewitnesses (e.g., Bolton, 1896; Gross, 1911; Hurlock,
1930; Lombroso, 1878, as cited in Meares, 2016; Messerschmidt, 1933;
Stern, 1910, as cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993). German jurist Hans Gross
stated in a manual for judges, lawyers, and law students, “The boy just
growing out of childhood, in so far as he has been well brought up, is
especially the best observer and witness there is … while the girl of the
same age is often an unreliable, even dangerous witness” (Gross, 1911, as
cited in Meares, 2016, p. 1). Gross’s argument was supported by studies
at the time, generally reporting that females were significantly more vul-
nerable to external suggestibility in the form of leading questions and
submission to authority figures than males (Hurlock, 1930; Messerschmidt,
1933; Stern, 1910, as cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993). Explanations for
these findings were presented in the form of unsupported biological
accounts, describing different memory capabilities between males and
females (e.g., Bolton, 1986). Overall, the work by Gross demonstrates
how stereotypes and social attitudes discredited the testimony of girls at
the beginning of the twentieth century. Studies by psychologists at the
time only reinforced these societal prejudices.
Contemporary findings, however, show that gender differences in sug-
gestibility and eyewitness performance are no longer reported (e.g.,
Alexander et  al., 2002; Burgwyn-Bailes et  al., 2001; Chae, 2004;
98  B. F. COTTERILL

Clarke-­Stewart et  al., 2004; Imhoff & Baker-Ward, 1999; Quas et  al.,
1999; Roebers & Schneider, 2001; Rossi et al., 2011; Young et al., 2003).
It is interesting that these gender differences were reliably found by stud-
ies during the first half of the twentieth century and then ceased to be
found by researchers. It perhaps suggests either that early researchers
within a male-dominated psychological discipline sought results to rein-
force social prejudices or that as the status of women has improved female
participants in eyewitness studies feel more confident in correcting inves-
tigators when given misleading questions than they once did (Meares,
2016). A review of 20 studies by Bruck and Melnyk (2004) concluded
that there are no consistent gender differences. Klemfuss and Olaguez’s
(2020) review uncovered eight further studies examining gender differ-
ences. Only one study in their review found a significant effect, and it was
that boys were more susceptible to suggestion from misleading questions
than were girls (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005). Unfortunately, it is still a com-
mon misconception even among academics that these gender differences
exist. For example, Volpini et al. (2016) hypothesized that girls would be
more suggestible than boys in their study; their results failed to support
their predictions.

Socioeconomic Status
There is little evidence to suggest that socioeconomic status affects eyewit-
ness performance or suggestibility in any way (Alexander et  al., 2002;
Clarke-Stewart et al., 2004; Geddie et al., 2000), though few studies have
attempted to examine the relationship. One exception is a study by
McFarlane et al. (2002), which found that children from lower socioeco-
nomic backgrounds were more suggestible (though it accounted for little
of the variance—2%). This study had a larger participant pool than com-
parative studies (220 compared to 51–70; Alexander et al., 2002; Clarke-­
Stewart et  al., 2004; Geddie et  al., 2000), which may indicate that any
influence of socioeconomic status may be small and only be detected in
large samples.

Cognitive Factors
Other than the effects of age, cognitive factors are the most widely studied
predictors of individual suggestibility and eyewitness performance. Since
eyewitness performance involves providing memory reports of witnessed
 8  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RELATING TO SUGGESTIBILITY  99

events, it seems logical that certain cognitive factors would have a part to
play in how accurate those reports are. Generally, children with higher IQ
scores and better memory are less suggestible to misleading questions and
remember more accurate descriptors than children with lower IQ scores
and poorer memories (e.g., Bettenay et  al., 2015; Danielsdottir et  al.,
1993; Endres et al., 1999; Geddie et al., 2000; Gignac & Powell, 2006;
Henry & Gudjonsson, 2004; Hurlock, 1930; McFarlane et  al., 2002;
Roebers & Schneider, 2001; Singh & Gudjonsson, 1992).
The research suggests that intelligence is particularly a significant influ-
ence of eyewitness performance when it comes to children with intellec-
tual disabilities (see London et al., 2013 for a review) or when it comes to
typically developing children under eight years of age. In the case of typi-
cally developing children aged eight years and over, intelligence is less of a
significant influence, and some researchers have not found any significant
relationship between intelligence and suggestibility when it comes to this
age group (for a review, see Bruck & Melnyk, 2004). This is likely because
by the age of eight years, even children with an average IQ are mentally
mature enough that they are generally resistant to suggestive questions. In
support of this, eyewitness performance typically increases, and suggest-
ibility decreases, as children experience developmental progressions in
cognitive inhibition, executive functions, and language abilities (e.g.,
Alexander et  al., 2002; Clarke-Stewart et  al., 2004; Danielsdottir
et al., 1993).

Temperament
Although less researched than cognitive factors, research has also sug-
gested that temperament characteristics or behavioral styles may impact
one’s understanding, interpretation, and processing of an event, as well as
one’s ability to resist suggestive questions when providing eyewitness tes-
timony (Shapiro et al., 2005). Ornstein et al. (1997) theorized that par-
ticular elements of temperament affect the perception of eyewitnesses as
they witness events take place (activity level, emotionality, and persistence),
while other elements (adaptability, shyness, and distractibility) impact on
their performance during forensic interviews. Temperament is a precursor
of personality and refers to behavioral traits that explain how one behaves,
thought to have a genetic origin, or at least be determined early in life
(Braungart et al., 1992; Buss & Plomin, 2014; Martin, 1988; McDevitt &
Carey, 1978; Mervielde et al., 2005; Posner & Rothbart, 2000).
100  B. F. COTTERILL

Martin’s (1988) model of temperament is the most commonly used in

the eyewitness psychology literature (for a review, see Bruck & Melnyk,
2004), due to the fact that the dimensions have been theoretically linked
to eyewitness performance (Ornstein et al., 1997). These dimensions are
activity, adaptability, approach/withdrawal, ease of management through
distraction/distractibility, emotional intensity, and persistence. For exam-
ple, one aspect of temperament that may impact eyewitness performance
is shyness, labeled by Martin (1988) as approach/withdrawal. Shyness can
be defined as “a psychological state that causes feelings of discomfort,
leading to avoidance of social contact” (Afshan et al., 2015, p. 1), espe-
cially with unfamiliar people (Cheek et al., 1986, p. 115). According to
Crozier (2000), shy individuals lack confidence and are more likely to
doubt themselves and to rely on others for information. Therefore, the
extent to which a child is shy may significantly impact on their ability to
resist suggestive questioning. In adult samples, shyness is predicted by
high neuroticism and low extraversion (e.g., Kwiatkowska & Rogoza,
2019; Paulhus & Trapnell, 1998), leading to the suggestion that shyness
is a combination of the two dimensions (e.g., Briggs, 1988; Geen, 1986,
as cited in Paulhus & Trapnell, 1998), but still distinct.
In a study of 112 undergraduates by Ward and Loftus (1985), intro-
verts were more suggestible to accept post-event information than extro-
verts. Chen and Shapiro (2000, as cited in Purdy, 2001) also found that
preschool and elementary children who were more outgoing provided
more information when interviewed about a witnessed event using general
questions. However, when suggestive rather than general questions were
used, shyness had no impact on the accuracy, in this particular study.
Similarly, in studies by Roebers and Schneider (2001) and Chae and Ceci
(2005), there was a significant, negative relationship between shyness and
memory recall. Benedan et al. (2020) also reported a negative relationship
between shyness and memory recall, but it did not reach statistical signifi-
cance. Therefore, shyness impacted the quantity of information recalled in
these studies, but not necessarily the quality.
In Gilstrap and Papierno’s (2004) study, however, interviewers were
found to have asked a higher proportion of leading questions to shyer
children, who were found to be more suggestible to those questions than
less shy children. In this study, therefore, shyness did impact the quality of
responses. Similarly, Burgwyn-Bailes et al. (2001) found a significant, pos-
itive relationship between social avoidance and suggestibility. It may be
the case that shyer children are less likely to feel comfortable enough
 8  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RELATING TO SUGGESTIBILITY  101

during a forensic interview to volunteer substantial information and are

also more likely to agree with suggestions from an interviewer, out of fear
of disagreeing and the interviewer then thinking poorly of them, given
that, as discussed, fear of social judgment is an important element of shy-
ness (Afshan et al., 2015), but the association between shyness and quality
of responses seems to be less consistent than the finding of an association
between shyness and quantity of responses. This may partly be due to the
differences in experimental design between studies. For example, Gilstrap
and Papierno’s (2004) found that interviewers asked a higher proportion
of leading questions to shyer children, perhaps because they were strug-
gling to get straight answers. It is not clear, therefore, that the authors
would have found shyer children to be more suggestible if all children had
been asked the exact same questions.
Recently, a study by Johnston et al. (2021) investigated an association
between children’s propensity to disclose adult transgressions during free
recall and three dimensions of temperament (social flexibility, reactivity,
and task orientation), finding social flexibility was the only significant pre-
dictor of transgressions disclosed. In this case, children who were less flex-
ible in social situations disclosed less transgressions than other children.
This suggests that because of their temperament or personality dimen-
sions, some witnesses may be more vulnerable to suggestive questions, a
vulnerability which may impact their interview performance. Overall,
however, the association between suggestibility and some elements of
temperament is less reliable than the relationships between suggestibility
and some of the previously mentioned factors (e.g., age and intelligence).
Each element will now be discussed in detail, focusing on the potential
association between them and with eyewitness performance and
suggestibility.

Activity
Activity refers to the degree to which one enjoys being physically active
and is considered to be one of the dimensions of temperament (Martin,
1988). The results of some studies have negatively correlated activity with
memory accuracy in young children, during both initial interviews and
delayed interviews (Chen, 2002; Palmer et al., 1998, as cited in Bruck &
Melnyk, 2004; Shapiro et al., 2005). Melnyk (2002) identified that chil-
dren characterized as hyperactive by their teachers performed significantly
poorer as eyewitnesses; these children typically fidgeted a lot, talked
102  B. F. COTTERILL

excessively, and/or frequently interrupted others. It is difficult to deter-

mine why this connection might exist, but it is thought it may be because
children who are more energetic may be more likely to divert their atten-
tion to multiple stimuli, and, thus, they focus less of their attention on the
subject in question.
If this is the case, highly active children may encode fewer details
about a crime when acting as an eyewitness and have less information to
provide during an interview. Support for this explanation comes from
the findings that children with ADHD or who are described as hyperac-
tive by their teachers perform less well on memory tests (e.g., Melnyk,
2002; Pezdek & Roe, 1995; Warren et  al., 1991). Another possible
explanation is that highly active children are more impulsive, and, thus,
they will be more likely to agree to misleading questions and make false
accusations during interviews. Quas et  al. (1999) found that more
impulsive three-year-old children were significantly more suggestible to
misleading questions than those that were less impulsive, and Roberts
and Powell (2001) found the same was true for five- and six-year-old
children.

Adaptability
Adaptability refers to how easily one adapts to changes in one’s environ-
ment. Children who are more adaptable are more easily managed as
infants and accept new rules or changes to plans more easily than less
adaptable children (Martin, 1988). It seems reasonable that children who
struggle adapting to new environments may feel exceptionally uncom-
fortable being interviewed by the police and so may disclose only a lim-
ited amount of information. There are three known studies that have
found a significant positive relationship between adaptability and mem-
ory ability (Geddie et al., 2000; Greenhoot et al., 1999; Shapiro et al.,
2005), and other studies have found no significant relationship (Blackford
& Shapiro, 1999, as cited in Bruck & Melnyk, 2004; Burgwyn-Bailes
et al., 2001; Imhoff & Baker-Ward, 1999). As noted previously, a recent
study by Johnston et al. (2021) found that children higher in social flex-
ibility, a construct that combines high adaptability and low shyness, cor-
rectly disclosed significantly more transgressions during free recall than
other children.
 8  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RELATING TO SUGGESTIBILITY  103

Distractibility
Distractibility refers to how easily one’s attention is diverted. The reasons
for why distractibility may be related to eyewitness performance may be
more obvious than other traits of temperament; the theory is that more
distractible children will encode fewer details regarding a witnessed event
and so be more easily confused during questioning, making them more
suggestible to misleading questions, as well as have less information to
provide in the first instance. Furthermore, they will presumably pay less
attention during a forensic interview and so may misinterpret questions.
One known published study (Benedan et al., 2020) and two unpublished
dissertations (Melnyk, 2002; Purdy, 2001) have found a significant, nega-
tive relationship between distractibility and eyewitness performance, while
other studies have found no significant relationship (Alexander et  al.,
2002; Blackford & Shapiro, 1999, as cited in Bruck & Melnyk, 2004;
Burgwyn-Bailes et al., 2001; Brown et al., 1999, as published in Bruck &
Melnyk, 2004; Clarke-Stewart et al., 2004; Geddie et al., 2000; Imhoff &
Baker-Ward, 1999; Scullin, 1997). In Benedan et al.’s (2020) study, chil-
dren with higher attentional ability reported more information overall and
were significantly less susceptible to misleading questions. Part of the rea-
son for the difference in findings is the various ways in which distractibility
is measured across the studies. For example, some have used the distract-
ibility subscale from Martin’s TABC (teacher-version), while other studies
have used composite scores from various subscales in other measurements.
In Brown et al. (1999, as published in Bruck & Melnyk, 2004), teachers
were simply asked to rate a child’s attentiveness.

Emotionality
Emotionality refers to the intensity with which one’s feelings are expressed.
Young children who are more emotional will, for example, stomp their
foot, scream, or cry with more intensity than children who are less emo-
tional when they get into trouble or do not get their way (Martin, 1988).
Emotionality has been found to have a significant effect on eyewitness
performance by a larger number of studies than any other temperament
trait (Chae & Ceci, 2005; Chen, 2002; Geddie et al., 2000; Greenhoot
et  al., 1999; Palmer et  al., 1998, as cited in Bruck & Melnyk, 2004;
Scullin, 1997; Shapiro et al., 2005), though the direction of the relation-
ship is inconsistent and explanations are unclear. It may be that children
104  B. F. COTTERILL

who are typically more emotional will also be more emotional when wit-
nessing a criminal event, and this will impede the process of encoding
(Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). If this was the case, then it may depend how
emotionally arousing the crime is (e.g., a brutal attack will be more emo-
tionally upsetting to a witness than a nonviolent robbery) and may also
depend on who the victim of the crime is (presumably a child will be more
emotional if the victim is a family member or the child themselves).
Of course, this makes the effect of emotionality difficult for researchers
to study, as research projects typically aim to cause as little emotional upset
to participants as possible. While, in most cases, emotionality has been
found to be negatively related to eyewitness performance (Chae & Ceci,
2005; Geddie et  al., 2000; Greenhoot et  al., 1999), some research has
found the opposite—that high emotionality significantly correlates with
lower suggestibility (Chen, 2002; Scullin, 1997). This makes things more
confusing regarding how emotionality and eyewitness performance inter-
act, but it may be because although children who are more emotionally
intensive are less likely to remember a great deal of details during a stress-
ful event, they are also less likely to be coerced into making a false
statement.
Interestingly in Johnston et  al.’s (2021) study, though reactivity was
unrelated to responses from children, it significantly impacted the behav-
ior of the interviewers. Indeed, more reactive (or emotional) children
received a significantly higher number of prompts. The authors explained
that more emotional children tend to give shorter answers, thereby requir-
ing further guidance from interviewers. There is a potential danger, there-
fore, that interviewers may become frustrated in response to challenging
behavior from children and be more likely to ask whatever questions they
think will help resolve the interview more quickly. In support of this, as
mentioned previously, Gilstrap and Papierno (2004) found that interview-
ers were significantly more likely to ask leading questions to shyer chil-
dren. This is another example of how interviewers may respond to
challenging behavior by straying from guidelines.

Persistence
Persistence, another temperament dimension, is linked to task perfor-
mance (e.g., Sandelands et al., 1988), and is defined as the extent to which
one will continue with an activity, a desire, or a frame of mind, even when
challenged (Martin, 1988). Blackford (2000) and Burress et al. (1999, as
 8  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RELATING TO SUGGESTIBILITY  105

cited in Chen, 2002) found that children who were more persistent
remembered more peripheral details about a crime than those who were
less persistent. According to Chen (2002), persistence may be important
both for remembering details during the witnessing of an event and for
the process of an interview. This helps also to explain findings by Greenhoot
et  al. (1999), when more persistent children were less likely to answer
“yes” to misleading questions than children who were less persistent.

Shyness
As discussed earlier, shyness refers to the degree to which one withdraws
from social situations (Martin, 1988). Children who are more sensitive to
the social aspects of an interview may report less information and may be
more easily swayed by suggestions from the interviewer. In support of this
theory, Kagan (1994, as cited in Schacter et al., 1995) found that inhib-
ited children were reluctant to oppose requests by adults. Gordon et al.
(1993) found that lower levels of shyness predicted a larger amount of
information reported by three-year-olds in response to open-ended recall
prompts, but not for five-year-olds. As outlined previously, a number of
studies have found shyer children to be less accurate as witnesses and to be
more suggestible to misleading questions (e.g., Endres et  al., 1999;
Gilstrap & Papierno, 2004; Roebers & Schneider, 2001). Muir-Broaddus
et al. (1998) found no relationship between shyness and eyewitness recall,
but this was on a small sample of 36 five- to seven-year-olds. Importantly,
studies have all looked at different ages but there is yet no evidence of an
interaction effect between age and shyness on suggestibility, with the
exception of Gordon et al.’s (1993) paper.
This research ties in with studies showing that introverts typically per-
form poorer than extraverts on facial recognition tasks, independent of
general cognitive abilities (e.g., Lander & Poyarekar, 2015; Li et al., 2010;
Wang et al., 2012). The results show that introverts are poorer at extract-
ing social stimuli, such as faces, but are matched to extraverts when it
comes to recognizing nonsocial stimuli. It is theorized that this is due to
extraverts being more socially skilled than introverts, being less likely to
experience social phobia (Bienvenu et  al., 2001; Davis et  al., 2011).
Therefore, it is not extraversion in general, but experience of social inter-
actions that improve facial recognition performance. Participants high in
shyness or with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis also may then dis-
play facial recognition problems if there is a history of social interaction
106  B. F. COTTERILL

difficulties (e.g., Yardley et al., 2008). It may be the case that this lower
recognition accuracy is due to weaker encoding. For example, participants
higher in social phobia may be less likely to look directly at the face of
targets during eyewitness studies. If this is the case, negative impacts
should be observed in eyewitness description studies regarding social
details, and not just eyewitness identification studies.

Measuring Temperament
In previous eyewitness studies, temperament is generally measured by hav-
ing parents or teachers rate the temperament traits of the children in their
classrooms via either the Behavioral Style Questionnaire (McDevitt &
Carey, 1978) or the Temperament Assessment Battery for Children
(Martin, 1988). The problem is that, unlike cognitive abilities, tempera-
ment cannot be objectively measured, especially when it comes to young
children who are too young to self-complete questionnaires. Studies con-
tinue to determine the temperament of child participants via ratings by
their teachers, even though research consistently shows that teachers have
poor reliability when it comes to rating the personality traits of their stu-
dents (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1998; Measelle et al., 1998; Rudasill et al.,
2014; Spooner et al., 2005), meaning that it is arguable to what extent
any of the previous studies have truly measured temperament traits; this
may explain why results in the area are so mixed. It is also possibly the
reason as to why there has been little progress in regard to the connection
between temperament and eyewitness performance in the last ten years.
Notably, evidence suggests the opinions of teachers do not converge with
those of other raters when it comes to interrater consistency on problem
behavior or personality traits (e.g., Achenbach et  al., 1987; Stanger &
Lewis, 1993; Youngstrom et  al., 2000)). In sum, it would seem that a
more accurate way of measuring temperament is required before studies
can really begin to understand the influence that temperament traits may
have on eyewitness performance.

Conclusions
When it comes to individual differences relating to suggestibility, there
remains a lot to learn. Still, there is enough evidence to indicate that indi-
vidual differences are a significant factor of eyewitness performance. Some
 8  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RELATING TO SUGGESTIBILITY  107

of the factors may seem more obvious. For example, it may be clear as to
why children with higher intelligence, verbal ability, and better memory
perform better as eyewitnesses. However, other factors, such as traits of
temperament, require further exploration and understanding in regard to
how they may make a difference to eyewitness accuracy. Dispositional fac-
tors cannot be changed to improve accuracy, but a better understanding of
individual differences may offer suggestions regarding how system vari-
ables may be changed. For example, if it was found that less adaptable
children struggle more to describe a criminal event, it may be that investi-
gators will receive more descriptors if they conduct the interview at the
child’s house rather than at a police station or allow for the child to bring
their favorite toys to the interview, therefore meaning the child has less
environmental changes to adapt to. Temperament may also impact how
children are perceived as witnesses, rightly or wrongly, independent of
their actual memory performance. The next chapter will discuss how child
witnesses are regarded by jurors during trials, and how some of the exter-
nal factors and individual differences relating suggestibility can impact on
their perceptions.

Suggested Further Reading

Benedan, L., Zajac, R., McFarlane, F., & Powell, M. B. (2020). Attentional
difficulty is a risk factor for interrogative suggestibility in preschoolers.
Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105487. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2020.105487
Bruck, M., & Melnyk, L. (2004). Individual differences in children’s sug-
gestibility: A review and synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(8),
947–996. [Link]
Johnston, V., Benedan, L., Brubacher, S., & Powell, M. (2021). The roles
of child temperament and interviewer support on children’s reports of
adult wrongdoing. Personality and Individual Differences, 175, 110732.
[Link]
Klemfuss, J. Z., & Olaguez, A. P. (2020). Individual differences in chil-
dren’s suggestibility: An updated review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,
29(2), 158–182. [Link]
 CHAPTER 9

Juror Perceptions

Abstract  Temperament may also impact how children are perceived as

witnesses, rightly or wrongly, independent of their actual memory perfor-
mance. This section will explore the perceptions that jurors have of child
eyewitnesses and some of the factors that influence those perceptions,
including those relating to temperament.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Eyewitness testimony • Memory • Mock

jurors • Juries • Lawyer questions

Eyewitness testimonies provide jurors with information that would not

otherwise be available, and, thus, are incredibly important to criminal tri-
als. That said, memory is fallible and eyewitness testimony is the leading
cause of wrongful arrests. According to the Innocence Project (2020), as
mentioned in the Introduction, about 71% of 360 cases were due to mis-
identifications made by eyewitnesses. In response to this, 19 American
states have implemented jury warnings in regard to the possible unreli-
ability of eyewitness reports. In some cases, these jury warnings have
replaced testimony from expert witnesses on eyewitness memory (e.g.,
State of Utah v. Guard, 2015). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, judges
have recently decided in cases that lawyers, as well as the judges them-
selves, are now educated enough on eyewitness memory that they can

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 109

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
110  B. F. COTTERILL

instruct jurors, without opinions being necessary from psychologists (e.g.,

MacLennan v. HM Advocate, 2015).
Though it is important in any case, if a child is the only eyewitness, it is
especially vital to understand how jurors perceive their testimony. A num-
ber of factors may affect jurors’ perceptions of the credibility of a child
witness. For example, Golding et al. (2003) found that a crying child wit-
ness led to more guilty verdicts from jurors than a child who did not cry
while giving testimony. In some cases, child witnesses have been viewed as
incredibly honest and as having no reason to lie (e.g., Nunez et al., 2010;
Ross et al., 1990, 2003). In other cases, they have been perceived as hav-
ing a poor memory and thus to be less reliable than adult witnesses (e.g.,
Bottoms & Goodman, 1994; Goodman et  al., 1987; Newcombe &
Bransgrove, 2007; Nikonova & Ogloff, 2005; Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2009;
Ross et al., 1990, 2003). The decision-making of jurors is ultimately influ-
enced by a number of factors, including the type of crime and the type of
witness that the child is (i.e., bystander-witness or victim-witness; Holcomb
& Jacquin, 2007). Furthermore, there are factors relating to the jurors
themselves, such as how empathetic one generally is (Haegerich &
Bottoms, 2000).

Case Study
The last case study of the text is that of Clarence Elkins. The case began in
1998, when six-year-old Brooke Sutton went to stay with her grand-
mother (Judy Johnson) one evening after a birthday party in Barberton,
Ohio. Brooke was upstairs when she was awakened by a disturbance
downstairs. A man had broken into the house. Downstairs, he was raping
and violently beating Brooke Sutton’s grandmother to death. Brooke
went downstairs to investigate and came face-to-face with her grandmoth-
er’s killer. The man proceeded to rape Brooke and then hit her over the
head with a blunt instrument, leaving her unconscious in a pool of her
own blood. The next morning, Brooke regained consciousness and called
the only number she knew—that of a friend. There was no answer, so
Brooke left a voicemail, saying, “I’m sorry to tell you this, but my grandma
died, and I need somebody to get my mom for me. I’m all alone. Somebody
killed my grandma. Now please, would you get a hold of me as soon as
you can? Bye.”
After leaving the voicemail, Brooke knocked on the door of the neigh-
bors. Tonia Brasiel opened the door, finding Brooke standing on her
 9  JUROR PERCEPTIONS  111

doorstep, naked and covered in blood from the wound on her forehead.
Brooke told the neighbor that someone had killed her grandma. Tonia
responded by saying she had to get her kids ready for school and that
Brooke was to wait on the doorstep. Brooke was then left on Tonia
Brasiel’s doorstep for nearly an hour, still naked and coated in blood.
During this time, Tonia never called the emergency services or invited
Brooke inside. Eventually, Tonia returned to the door and questioned
Brooke on who had attacked her. Brooke did know who had attacked her,
but Tonia wanted to know what the person looked like. Brooke responded
by saying her attacker looked like her Uncle Clarence. Tonia then offered
to drive Brooke home. During the car ride, Brooke disclosed to Tonia that
it had indeed been her Uncle Clarence who killed her grandma and then
attacked her, not just someone who looked like him. In sum, Brooke had
gone from saying “somebody” had killed her grandma during the voice-
mail, to saying it was someone who looked like her Uncle Clarence on
Tonia Brasiel’s doorstep, to then saying that it was in fact her Uncle
Clarence who was responsible during the car ride home.
Tonia Brasiel dropped Brooke off at her house and told Brooke’s par-
ents that Brooke had disclosed to her that her Uncle Clarence had killed
her grandma and then attacked her. Tonia then left, not waiting to be
interviewed by police. Brooke’s parents drove to Judy Johnson’s house to
investigate, finding her body and the murder scene. They called the police,
who then questioned Brooke and asked her what had happened. Brooke
told them that her Uncle Clarence had killed her grandma and then
attacked her. Police went to Clarence Elkins’ house to arrest him for Judy
Johnson’s murder (his mother-in-law). At first, Clarence Elkins was
stunned but assumed it was all just a mistake and would soon be set right.
Police then informed him that there was no mistake as they had a witness
who had seen him commit the crime—his six-year-old niece.
At trial, Brooke Sutton pointed to Clarence Elkins in the courtroom
and told the jury that he was the man who killed her grandma and attacked
her. Tonia Brasiel then took the stand and testified that Brooke had identi-
fied Clarence Elkins as her grandmother’s murder immediately after the
incident. Clarence was found guilty of murder and two counts of rape and
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. It was not until
three years after the crime that Brooke confessed she had doubts over her
identification. Eventually, she explained to her family that she had been
having flashbacks of her rape and that it could not have been Clarence
who raped her because Clarence had blue eyes, but her rapist had brown.
112  B. F. COTTERILL

The family told this to the district attorney—Michael Carroll. However,

he believed Brooke was recanting because of pressure from her family and
so refused to release Clarence Elkins. In Michael Carroll’s mind, it did not
make sense that Brooke could ever have been wrong about identifying her
uncle as her rapist; this was a close family, and they spent a lot of time
together, so Brooke would surely know what her uncle looked like and be
able to recognize him.
Melinda Elkins—Clarence’s wife—never doubted his innocence. Her
mother had been murdered, and she wanted the right person to pay for it;
the attack had been brutal, and she refused to accept that her husband was
a violent psychopath. She spent her nights at the local library, learning
what she could about forensic psychology, and constructed a profile of the
suspect. She devised he would likely have lived locally and have had a
criminal history of sexual abuse. Melinda then searched the sex offender
registry and assembled a list of those that lived nearby. She arranged to
meet with these people at bars, secretly collecting their beer bottles, drink
glasses, and anything else that may contain their DNA. Eventually, she had
a fridge full of potential DNA comparisons, all sealed in plastic bags.
Melinda contacted the Ohio Innocence Project for assistance in retesting
evidence from the crime scene for DNA. DNA was recovered from Judy
Johnson’s underwear. It was not a match for any of the DNA from items
in Melinda Elkins’ fridge, but, more importantly, it also excluded Clarence
Elkins. Still, Michael Carroll refused to release Clarence Elkins. In theory,
the DNA may have belonged to an accomplice or may have been contami-
nated by a jury member during the trial. DNA, it seemed, could not be
used to persuade Michael Carroll that Brooke Sutton had made a misiden-
tification. A judge was unable to release Clarence Elkins with this new
evidence as Clarence Elkins had been convicted on the basis of eyewitness
evidence, not DNA evidence, and so his second appeal was denied (the
first had occurred after Brooke originally recanted her testimony).
Melinda then realized that she was only going to ever get her husband
out of prison if she delivered the real killer on a silver platter to the district
attorney. She thought back to the neighbor—Tonia Brasiel—who had left
Broke outside her home for nearly an hour following the murder, and who
had been the first person to claim that Brooke had identified Clarence as
the killer. Melinda discovered that Tonia Brasiel’s common law husband,
Earl Mann, was a convicted sex offender who had been released from
prison less than a week before the murder, and who was currently in prison
for raping a child. There are 33 prisons in Ohio, but, coincidently, Earl
 9  JUROR PERCEPTIONS  113

Mann was at the same prison as Clarence Elkins. Within this prison, there
are ten sections, and prisoners from one section have no interaction with
prisoners from other sections. Strangely, Earl Mann and Clarence Elkins
were being held within the same section. Melinda wrote to Earl Mann,
pretending that he had won money and urging him to write her back, so
that she could use the DNA from the envelope as a comparison with the
DNA from the crime scene. Earl never wrote back, and so she told her
husband that he would have to collect Earl Mann’s DNA. Clarence man-
aged to get a cigarette butt discarded by Earl and sent it to his lawyers for
testing. Days after this, Earl was transferred to another prison. The test
revealed a match. Amazingly, the district attorney still refused to release
Clarence, and so Clarence’s lawyers contacted Ohio State Attorney
General Jim Petro. For the first time in American history, a state attorney
general publicly pressured a prosecutor to dismiss the charges. After agree-
ing to complete their own tests, and finding that Earl Mann was a match,
the district attorney dropped charges against Clarence, and he was released
in 2005. In 2008, Earl Mann pleaded guilty and is currently serving 55
years to life in prison.

Case Study: Analysis

It would seem that Clarence Elkins’ fate was sealed as soon as Brooke
Sutton—despite her age—pointed to him in the courtroom and testified
that he had murdered her grandmother. Even the district attorney—who
was more educated than most about the issues of eyewitness identifica-
tion—found it too far-fetched to believe that a six-year-old girl could mis-
takenly identify her uncle as her rapist. If it had not been for Melinda
Elkins’ persistence and some amazing coincidences—that almost make
this story seem like that from a Hollywood movie—Clarence Elkins would
likely still be in prison. The case demonstrates just how powerful child wit-
ness testimony can be. We do not know exactly what was said between
Brooke Sutton and Tonia Brasiel during the car ride to Brooke’s parents,
but it seems likely that Brooke’s accusation that her uncle was her attacker
was a result of post-even information and some strong suggestion pro-
vided by Tonia Brasiel. Clarence Elkins now works as an advocate to pre-
vent wrongful imprisonments, and he was instrumental in passing the
Ohio’s Innocence Protection Act (Senate Bill 77), which sets guidelines
for police to follow when collecting eyewitness identifications.
114  B. F. COTTERILL

Effects of Witness Age

While child witnesses are generally viewed as being honest by jurors (e.g.,
Nunez et al., 2010; Ross et al., 1990, 2003), they are also typically per-
ceived as being less accurate than adult witnesses (e.g., Bottoms &
Goodman, 1994; Goodman et al., 1987; Nikonova & Ogloff, 2005; Ross
et al., 1990, 2003). Wright et al. (2010) found that perceived memory
reliability increased with the age of the witness when participants heard
statements by children (between 3 and 18 years of age) who had witnessed
an act of abuse. The difference in perceived reliability was considerable
between three and six, but much smaller after the age of six. This is con-
sistent with the results of other studies, finding that perceived reliability
increases with age (e.g., Holcomb & Jacquin, 2007; Nightingale, 1993;
Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2009). Participants were also asked to rate how hon-
est they found the witnesses to be. Honesty levels of female witnesses
increased with age from 3 to 18, whereas honesty levels for males increased
until the children were 6 years old, then decreased until 18.
It should be noted that different results are often found depending on
the type of crime and on whether the witness is also the victim in the case.
In the instance of the child witness also being a victim of sexual abuse, a
child witness has been found to be perceived as more reliable than an adult
(e.g., Goodman et  al., 1987; Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2009). In cases of
sexual abuse, younger children may be seen as more credible because they
lack the knowledge necessary to make false accusations. Bottoms and
Goodman (1994) presented participants with a scenario in which a girl
claimed to have been sexually abused by her teacher. The age of the victim-­
witness was varied across participants, and it was found that perceived
honesty decreased with age. Overall, older children and adults are typically
viewed as more reliable than younger children (especially those under six
years of age), but younger children can be viewed as more reliable in cer-
tain situations, depending on gender, the crime, and the type of witness
that the child is (i.e., bystander-witness or victim-witness).
Effects of witness age on juror interpretations are not always found
(e.g., Golding et  al., 1997; Greenwald et  al., 1986; Luus et  al., 1995;
McCauley & Parker, 2001). In some cases, there are results inconsistent
with previous findings. For example, a study by Bidrose and Goodman
(2000) is one of the few examples of real-world research. In the case
within this study, four girls (8 to 15 years old at time of report) testified
about sexual exploitation experiences in New Zealand. The oldest girl
 9  JUROR PERCEPTIONS  115

made more mistakes (determined by the presence of an allegation, but no

supporting evidence) and omission errors (determined by the presence of
evidence, but no allegation) during police interviews than the younger
girls. This is contrary to findings that older child witnesses typically pro-
vide more accurate information than younger child witnesses, as previ-
ously discussed. Additionally, the oldest girl’s testimony was not considered
any less reliable by jurors than those of the younger girls, despite having
made more mistakes and omission errors, even though, as already men-
tioned, younger children are usually viewed by mock jurors as more reli-
able than older children in simulated sexual abuse cases. This real-life case,
therefore, though clearly has a very small sample size, differs from general
findings in two significant ways. It is clear that more research has to be
done on juror interpretations, both in child sexual abuse cases and in other
cases involving child witnesses.

Effects of Interviewing Technique

Suggestive interviewing techniques that have detrimental effects on eye-
witness accuracy may be used to discredit their testimony (e.g., Goodman
et al., 1999; Gous & Wheatcroft, 2020; for a review, see Morrison et al.,
2019; Zajac et al., 2018). Though many legal advisors stress that asking
questions in such a manner is unwise, there are still advocates who con-
tinue to argue that asking questions containing presuppositions is a nor-
mal and effective technique for verifying doubtful information (Wheatcroft
& Woods, 2010). In a study by Kebbell et al. (2010), adult participants
viewed a video of a woman being attacked by a man and were individually
questioned about the incident. Half of the participants were asked ques-
tions using six categories of confusing questions often used by lawyers,
while the other half were asked for the same information using simply
phrased alternatives. In a second study by the authors, they investigated
how the question styles impacted on the interpretations of mock jurors.
They found that lawyers’ use of confusing questions significantly reduced
accuracy, speed of response, and jurors’ ability to determine accuracy.
Researchers studying child eyewitness testimony have also highlighted
the importance of the questioning styles used to evoke children’s responses.
Goodman et al. (1999) claimed that it is a technique used by lawyers to
discredit the testimony of child witnesses. This is because when leading
questions are used by lawyers, it can be difficult for jurors to discern
whether the child actually knows the answer or is simply complying with
116  B. F. COTTERILL

the lawyer’s suggestion. Using the scenario of a murder within their study,
Karla and Heath (1997) found that six-year-old bystander-witnesses were
rated as significantly less credible when leading questions were used, and
mock jurors were also significantly less confident in their guilty verdicts.
Similarly, Tubb et al. (1999) found that a nine-year-old’s reports of sexual
abuse were perceived as significantly less credible and the defendant was
significantly less likely to be perceived as guilty when the disclosure was
elicited by police through suggestive questioning (participants were pre-
sented with one of two types of hearsay evidence: written transcripts or
second-hand testimony by a police officer). In a study by Olaguez and
Klemfuss (2020), mock jurors read a transcript from either a direct exami-
nation or a cross-examination with a child witness in a sexual abuse case.
Those who read the direct examination rated the child as being signifi-
cantly more credible. Overall, there is evidence to suggest that how child
witnesses’ statements are obtained influences the interpretation of
mock jurors.

Effects of Witness Confidence and Shyness

Some research has found that leading questioning can decrease a witness’
confidence (Wheatcroft et al., 2004), but findings in this area are generally
mixed (Wheatcroft, 2002). This is a point of concern because eyewitness
confidence remains one of the most persuading factors for jurors
(Nicholson et al., 2014). It is commonly thought that the more confident
the witness, the more accurate they are, even though the connection
between confidence and accuracy is mixed in eyewitness descriptions
(Wheatcroft et al., 2004), though it is a more consistent correlation than
the one in eyewitness identification studies (e.g., Wixted et  al., 2015).
Furthermore, the correlation between confidence and accuracy is even
weaker for child witnesses than it is for adult witnesses (Brewer & Day,
2005; Keast et  al., 2007; Tenney et  al., 2011). Nevertheless, jurors are
likely to perceive a response as correct if an eyewitness expresses certainty
in being correct (Brewer & Burke, 2002; Brigham & Wolfskeil, 1983;
Cutler et  al., 1990). Furthermore, the time taken for an eyewitness to
respond to a question may be taken as another indicator of confidence and
reliability (e.g., Dunning & Perretta, 2002; Robinson et al., 1997; Shaw,
1996). Jurors may be more skeptical of eyewitness testimony in child sex-
ual abuse cases if they have knowledge about suggestibility and cognitive
 9  JUROR PERCEPTIONS  117

deficits, especially if the child is a bystander-witness and not a victim-­

witness (Goodman et al., 1984).
The author is not aware of any studies that have focused specifically on
children regarding the relationship between leading questioning and per-
ceived confidence. On top of this, the author is not aware of any studies
that have investigated the connection between witness shyness and per-
ceived credibility. Since shyer individuals tend to have a lack of confidence
in their everyday life and are more likely to question themselves, as well as
rely on others for information (Crozier, 2000), it would make sense if they
were perceived as less confident and therefore less credible to potential
jurors based upon the findings of Wheatcroft et al. (2004).
In support of this, Brodsky et  al. (2010) found that witnesses rated
higher in shyness were perceived as less confident when testifying by a
panel of judges, while witnesses higher in assertiveness were rated as sig-
nificantly more credible than less assertive witnesses in a separate study
(Larson & Brodsky, 2014). Furthermore, expert witnesses with high eye
contact typically receive significantly higher credibility ratings from jurors
than those with medium and low eye contact, and shyer individuals usually
report decreased eye contact preference (Neal & Brodsky, 2008). Lastly,
when looking at child witnesses, in an unpublished master’s thesis, those
regarded as more talkative were rated significantly more favorably than less
talkative child witnesses by mock jurors (Pierce, 2019). It should also be
noted that other temperament traits have previously been linked to per-
ceived credibility. For example, Golding et al. (2003) found that too little
or too much emotion from a child witness could negatively affect their
credibility.

Juror Gender
Typically, when it comes to sexual abuse cases, female jurors are more
likely to find the victim-witness credible than male jurors and are also
more likely to vote for a conviction (e.g., Devine & Caughlin, 2014;
Schutte & Hosch, 1997). This is also true in the case of child sexual abuse
victims (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994; Bottoms et al., 2007; Quas et al.,
2002). This may be because women are usually more empathic toward
children than men (e.g., Christov-Moore et  al., 2014; Mestre Escrivá
et al., 2009), or perhaps because women are more likely to be sexual abuse
victims themselves (Office for National Statistics, 2020) and so are more
likely to sympathize with the victim of the case. Golding et  al. (2007)
118  B. F. COTTERILL

found a similar finding when investigating jury decision-making, as

opposed to juror decision-making. In the case of a six-year-old female who
claimed to have been a victim of sexual abuse, mock juries with a female
majority were more likely to convict. Interestingly, females who originally
voted not guilty were also more likely to change their verdict to guilty if
they were within a female majority group.

Juror Age
Juror age has been largely ignored in the literature. Though there is some
evidence to suggest that older jurors may be more likely than younger
jurors to give a verdict of not guilty (e.g., Mossière & Dalby, 2008), the
results are mixed and are dependent upon the characteristics of the crime
and the defendant (Anwar et al., 2012). The author is not aware of any
findings in regard to a connection between juror age and perceived cred-
ibility of child witnesses.

Juror Personality
Though few recent studies have investigated the influence of juror person-
ality, largely due to small effect sizes in early studies (Greene et al., 2002,
as cited in Clark et al., 2007), there is evidence that certain traits have an
impact on juror attitudes. For example, Haegerich and Bottoms (2000)
found that jurors higher in empathy rated a child defendant (accused of
killing their abusive parent) as being significantly less guilty than those
lower in empathy. A meta-analysis of 20 studies by Narby et  al. (1993)
found strong evidence for a positive connection between authoritarianism
and guilty verdicts. Seeing as how one’s personality impacts their social
behavior and political ideologies (e.g., Burton et al., 2015; Carney et al.,
2008; Hirsh et al., 2010; Sibley et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2013), it makes
sense that it would also impact their behavior as jurors. For instance, those
higher in authoritarianism are more likely to be politically right-leaning, as
well as to be more angered by the violation of certain moral foundations,
specifically loyalty, authority, and purity (Haidt, 2012). Therefore, it is
perhaps not surprising that, in certain cases, those higher in authoritarian-
ism are more likely to render less lenient verdicts as jurors (McGowen &
King, 1982).
 9  JUROR PERCEPTIONS  119

Prosecution of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse

When deciding to prosecute a case, a prosecutor has to believe he or she
can convict the suspect (Lievore, 2005). The amount and type of evidence
available, therefore, will almost certainly influence their decision. In cases
of child sexual abuse, the child’s testimony is often the only available evi-
dence (Brewer et al., 1997; Lamb & Brown, 2006). In these instances,
there is about a 33% chance of a case being prosecuted (Cross et al., 1994;
Walsh et al., 2008). A case is significantly more likely to be prosecuted if
there is additional evidence available, such as independent witnesses to the
child’s disclosure or a suspect’s confession (Ernberg et al., 2016; Walsh
et al., 2008).
In other cases, there may be physical evidence of sexual abuse from a
medical examination. However, findings from medical examinations can
be ambiguous. Brewer et al. (1997) found that whether or not the child
had undergone a medical examination made no statistical difference to
whether or not a case would be prosecuted. This may be, however, because
of the type of medical examination carried out. Other studies have found
that a case is more likely to be prosecuted if the medical examination was
carried out by specialist staff (e.g., Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners) as
opposed to regular medical staff (Joa & Edelson, 2004; Patterson &
Campbell, 2009).
The quality of an investigator’s interview with a child witness (e.g., the
presence or absence of leading questions) does not appear to typically
impact on a prosecutor’s decision to prosecute a case (Hagborg et  al.,
2012). A prosecutor is also more likely to prosecute the case if the child-­
victim is older as opposed to younger (Cross et  al., 1994; Walsh et  al.,
2010). More specifically, a case is up to three times more likely to be pros-
ecuted if the child-victim is aged seven years or older (Cross et al., 1994).
A case is more likely still to be prosecuted if the child-victim is aged 11
years or older (Patterson & Campbell, 2009). However, the prosecution
rate decreases again once the child-victim reaches the age of adolescence
(Bunting, 2008; Walsh et al., 2010). Some research has suggested a num-
ber of other possible factors that may impact a prosecutor’s decision to
prosecute a case, including the gender of the suspect, the relationship
between the suspect and the victim, and the emotional state of the victim,
but results for these factors are mixed at best (Ernberg, 2018).
Importantly, defense’s tactics have also been known to change in rela-
tion to the age of the prosecution’s witnesses. For example, when child
120  B. F. COTTERILL

witnesses are aged five to nine, defense attorneys typically focus their argu-
ments on the topic of suggestibility. When child witnesses are aged 10 to
14, defense attorneys tend to talk about the tendency to lie in children. In
sexual abuse cases, defense attorneys also frequently include arguments
related to adult behavior in children, lack of force during sexual abuse,
sexual behavior in children, and continued contact between the child and
their abuser. When child witnesses are older than 14 years, defense attor-
neys tend to focus on more personal reasons the child might have for
lying, such as revenge, jealousy, and attraction toward the suspect (St.
George et al., 2020).

Conclusions
It is clear that eyewitness testimony can influence jury decision-making.
Conviction rates are typically higher in cases involving eyewitnesses than
those without, especially in the absence of jury instructions (Greene,
1988; Spanos et al., 1992). There is considerably more research investi-
gating how witness characteristics influence the perception of jurors, such
as witness age, compared to juror characteristics. This is likely due to the
cost and time required to investigate multiple juror characteristics. As dis-
cussed, there is evidence that jury gender can affect perceived reliability of
child witnesses, but other factors such as juror age require further investi-
gation. There is also some suggestion that the types of questions asked and
the shyness level of the child witness may impact on how they are per-
ceived by jurors, as these factors may affect how confident they come
across, and confidence remains a main persuading factor for jurors. It is
worth noting that most of the research in this field has investigated how
individuals acting as jurors make their decisions, rather than groups of
people (i.e., juror decision-making, rather than jury decision-making).
This is a significant issue in regard to the validity of these studies as people
are likely to make decisions differently on their own compared to when
within a group. The dynamic of the group also makes an impact on how
decisions are reached. For example, the more extraverted the foreperson,
the longer deliberations last and the more influence the foreperson is per-
ceived to have by other jurors (Clark et al., 2007). This chapter has focused
on the perceived reliability of child witnesses, but to learn more about
court accommodations for child witnesses, please see the recommended
reading below.
 9  JUROR PERCEPTIONS  121

Suggested Further Reading

Andrews, S. J., Ahern, E., & Lamb, M. E. (2017). Children’s expressions
of uncertainty when testifying about alleged sexual abuse in Scottish
courts. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 35(3), 204–224. [Link]
org/10.1002/bsl.2286
Andrews, S. J. & Lamb, M. E. (2017). The structural linguistic complex-
ity of lawyers’ questions and children’s responses in Scottish criminal
courts. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 182–193. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2017.01.022
Andrews, S.  J. & Lamb, M.  E. (2019). Lawyers’ question content and
children’s responses in Scottish Criminal courts. Psychology, Crime, &
Law. [Link]
Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). Amicus brief for the case of State of New
Jersey v. Michaels presented by Committee of Concerned Social
Scientists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2), 272–322. https://
[Link]/10.1037/1076-­8971.1.2.272
Henderson, H., Andrews, S., & Lamb, M. (2018). Examining children in
English High Courts with and without implementation of reforms
authorized in Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence
Act. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 252–264. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.3472
Mossiere, A., & Dalby, J. T. (2008). The influence of gender and age in
mock juror decision-making. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 4(4).
[Link]
Szojka, Z. A., Andrews, S. J., Lamb, M. E., Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon,
T.  D. (2017). Challenging the credibility of alleged victims of child
sexual abuse in Scottish courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
23(2), 200–210.
 CHAPTER 10

Conclusion

Abstract  This text began by presenting the question of how reliable

children are as witnesses. The simple answer is that children can be reli-
able witnesses, but that it depends on both the individual child and the
situation. For instance, closed-ended questions and misleading questions
can lower chances of a child witness being reliable in comparison to
open-­ ended questions. There are interview protocols, such as the
NICHD, designed to make sure investigators stick to recommendations
when interviewing children. Younger children are less likely to be reli-
able witnesses than older children. There are a number of developmental
changes that may explain these findings, including the development of
language abilities, theory of mind, memory, and social skills. Findings
from research also suggest temperament impacts eyewitness perfor-
mance. For example, distractible children often provide less correct
information and more errors during police interviews than less distract-
ible children. Findings such as this can help investigators identify chal-
lenging behavior that may impact eyewitness performance so that the
interview may be tailored to make it more appropriate. For example,
investigators may benefit from implementing many short breaks for dis-
tractible children, though more research needs to be done to measure
the potential effectiveness of this. This is information that may be useful
to Registered Intermediaries in England and Wales, as they may be able
to make recommendations to police during forensic interviews with

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 123

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
124  B. F. COTTERILL

children after challenging behavior has been identified. Overall, children

can be trusted as reliable witnesses so long as eight recommendations are
followed.

Keywords  Child witnesses • Eyewitness testimony • Memory •

Suggestibility

This text began by presenting the question of how reliable children are as
witnesses. The simple answer is that children can be reliable witnesses, but
that it depends on both the individual child and the situation. For instance,
closed-ended questions and misleading questions can lower chances of a
child witness being reliable in comparison to open-ended questions. There
are interview protocols, such as the NICHD, designed to make sure inves-
tigators stick to recommendations when interviewing children. Younger
children are less likely to be reliable witnesses than older children. There
are a number of developmental changes that may explain these findings,
including the development of language abilities, theory of mind, memory,
and social skills. Findings from research also suggest that temperament
impacts eyewitness performance. For example, distractible children often
provide less correct information and more errors during police interviews
than less distractible children. Findings such as this can help investigators
identify challenging behavior that may impact eyewitness performance so
that the interview may be tailored to make it more appropriate. For exam-
ple, investigators may benefit from implementing many short breaks for
distractible children, though more research needs to be done to measure
the potential effectiveness of this. This is information that may be useful to
Registered Intermediaries in England and Wales, as they may be able to
make recommendations to police during forensic interviews with children
after challenging behavior has been identified. Overall, children can be
trusted as reliable witnesses so long as the following eight recommenda-
tions are followed:

1. Avoid suggestive questions, as well as closed-ended questions as

much as possible.

Overall, witness accuracy is typically worse for closed-ended questions

than open-ended questions, and then worse still for suggestive questions
(e.g., Memon et al., 1996). This is even more the case when it comes to
 10 CONCLUSION  125

younger children (e.g., Davies et  al., 1989; Karageorge & Zajac, 2011;
Kuehn, 1974; Lindsay et  al., 1994; Pozzulo & Warren, 2003; Zajac &
Karageorge, 2009). Indeed, children younger than seven years are likely to
answer even nonsensical questions if they are presented in a way that poses
options (Hughes & Grieve, 1980; Pratt, 1990; Waterman et al., 2000).

2. Use a structured interview format.

Investigators are more likely to avoid using closed-ended and sugges-

tive questions if they use a structured interview format, such as the
NICHD interview protocol (e.g., Lamb et  al., 2006, as cited in Lamb
et al., 2018; Sternberg et al., 2001). This is because the NICHD protocol
encourages investigators to apply a “funnel approach,” which involves
exhausting free recall invitations and other open-ended prompts before
reverting to more focused questions (Lamb et al., 2009). NICHD inter-
views also employ practice interviews and rapport building, which both
improve interview performance (Saywitz et al., 2015).

3. Avoid repeating questions.

Question repetition often causes child witnesses to change their answers

(e.g., Howie et  al., 2004; Krähenbühl & Blades, 2006; Memon &
Vartoukian, 1996; Poole & White, 1991; Powell & Thomson, 1996).
This may be because it implies that their previous answers were incorrect.
It should be highlighted that most research and guidelines focus on verba-
tim repetition, but negative effects can also arise from investigators using
gist repetition or repetition in the form of changing the question type
(Krähenbühl & Blades, 2009). If a question must be repeated, then it
should be explained to the child witness that the question is not being
repeated because their answer was incorrect.

4. Make accommodations based on temperament.

There still needs to be more research conducted to determine the

impact of temperament on eyewitness performance, but research suggests
the presence of certain temperament traits may heighten the negative
effects of suggestive questions (for a review, see Bruck & Melnyk, 2004).
Children who are more distractible may provide more information during
a forensic interview if care is taken to minimize sensory stimulation and to
126  B. F. COTTERILL

make sure they are kept on topic (Lamb et al., 2018, p. 173). For example,
the interview room should be kept quiet and sparsely decorated.

5. Avoid delay.

Child witnesses are even more vulnerable to the negative effects of

improper questioning if a substantial amount of time has passed between
the witnessed event and the interview (e.g., Jones & Pipe, 2002).
Furthermore, information provided during the interview becomes less
reliable due to a mix of greater decay and opportunities for incorporating
misinformation (Peterson & Whalen, 2001; Salmon & Pipe, 2000).
Therefore, investigators are recommended to interview witnesses as
quickly as possible after an incident or crime.

6. Avoid external pressures.

This text has discussed some direct external pressures, such as using
peer pressure and negative stereotypes of the defendants to get disclosures
from children, as demonstrated when discussing the day care sexual abuse
hysteria cases. Fortunately, this is now less common. However, there are
still indirect external pressures that investigators should look out for,
including perceived interviewer status (for a review, see Hritz et al., 2015).
External pressures are more likely to occur when the investigators have a
preconceived notion of the truth and only ask questions that seek to elicit
statements in support of one theory. Often, interviewer bias is reflected by
emotional tone and body language. To avoid these external pressures,
investigators should be testing alternative hypotheses, challenging state-
ments, and allowing the conclusions to come straight from the words of
the eyewitness.

7. Follow lineup procedures closely and include a mystery card.

Children as young as six years can be just as likely as adults to accurately

identify a perpetrator from a target-present lineup (for a review, see
Havard, 2014). However, children are more likely than adults to inaccu-
rately identify a perpetrator from a target-absent lineup (e.g., Dekle et al.,
1996; Gross & Hayne, 1996; Humphries et al., 2012; Keast et al., 2007;
Lindsay et al., 1997; Parker & Carranza, 1989; Pozzulo & Balfour, 2006;
Pozzulo & Warren, 2003). The research suggests that the number of
 10 CONCLUSION  127

inaccurate identifications made by young children during target-absent

lineups can be dramatically decreased by including an additional mystery
card, without it having any impact on performance during target-present
lineups (Karageorge & Zajac, 2011; Zajac & Karageorge, 2009).
Investigators are also encouraged to follow recommendations provided by
Wells et al. (1998). These include: (1) the person conducting the lineup
should not know who the suspect is, (2) eyewitnesses should be told the
suspect may not be in the lineup; (3) the suspect should not stand out in
the lineup as being different; (4) and confidence judgments should be
documented immediately after identification, as they are likely to become
inflated by the time of trial.

8. Avoid undermining child witnesses during cross-examination.

Child witnesses appear less reliable to jurors when leading questions are
used during cross-examination (e.g., Karla & Heath, 1997; Olaguez &
Klemfuss, 2020; Tubb et  al., 1999). The presence of leading questions
may make child witnesses appear less confident (Wheatcroft et al., 2004),
or have jurors unsure if the child is only answering the question because
they are being agreeable.
It is the author’s hope that this is a useful collection of recent research
for people interested in the field of child eyewitness reliability. Of course,
we must be mindful of the fact that any laboratory research on eyewitness
memory is limited to some extent in its validity. This text has outlined
some horrific cases against children, including rape and the witnessing of
murder. Clearly, no lab study can ever come close to mimicking the trauma
and personal significance connected to such cases. Still, there are impor-
tant findings here that have been replicated across participants, genera-
tions, cultures, and contexts, and therefore that contain significant
implications for police, lawyers, social workers, judges, and juries,
among others.
Research in the field over the past few decades has been dedicated to
understanding factors that impact eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility.
Now, research is going in an even more interesting direction—to under-
stand what can be done to overcome these obstacles and test out proce-
dures that may decrease the likelihood of suggestibility as much as possible.
The goal here (at least, in the author’s view) is not to screen out witnesses
or to find out which witnesses should be excluded from testifying. Instead,
the goal is to understand what witness characteristics and interviewer
128  B. F. COTTERILL

characteristics impede eyewitness performance so that procedures can

then be implemented to overcome these issues. After all, the more accu-
rate eyewitness statements that make it to trial, the more guilty offenders
will go to prison and the less innocents will take their place.
 References

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adoles-

cent behavioural and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant cor-
relations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213. https://
[Link]/10.1037/0033-­2909.101.2.213
Afshan, A., Askari, I., & Manickam, L. S. S. (2015). Shyness, self-construal, extra-
version–introversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism: A cross-cultural compari-
son among college students. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–8. [Link]
2158244015587559
Alexander, K. W., Goodman, G. S., Schaaf, J. M., Edelstein, R. S., Quas, J. A., &
Shaver, P. R. (2002). The role of attachment and cognitive inhibition in children’s
memory and suggestibility for a stressful event. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 83(4), 262–290. [Link]
Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2005). An own-age bias in face recognition for
children and older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1043–1047.
[Link]
Andrews, S., & Lamb, M. (2016). How do lawyers examine and cross-examine
children in Scotland? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 953–971. https://
[Link]/10.1002/acp.3286
Anwar, S., Bayer, P., & Hjalmarsson, R. (2012). The impact of jury race in crimi-
nal trials. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(2), 1017–1055. https://
[Link]/10.1093/qje/qjs014
Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M.  W., & Anderson, M.  C. (2020). Memory (3rd ed.).
Routledge.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 129

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
130  REFERENCES

Baker-Ward, L., Gordon, B.  N., Ornstein, P.  A., Larus, D.  M., & Clubb,
P. A. (1993). Young children’s long-term retention of a pediatric examination.
Child Development, 64(5), 1519–1533. [Link]
j.1467-­8624.1993.tb02968.x
Bala, N. (2018, November 27). Children witnesses in the criminal courts:
Recognizing competence and assessing credibility. [Link]
children-­w itnesses-­i n-­t he-­c riminal-­c ourts-­r ecognizing-­c ompetence-­a nd-­
assessing-­credibility/
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge University Press.
Benedan, L., Zajac, R., McFarlane, F., & Powell, M. B. (2020). Attentional diffi-
culty is a risk factor for interrogative suggestibility in preschoolers. Children
and Youth Services Review, 119, 105487. [Link]
childyouth.2020.105487
Beresford, J., & Blades, M. (2006). Children’s identification of faces from lineups:
The effects of lineup presentation and instructions on accuracy. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1102–1113. [Link]
9010.91.5.1102
Bettenay, C., Ridley, A., Henry, L., & Crane, L. (2015). Changed responses under
cross-examination: The role of anxiety and individual differences in child wit-
nesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 485–491. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.3125
Bidrose, S., & Goodman, G. S. (2000). Testimony and evidence: A scientific case
study of memory for child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14,
197–213. [Link]
<197::AID-­ACP647>[Link];2-­6
Bienvenu, O. J., Nestadt, G., Samuels, J. F., Costa, P. T., Howard, W. T., & Eaton,
W. W. (2001). Phobic, panic, and major depressive disorders and the five-factor
model of personality. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
189(3), 154–161.
Blackford, C. (2000). The effects of age, delayed interval, and type of question on
false memory syndrome in childhood (Unpublished master’s thesis). Emporia
State University.
Bolton, F. E. (1896). The accuracy of recollection and observation. Psychological
Review, 3(3), 286–295.
Bottoms, B. L., Golding, J. M., Stevenson, M. C., Wiley, T. R. A., & Yozwiak,
J. A. (2007). A review of factors affecting jurors’ decisions in child sexual abuse
cases. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The
handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 1. Memory for events (pp.  509–543).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. (1994). Perceptions of children’s credibility in
sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(8), 702–732.
[Link]
  REFERENCES  131

Bowcott, O. (2017, October 10). Two-year-old girl gives evidence in UK abuse

case. [Link]
­gives-­evidence-­in-­uk-­abuse-­case
Brackmann, N., Otgaar, H., Sauerland, M., & Jelicic, M. (2015). When children
are the least vulnerable to false memories: A true report or a case of
­autosuggestion? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61, S271–S275. [Link]
org/10.1111/1556-­4029.12926
Brackmann, N., Otgaar, H., Sauerland, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2015). Children are
poor witnesses. Or are they? The Inquisitive Mind. Retrieved February 28, 2020,
from [Link]
Brainerd, C.  J., & Reyna, V.  F. (2005). The science of false memory. Oxford
University Press.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Ceci, S. (2008). Developmental reversals in false
memory: A review of data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 343–382.
[Link]
Brainerd, C.  J., Reyna, V.  F., & Zember, E. (2011). Theoretical and forensic
implications of developmental studies of the DRM illusion. Memory &
Cognition, 39(3), 365–380. [Link]
Braungart, J. M., Fulker, D. W., & Plomin, R. (1992). Genetic mediation of the
home environment during infancy: A sibling adoption study of the
HOME. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1048-1055. [Link]
org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1048
Brewer, K. D., Rowe, D. M., & Brewer, D. D. (1997). Factors related to prosecu-
tion of child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research,
Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 6,
91–111. [Link]
Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewit-
ness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3),
353–364. [Link]
Brewer, N., & Day, K. (2005). The confidence-accuracy and decision latency-­
accuracy relationships in children’s eyewitness identification. Psychiatry, Psychology
and Law, 12(1), 119–128. [Link]
Briggs, R. S. (1988). Shyness: Introversion or neuroticism? Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 290–307. [Link]
Brigham, J. C., & WolfsKeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforce-
ment personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human
Behavior, 7(4), 337–349. [Link]
Bright-Paul, A., Jarrold, C., & Wright, D. (2008). Theory-of-mind development
influences suggestibility and source monitoring. Developmental Psychology,
44(4), 1055–1068. [Link]
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The Witness Credibility
Scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 28(6), 892–907. [Link]
132  REFERENCES

Brown, G. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Agathen, J. M., & Ho, M. H. (2008). Young
children’s psychological selves: Convergence with maternal reports of child
personality. Social Development, 17(1), 161–182. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1467-­9507.2007.00421.x
Bruck, M., Ceci, S.  J., & Francoeur, E. (2000). Children’s use of anatomically
detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination:
Developmental and gender comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 6(1), 74–83. [Link]
Bruck, M., & Melnyk, L. (2004). Individual differences in children’s suggestibil-
ity: A review and synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(8), 947–996.
[Link]
Bull, R., & Corran, E. (2002). Interviewing child witnesses: Past and future.
International Journal of Police Science & Management, 4(4), 315–322.
[Link]
Bunting, L. (2008). Sexual offences against children: An exploration of attrition in
the Northern Ireland criminal justice system. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(12),
1109–1118. [Link]
Burgwyn-Bailes, E., Baker-Ward, L., Gordon, B. N., & Ornstein, P. A. (2001).
Children’s memory for emergency medical treatment after one year: The
impact of individual difference variables on recall and suggestibility. Applied
Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in
Memory and Cognition, 15(7), S25–S48. [Link]
Burton, C. M., Plaks, J. E., & Peterson, J. B. (2015). Why do conservatives report
being happier than liberals? The contribution of neuroticism. Journal of Social and
Political Psychology, 3(1), 89–102. [Link]
Burtt, H., & Gaskill, H. (1932). Suggestibility and the form of the question. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 16(4), 358–373. [Link]
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (2014). Temperament (PLE: Emotion): Early develop-
ing personality traits. Psychology Press.
Campbell, R., Walker, J., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). The development of differ-
ential use of inner and outer face features in familiar face identification. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 59(2), 196–210. [Link]
jecp.1995.1009
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of
liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things
they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1467-­9221.2008.00668.x
Carroll County Child Advocacy Center. (2015). Child sexual abuse statistics.
[Link] [Link]/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2020/04/all_statis-
tics_20150619.pdf
CBS Los Angeles. (2014, August 5). 30 years later, key figures reflect on McMartin
child abuse case. [Link]
  REFERENCES  133

Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical
review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403–439. [Link]
org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403
Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of
children’s testimony. American Psychological Association.
Ceci, S. J., & de Bruyn, E. (1993). Child witnesses in court: A growing dilemma.
Children Today, 22(1), 5–9.
Ceci, S.  J., Hritz, A., & Royer, C. (2017). Understanding suggestibility. In
W.  T. O’Donohue & M.  Fanetti (Eds.), Forensic interviews regarding child
sexual abuse (pp. 141–154). Springer.
Ceci, S. J., & Huffman, M. C. (1997). How suggestible are preschool children?
Cognitive and social factors. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(7), 948–958. [Link]
199707000-00017
Ceci, S. J., Huffman, M. C., Smith, E., & Loftus, E. (1994). Repeatedly thinking
about a non-event: Source misattributions among preschoolers. Consciousness
and Cognition, 3(3–4), 388–407. [Link]
Ceci, S. J., Ross, D. F., & Toglia, M. P. (1987). Suggestibility of children’s mem-
ory: Psycholegal implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
116(1), 38–49. [Link]
Ceci, S., Hritz, A., Royer, C. (2016). Understanding Suggestibility. In:
O’Donohue, W., Fanetti, M. (eds), Forensic Interviews Regarding Child Sexual
Abuse. Springer, Cham. [Link]
Cederborg, A.  C. (2004). Factors influencing child witnesses. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 197–205. [Link]
9450.2004.00395.x
Cederborg, A.  C., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K.  J., & Lamb, M.  E. (2000).
Investigative interviews of child witnesses in Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect,
24(10), 1355–1361. [Link]
Chae, Y. (2004). Individual differences in children’s recall and suggestibility: The
effect of intelligence, temperament, and self-perceptions (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Cornell University.
Chae, Y., & Ceci, S. J. (2005). Individual differences in children’s recall and suggest-
ibility: The effect of intelligence, temperament, and self-perceptions. Applied
Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in
Memory and Cognition, 19(4), 383–407. [Link]
Chae, Y., Goodman, G. S., Larson, R. P., Augusti, E.-M., Alley, D., VanMeenen,
K. M., et al. (2014). Children’s memory and suggestibility about a distressing
event: The role of children’s and parents’ attachment. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 123, 90–111. [Link]
Chae, Y., Goodman, M., Goodman, G. S., Troxel, N., McWilliams, K., Thompson,
R. A., et al. (2018). How children remember the Strange Situation: The role of
attachment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 360–379. https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2017.09.001
134  REFERENCES

Chance, J., & Goldstein, A. (1984). Face-recognition memory: Implications for

children’s eyewitness testimony. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 69–85. https://
[Link]/10.1111/j.1540-­4560.1984.tb01094.x
Cheek, J.  M., Melchior, L.  A., & Carpentieri, A.  M. (1986). Shyness and self-­
concept. In L.  M. Hattman & K.  R. Blankstein (Eds.), Perception of self in
emotional disorder and psychotherapy (pp. 113–131). Plenum Press.
Cheit, R. E. (2014). The witch-hunt narrative: Politics, psychology, and the sexual
abuse of children. Oxford University Press.
Chen, C. F. (2002). The effects of age, interview style, time delay, and temperament
on children’s suggestibility (Unpublished master’s thesis). Emporia State
University.
Chi, M. T. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory development. Children’s
Thinking: What Develops?, 1, 75–96. Erbaum.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Child maltreatment 2017: Summary
of key findings. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Children’s Bureau.
Chiroro, P.  M., Tredoux, C.  G., Radaelli, S., & Meissner, C.  A. (2008).
Recognizing faces across continents: The effect of within-race variations on the
own-race bias in face recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6),
1089–1092. [Link]
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., &
Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 604–627. [Link]
neubiorev.2014.09.001
Clark, J., Boccaccini, M. T., Caillouet, B., & Chaplin, W. F. (2007). Five factor
model personality traits, jury selection, and case outcomes in criminal and civil
cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 641–660. [Link]
org/10.1177/0093854806297555
Clarke-Stewart, K., Malloy, L., & Allhusen, V. (2004). Verbal ability, self-control,
and close relationships with parents protect children against misleading sugges-
tions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(8), 1037–1058. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.1076
Collins, K., Harker, N., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2016). The impact of the regis-
tered intermediary on adults’ perceptions of child witnesses: Evidence from a
mock cross examination. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research,
23(2), 211–225. [Link]
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsidera-
tion of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.
[Link]
Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and
working memory? Progress in Brain Research, 169, 323–338.
Cramer, R. J., Brodsky, S. L., & DeCoster, J. (2009). Expert witness confidence
and juror personality: Their impact on credibility and persuasion in the court-
  REFERENCES  135

room. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online,
37(1), 63–74.
Crawford, A. (2009, November 24). NSPCC urges more support for child court
witnesses. [Link]
Cronch, L. E., Viljoen, J. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2006). Forensic interviewing in child
sexual abuse cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 11(3), 195–207. [Link]
Cross, T.  P., De Vos, E., & Whitcomb, D. (1994). Prosecution of child sexual
abuse: Which cases are accepted? Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 661–677. https://
[Link]/10.1016/0145-­2134(94)90016-­7
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. (2018). Freedom of informa-
tion request.
Crown Prosecution Service. (2017). [Link]
cps-­report-­shows-­more-­offenders-­are-­being-­successfully-­prosecuted-­sexual-­
crimes-­ever
Crown Prosecution Service. (2019). [Link]
safeguarding-­children-­victims-­and-­witnesses
Crozier, W. R. (2000). Shyness and social relationships: Continuity and change. In
W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development, consolidation, and change (pp. 1–21).
Routledge.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewit-
ness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185–191.
[Link]
Danielsdottir, G., Sigurgeirsdottir, S., Einarsdottir, H., & Haraldsson, E. (1993).
Interrogative suggestibility in children and its relationship with memory and
vocabulary. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(3), 499–502. https://
[Link]/10.1016/0191-­8869(93)90323-­u
Davies, G. M. (1995). Fuzzy trace theory and eyewitness memory. Learning and
Individual Differences, 7, 111–114.
Davies, G.  M., & Noon, E. (1991). Evaluation of the live link for child wit-
nesses. HMSO.
Davies, G.  M., Smith, S., & Blincoe, C. (2008). A “weapon focus” effect in
­children. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(1), 19–28. [Link]
10683160701340593
Davies, G. M., Tarrant, A., & Flin, R. (1989). Close encounters of the witness
kind: Children’s memory for a simulated health inspection. British Journal of
Psychology, 80(4),
415–429. [Link]
Davis, D., & Loftus, E.  F. (2005). Age and functioning in the legal system:
Perception memory and judgment in victims, witnesses and jurors. In I. Noy &
W.  Karwowski (Eds.), Handbook of forensic human factors and ergonomics.
Taylor & Francis.
136  REFERENCES

Davis, J.  M., McKone, E., Dennett, H., O’Connor, K.  B., O’Kearney, R., &
Palermo, R. (2011). Individual differences in the ability to recognise facial
identity are associated with social anxiety. PloS one, 6(12), e28800. https://
[Link]/10.1371/[Link].0028800
Davis, T. (2020). Forensic psychology: Fact and fiction. Bloomsbury Publishing.
de Villiers, J., & de Villiers, P. (2014). The role of language in theory of mind
development. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(4), 313–328. [Link]
org/10.1097/tld.0000000000000037
Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliott, R., & Huneycutt, D. (1996). Children as wit-
nesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 1–12. [Link]
(199602)10:1<1::AID-­ACP354>[Link];2-­Y
Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic inves-
tigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 20(2), 109–134. [Link]
Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10-
to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifi-
cations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 951–962. [Link]
org/10.1037/0021-­9010.87.5.951
Dupree, L., Patterson, D. A., Nugent, W. R., & White, S. F. (2016). How chil-
dren verbally reported their experiences of a genital exam. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(1), 110–118. [Link]
0/10911359.2015.1062675
Edelstein, L. (1998). An accusation easily to be made? Rape and malicious prose-
cution in eighteenth-century England. The American Journal of Legal History,
42(4), 351. [Link]
Eisen, M. L., Goodman, G. S., Qin, J., Davis, S., & Crayton, J. (2007). Maltreated
children’s memory: Accuracy, suggestibility, and psychopathology. Developmental
Psychology, 43(6), 1275–1294. [Link]
Eisen, M. L., Qin, J., Goodman, G. S., & Davis, S. L. (2002). Memory and sug-
gestibility in maltreated children: Age, stress arousal, dissociation, and psycho-
pathology. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83(3), 167–212. https://
[Link]/10.1016/S0022-­0965(02)00126-­1
Eisenberg, N., Shepard, S. A., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., & Guthrie, I. K. (1998).
Shyness and children’s emotionality, regulation, and coping: Contemporaneous,
longitudinal, and across-context relations. Child Development, 69(3), 767–790.
[Link]
Elischberger, H. (2005). The effects of prior knowledge on children’s memory
and suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(3), 247–275.
[Link]
Endres, J., Poggenpohl, C., & Erben, C. (1999). Repetitions, warnings and video:
Cognitive and motivational components in preschool children’s suggestibility.
  REFERENCES  137

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4(1), 129–146. [Link]

10.1348/135532599167725
Ernberg, E. (2018). There was nothing but her story: Prosecution of alleged child
sexual abuse of preschoolers. (Unpublished Thesis). Gothenberg University.
Ernberg, E., Tidefors, I., & Landström, S. (2016). Prosecutors’ reflections on
sexually abused preschoolers and their ability to stand trial. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 57, 21–29. [Link]
Evans, A.  D., & Lee, K. (2013). Emergence of lying in very young children.
Developmental Psychology, 49(10), 1958–1963. [Link]
a0031409
Evans, A. D., & Lyon, T. D. (2020). Evasive behaviors in 9-12-year-olds conceal-
ment of a minor transgression. American-Psychology Law-Society, New
Orleans, LA, 2020, March.
Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1989). False allegations of sexual abuse by chil-
dren and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 28(2), 230–235. [Link]
Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in
perspective: An examination of the major uses and criticisms of the dolls in
child sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(2), 113–129.
[Link]
Everson, M.  D., & Boat, B.  W. (1997). Anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse
assessments: A call for forensically relevant research. Applied Cognitive
Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory
and Cognition, 11(7), S55–S74. [Link]
(199712)11:7<S55::AID-­ACP521>[Link];2-­P
Faller, K. C. (2005). Anatomical dolls: Their use in assessment of children who
may have been sexually abused. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(3), 1–21.
[Link]
Feltis, B. B., Powell, M. B., Snow, P. C., & Hughes-Scholes, C. H. (2010). An
examination of the association between interviewer question type and story-­
grammar detail in child witness interviews about abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect,
34(6), 407–413. [Link]
Fitzgerald, R., & Price, H. (2015). Eyewitness identification across the life span:
A meta-analysis of age differences. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1228–1265.
[Link]
Fivush, R. (1997). Event memory in early childhood. In N.  Cowan (Ed.), The
development of memory in childhood (pp. 139–161). Psychology Press/Erlbaum
(UK) Taylor & Francis.
Fivush, R. (2011). The development of autobiographical memory. Annual Review
of Psychology, 62(1), 559–582. [Link]
121208.131702
138  REFERENCES

Fivush, R., McDermott Sales, J., Goldberg, A., Bahrick, L., & Parker, J. (2004).
Weathering the storm: Children’s long-term recall of Hurricane Andrew.
Memory, 12(1), 104–118. [Link]
Flavell, J. H. (2004). Theory-of-mind development: Retrospect and prospect.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 274–290.
Foley, M. (2014). Children’s memory for source. In P.  J. Bauer & R.  Fivush
(Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the development of children’s memory (Vol. 1,
pp. 427–452). Wiley Blackwell.
Friedman, W., & Lyon, T. (2005). Development of temporal-reconstructive abili-
ties. Child Development, 76(6), 1202–1216. [Link]
­8624.2005.00844.x-­i1
Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R. S., & Shaw, J. S., III. (1998). More than
suggestion: The effect of interviewing techniques from the McMartin Preschool
case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 347–359. [Link]
org/10.1037/0021-­9010.83.3.347
Geddie, L., Fradin, S., & Beer, J. (2000). Child characteristics which impact accuracy
of recall and suggestibility in preschoolers: Is age the best predictor? Child Abuse
and Neglect, 24, 223–235. [Link]
Gentle, M., Milne, R., Powell, M. B., & Sharman, S. J. (2013). Does the cognitive
interview promote the coherence of narrative accounts in children with and
without an intellectual disability?. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 60(1), 30–43. [Link]
1034912X.2013.757138
Ghetti, S., & Angelini, L. (2008). The development of recollection and familiarity
in childhood and adolescence: Evidence from the dual-process signal detection
model. Child Development, 79(2), 339–358. [Link]
j.1467-­8624.2007.01129.x
Ghetti, S., Qin, J., & Goodman, G.  S. (2002). False memories in children and
adults: Age, distinctiveness, and subjective experience. Developmental Psychology,
38(5), 705–718. [Link]
Gignac, G., & Powell, M. (2006). A direct examination of the nonlinear (qua-
dratic) association between intelligence and suggestibility in children. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), 617–623. [Link]
Gilstrap, L. L., & Papierno, P. B. (2004). Is the cart pushing the horse? The effects
of child characteristics on children’s and adults’ interview behaviours. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 18(8), 1059–1078. [Link]
Gilstrap, L. L., & Ceci, S. J. (2005). Reconceptualizing children’s suggestibility:
Bidirectional and temporal properties. Child Development, 76(1), 40–53.
[Link]
Golding, J.  M., Bradshaw, G.  S., Dunlap, E.  E., & Hodell, E.  C. (2007). The
impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates
in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreatment, 12(2), 182–190. https://
[Link]/10.1177/1077559506298995
  REFERENCES  139

Golding, J. M., Fryman, H., Marsil, D., & Yozwiak, J. (2003). Big girls don’t cry:
The effect of child witness demeanor on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse
trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(11), 1311–1321. [Link]
chiabu.2003.03.001
Golding, J. M., Sanchez, R. P., & Sego, S. A. (1997). The believability of hearsay
testimony in a child sexual assault trial. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3),
299–325. [Link]
Goodman, G.  S., & Hahn, A. (1987). Evaluating eyewitness testimony. In
I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 258–292.
John Wiley & Sons.
Goodman, G.  S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children’s use of anatomically detailed
dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61(6), 1859–1871. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1467-­8624.1990.tb03570.x
Goodman, G. S., Bottoms, B. L., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Rudy, L. (1991).
Children’s testimony about a stressful event: Improving children’s reports.
Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1(1), 69–99. [Link]
jnlh.1.1.05chi
Goodman, G. S., Goldfarb, D. A., Chong, J. Y., & Goodman-Shaver, L. (2014).
Children’s eyewitness memory: The influence of cognitive and socio-emotional
factors. Roger Williams University Law Review, 19, 476.
Goodman, G.  S., Golding, J.  M., & Haith, M.  M. (1984). Jurors’ reactions to
child witnesses. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 139–156. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1540-­4560.1984.tb01098.x
Goodman, G.  S., Golding, J.  M., Helgeson, V.  S., Haith, M.  M., & Michelli,
J. (1987). When a child takes the stand. Law and Human Behavior, 11(1),
27–40. [Link]
Goodman, G.  S., Hirschman, J.  E., Hepps, D., & Rudy, L. (1991). Children’s
memory for stressful events. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982–), 109–157.
[Link]
Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Bulkley, J., & Shapiro, C. (1999). Innovations for
child witnesses: A national survey. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(2), 255.
[Link]
Goodman, G. S., & Reed, R. S. (1986). Age differences in eyewitness testimony.
Law and Human Behavior, 10(4), 317–332. [Link]
BF01047344
Goodman-Brown, T.  B., Edelstein, R.  S., Goodman, G.  S., Jones, D.  P., &
Gordon, D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children’s disclosure of
sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(5), 525–540. [Link]
org/10.1016/S0145-­2134(03)00037-­1
Gordon, B.  N., Ornstein, P.  A., Nida, R.  E., Follmer, A., Crenshaw, M.  C., &
Albert, G. (1993). Does the use of dolls facilitate children’s memory of visits to
the doctor? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7(6), 459–474. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.2350070602
140  REFERENCES

Gous, G., & Wheatcroft, J. M. (2020). Directive leading questions and prepara-
tion technique effects on witness accuracy. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–12. https://
[Link]/10.1177/2158244019899053
Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and
revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1559-­1816.1988.tb00016.x
Greene, E., Chopra, S. R., Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Rose, V. G., Schuller, R.,
et al. (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.),
Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp.  225–284).
Kluwer Press.
Greenhoot, A.  F., Ornstein, P.  A., Gordon, B.  N., & Baker-Ward, L. (1999).
Acting out the details of a paediatric check-up: The impact of interview condi-
tion and behavioural style on children’s memory reports. Child Development,
70(2), 363–380. [Link]
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986).
Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological
Review, 93(2), 216–229. [Link]
Gross, H. (1911). Criminal psychology: A manual for judges, practitioners, and
students (Vol. 1). Library of Alexandria.
Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1996). Eyewitness identification by 5-to 6-year-old chil-
dren. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3), 359–373. [Link]
BF01499028
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations, confessions, and testi-
mony: A handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Haegerich, T.  M., & Bottoms, B.  L. (2000). Empathy and jurors’ decisions in
patricide trials involving child sexual assault allegations. Law and Human
Behavior, 24(4), 421–448. [Link]
Hagborg, J. M., Strömwall, L. A., & Tidefors, I. (2012). Prosecution rate and
quality of the investigative interview in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9(2), 161–173. [Link]
org/10.1002/jip.1356
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and
religion. Pantheon.
Havard, C. (2014). Are children less reliable at making visual identifications than
adults? A review. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(4), 372–388. [Link]
org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.793334
Havard, C., & Memon, A. (2013). The mystery man can help reduce false identi-
fication for child witnesses: Evidence from video line-ups. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 27(1), 50–59. [Link]
Havard, C., Memon, A., Clifford, B., & Gabbert, F. (2010). A comparison of
video and static photo lineups with child and adolescent witnesses. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 24(9), 1209–1221. [Link]
  REFERENCES  141

Hayes, B. K., & Delamothe, K. (1997). Cognitive interviewing procedures and

suggestibility in children’s recall. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 562–577.
Hazan, C., Hazan, R., & Goodman, G.  S. (1984). Translation of Varendonck,
J. The testimony of children in a famous trial. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 26–31.
[Link]
Heaps, C., & Nash, M. (2001). Comparing recollective experience in true and
false autobiographical memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, And Cognition, 27(4), 920–930. [Link]
­7393.27.4.920
Henry, L., & Gudjonsson, G. (2004). The effects of memory trace strength on
eyewitness recall in children with and without intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 89(1), 53–71. [Link]
jecp.2004.05.002
Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Katz, C., & Horowitz, D. (2012). The
development of communicative and narrative skills among preschoolers:
Lessons from forensic interviews about child abuse. Child Development, 83(2),
611–622. [Link]
Hershkowitz, I., & Terner, A. (2007). The effects of repeated interviewing on
children’s forensic statements of sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The
Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,
21(9), 1131–1143. [Link]
Hill, E. S., & Davies, G. M. (2013). Has the quality of investigative interviews
with children improved with changes in guidance? An exploratory study.
Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(1), 63–71. [Link]
org/10.1093/police/pas046
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate
liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political
ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5),
655–664. [Link]
Hlavka, H. R., Olinger, S. D., & Lashley, J. L. (2010). The use of anatomical dolls
as a demonstration aid in child sexual abuse interviews: A study of forensic
interviewers’ perceptions. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(5), 519–553.
[Link]
Holcomb, M. J., & Jacquin, K. M. (2007). Juror perceptions of child eyewitness
testimony in a sexual abuse trial. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16(2), 79–95.
[Link]
Home Office. (2007). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on
interviewing victims and witnesses and using special measures. London: TSO.
Hopwood, A. R. (2016). A.R. Hopwood’s false memory archive anthology: Volume
1. Amazon.
Howe, M., Courage, M., & Edison, S. (2003). When autobiographical memory
begins. Developmental Review, 23(4), 471–494. [Link]
dr.2003.09.001
142  REFERENCES

Howie, P., Sheehan, M., Mojarrad, T., & Wrzesinska, M. (2004). ‘Undesirable’and
‘desirable’shifts in children’s responses to repeated questions: Age differences
in the effect of providing a rationale for repetition. Applied Cognitive Psychology:
The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,
18(9), 1161–1180. [Link]
Hritz, A.  C., Royer, D.  E., Helm, R.  K., Burd, K.  A., Ojeda, K., & Ceci,
S. J. (2015). Children’s suggestibility research. Things to know before inter-
viewing a child. Anuario De Psicología Jurídica, 2, 3–12. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2014.09.002
Hughes, M., & Grieve, R. (1980). On asking children bizarre questions. First
Language, 1(2), 149–160. [Link]
Humphries, J. E., Holliday, R. E., & Flowe, H. D. (2012). Faces in motion: Age-­
related changes in eyewitness identification performance in simultaneous,
sequential, and elimination video lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1),
149–158. [Link]
Hurlock, E. B. (1930). The suggestibility of children. The Pedagogical Seminary
and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 37(1), 59–74.
Imhoff, M.  C., & Baker-Ward, L. (1999). Preschoolers’ suggestibility: Effects of
developmentally appropriate language and interviewer supportiveness. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 20(3), 407–429. [Link]
S0193-­3973(99)00022-­2
Innocence Project. (2020). [Link]
Joa, D., & Edelson, M. G. (2004). Legal outcomes for children who have been
sexually abused: The impact of child abuse assessment center evaluations. Child
Maltreatment, 9(3), 263–276. [Link]
Johnson, M., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological
Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. [Link]
Johnston, V., Benedan, L., Brubacher, S., & Powell, M. (2021). The roles of child
temperament and interviewer support on children’s reports of adult wrongdo-
ing. Personality and Individual Differences, 175, 110732. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2021.110732
Jones, C. H., & Pipe, M. E. (2002). How quickly do children forget events? A
systematic study of children’s event reports as a function of delay. Applied
Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in
Memory and Cognition, 16(7), 755–768.
Karageorge, A., & Zajac, R. (2011). Exploring the effects of age and delay on
children’s person identifications: Verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and
the influence of wildcards. British Journal of Psychology, 102(2), 161–183.
[Link]
Karla, B., & Heath, W. P. (1997). Perceptions of a child witness: Effects of leading
questions and the type of relationship between child and defendant. Psychological
Reports, 979–986. [Link]
  REFERENCES  143

Karpinski, A., & Scullin, M. (2009). Suggestibility under pressure: Theory of

mind, executive function, and suggestibility in preschoolers. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 749–763. [Link]
appdev.2009.05.004
Keast, A., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2007). Children’s metacognitive judgments
in an eyewitness identification task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
97(4), 286–314. [Link]
Kebbell, M.  R., Evans, L., & Johnson, S.  D. (2010). The influence of lawyers’
questions on witness accuracy, confidence, and reaction times and on mock
jurors’ interpretation of witness accuracy. Journal of Investigative Psychology and
Offender Profiling, 7(3), 262–272. [Link]
Klemfuss, J. Z., & Olaguez, A. P. (2020). Individual differences in children’s sug-
gestibility: An updated review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 29(2), 158–182.
[Link]
Klemfuss, J. Z., Rush, E., & Quas, J. (2016). Parental reminiscing style and chil-
dren’s suggestibility about an alleged transgression. Cognitive Development, 40,
33–45. [Link]
Krähenbühl, S. J. (2007). The effect of question repetition on young children’s eyewit-
ness testimony (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sheffield.
Krähenbühl, S. J., & Blades, M. (2006). The effect of question repetition within
interviews on young children’s eyewitness recall. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 94(1), 57–67. [Link]
Krähenbühl, S. J., & Blades, M. (2009). Does the form of question repetition have
an effect on children’s recall accuracy and consistency? International Journal of
Police Science & Management, 11(4), 460–475. [Link]
ijps.2009.11.4.144
Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (2013). The cognitive foundations of personality traits.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Kuehn, L. L. (1974). Looking down a gun barrel: Person perception and violent
crime. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39(3), 1159–1164. [Link]
org/10.2466/pms.1974.39.3.1159
Kwiatkowska, M. M., & Rogoza, R. (2019). Shy teens and their peers: Shyness in
respect to basic personality traits and social relations. Journal of Research in
Personality, 79, 130–142. [Link]
La Rooy, D.  J., Earhart, B., & Nicol, A. (2013). Joint investigative interviews
(JIIs) conducted with children in Scotland: A comparison of the quality of
interviews conducted before and after the introduction of the Scottish Executive
(2011) guidelines. Scots Law Times, 31, 4–10.
La Rooy, D. J., Pipe, M. E., & Murray, J. E. (2005). Reminiscence and hyperm-
nesia in children’s eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
90(3), 235–254. [Link]
144  REFERENCES

Lamb, M. E. (2016). Difficulties translating research on forensic interview prac-

tices to practitioners: Finding water, leading horses, but can we get them to
drink? American Psychologist, 71(8), 710–718.
Lamb, M., & Brown, D. (2006). Conversational apprentices: Helping children
become competent informants about their own experiences. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 215–234. [Link]
026151005x57657
Lamb, M. E., Brown, D. A., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2018).
Tell me what happened: Questioning children about abuse (2nd ed.). John
Wiley & Sons.
Lamb, M. E., Malloy, L., & La Rooy, D. J. (2011). Setting realistic expectations:
Developmental characteristics, capacities and limitations. In M.  Lamb, J.  La
Rooy, L. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psycho-
logical research and forensic practice (pp. 15–48). John Wiley & Sons.
Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A
structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness
of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD
Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11–12),
1201–1231. [Link]
Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Aldridge, J. A. N., Pearson, S., Stewart,
H. L., et al. (2009). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances the
quality of investigative interviews with alleged victims of child sexual abuse in
Britain. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 23(4), 449–467. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp
Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P., Stewart, H., & Mitchell, S. (2003).
Age differences in young children’s responses to open-ended invitations in the
course of forensic interviews. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
71(5), 926–934. [Link]
Lander, K., & Poyarekar, S. (2015). Famous face recognition, face matching, and
extraversion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1769–1776.
[Link]
Larson, B. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2014). Assertive women as expert witnesses: A
study of assertive and defensive responses in male and female experts. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 32(2), 149–163. [Link]
Leander, L., Christianson, S. Å., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). A sexual abuse case
study: Children’s memories and reports. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 14(1),
120–129. [Link]
Leander, L., Granhag, P. A., & Christianson, S. Å. (2005). Children exposed to
obscene phone calls: What they remember and tell. Child Abuse & Neglect,
29(8), 871–888. [Link]
  REFERENCES  145

Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions
on preschoolers’ reports. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 568–578. https://
[Link]/10.1037/0012-­1649.31.5.758
Li, J., Tian, M., Fang, H., Xu, M., Li, H., & Liu, J. (2010). Extraversion predicts
individual differences in face recognition. Communicative & Integrative
Biology, 3(4), 295–298. [Link]
Linder, D. (2007). The McMartin preschool abuse trial. Available at
SSRN 1030559.
Lindsay, R.  C., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness
descriptions. Law and Human Behavior, 18(5), 527–541. [Link]
org/10.1007/BF01499172
Lindsay, R.  C., Pozzulo, J.  D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997).
Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identifica-
tion decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4),
391–404. [Link]
Lippert, T., Cross, T. P., Jones, L., & Walsh, W. (2009). Telling interviewers about
sexual abuse: Predictors of child disclosure at forensic interviews. Child
Maltreatment, 14(1), 100–113. [Link]
Loftus, E., & Pickrell, J. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric
Annals, 25(12), 720–725. [Link]
Loftus, E.  F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive
Psychology, 7(4), 560–572. [Link]
Loftus, E.  F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year
investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4),
361–366. [Link]
Loftus, E.  F., & Davies, G. (1984). Distortions in the memory of children.
Journal  of Social Issues, 40(2), 51–67. [Link]
­4560.1984.tb01093.x
Loftus, E. F., Miller, D., & Burns, H. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal informa-
tion into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning
and Memory, 4(1), 19–31. [Link]
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction:
An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal
Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585–589. [Link]
S0022-­5371(74)80011-­3
London, K., Bruck, M., Wright, D., & Ceci, S. (2008). Review of the contempo-
rary literature on how children report sexual abuse to others: Findings, meth-
odological issues, and implications for forensic interviewers. Memory, 16(1),
29–47. [Link]
London, K., Henry, L. A., Conradt, T., & Corser, R. (2013). Suggestibility and
individual differences in typically developing and intellectually disabled chil-
dren. In Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic impli-
cations (pp. 129–148). [Link]
146  REFERENCES

Luther, K., Snook, B., Barron, T., & Lamb, M.  E. (2015). Child interviewing
practices in Canada: A box score from field observations. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 30(3), 204–212. [Link]
­9149-­y
Luus, C. A. E., Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1995). Child eyewitnesses: Seeing is
believing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 317–326. [Link]
org/10.1037/0021-­9010.80.2.317
Lyon, T. (2014). Interviewing children. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
10(1), 73–89. [Link]
MacLennan v. HM Advocate. (2015).
Malloy, L., Lyon, T., & Quas, J. (2007). Filial dependency and recantation of
child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of the American Academy of Child
&  Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(2), 162–170. [Link]
chi.0000246067.77953.f7
Martin, R. (1988). The temperament assessment battery for children. Clinical
Psychology Publishing Company. [Link]
McCauley, M.  R., & Parker, J.  F. (2001). When will a child be believed? The
impact of the victim’s age and juror’s gender on children’s credibility and ver-
dict in a sexual abuse case. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 523–539. [Link]
org/10.1016/S0145-­2134(01)00224-­1
McConnell, T. R., Jr. (1963). Suggestibility in children as a function of chrono-
logical age. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(3), 286–289.
[Link]
McDevitt, S. C., & Carey, W. B. (1978). The measurement of temperament in 3–7
year old children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 19(3), 245–253.
[Link]
McDonald, R., Jouriles, E., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C. (2006).
Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent families.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 137–142. [Link]
0893-­3200.20.1.137
McFarlane, F., Powell, M., & Dudgeon, P. (2002). An examination of the degree
to which IQ, memory performance, socio-economic status and gender predict
young children’s suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7(2),
227–239. [Link]
McGowen, R., & King, G. D. (1982). Effects of authoritarian, anti-authoritarian,
and egalitarian legal attitudes on mock juror and jury decisions. Psychological
Reports, 51(3_suppl), 1067–1074. [Link]
3f.1067
McWilliams, K., Narr, R., Goodman, G.  S., Ruiz, S., & Mendoza, M. (2013).
Children’s memory for their mother’s murder: Accuracy, suggestibility, and
resistance to suggestion. Memory, 21(5), 591–598. [Link]
09658211.2013.763983
  REFERENCES  147

Meares, J. (2016). Dangerous women and reasonable men: Gender and eyewitness
testimony at the turn of the 20th century (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Canterbury. [Link]
dle/10092/12983/Meares per cent2C percent20Jess per cent20MA per
[Link]?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Measelle, J.  R., Ablow, J.  C., Cowan, P.  A., & Cowan, C.  P. (1998). Assessing
young children’s views of their academic, social, and emotional lives: An
­evaluation of the self-perception scales of the Berkeley Puppet Interview. Child
Development, 69(6), 1556–1576. [Link]
1998.tb06177.x
Melinder, A., Endestad, T., & Magnussen, S. (2006). Relations between episodic
memory, suggestibility, theory of mind, and cognitive inhibition in the pre-
school child. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 485–495. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1467-­9450.2006.00542.x
Melnyk, L. (2002). The influence of imagery, timing, and individual differences on
the accuracy of children’s recall (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill
University.
Memon, A., Havard, C., Clifford, B., Gabbert, F., & Watt, M. (2011). A field
evaluation of the VIPER system: A new technique for eliciting eyewitness iden-
tification evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(8), 711–729. [Link]
org/10.1080/10683160903524333
Memon, A., Holley, A., Wark, L., Bull, R., & Koehnken, G. (1996). Reducing
suggestibility in child witness interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6),
503–518. [Link]
AID-­ACP416>[Link];2-­R
Memon, A., Meissner, C.  A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A
meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 340–372. [Link]
Memon, A., & Vartoukian, R. (1996). The effects of repeated questioning on
young children’s eyewitness testimony. British Journal of Psychology, 87(3),
403–415. [Link]
Mervielde, I., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2005).
Temperament, personality, and developmental psychopathology as childhood
antecedents of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(2),
171–201. [Link]
Messerschmidt, R. (1933). The suggestibility of boys and girls between the ages of
six and sixteen years. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology,
43, 422–437. [Link]
Mestre Escrivá, M.  V., Samper García, P., Frías Navarro, M.  D., & Tur Porcar,
A. M. (2009). Are women more empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in
adolescence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 76–83.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Sage.
148  REFERENCES

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. [Link]
Miller, J.  D., Lynam, D., Zimmerman, R.  S., Logan, T.  K., Leukefeld, C., &
Clayton, R. (2004). The utility of the Five Factor Model in understanding risky
sexual behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1611–1626.
[Link]
Miller, L. (2013). Sexual offenses against children: Patterns and motives. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 18(5), 506–519. [Link]
2013.07.006
Morgan, C. A., III, Southwick, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G. A., & Loftus, E. F. (2013).
Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful
events. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(1), 11–17. https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2012.11.002
Morrison, J., Forrester-Jones, R., Bradshaw, J., & Murphy, G. (2019).
Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with
intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. The International Journal of Evidence
& Proof, 23(4), 366–398. [Link]
Mossiere, A., & Dalby, J. T. (2008). The influence of gender and age in mock
juror decision-making. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 4(4). [Link]
org/10.5964/ejop.v4i4.440
Muir-Broaddus, J., King, T., Downey, D., & Petersen, M. (1998). Conservation
as a predictor of individual differences in children’s susceptibility to leading
questions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 454–458. [Link]
org/10.3758/BF03208821
Myklebust, T., & Alison, L. (2000). The current state of police interviews with
children in Norway: How discrepant are they from models based on current
issues in memory and communication? Psychology, Crime and Law, 6(4),
331–351. [Link]
Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association
between authoritarianism and jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 34–42. [Link]
0021-­9010.78.1.34
National Records of Scotland. (Mid-2012, June 30). Population estimates.
[Link] ecords-­s cotland-­m id-­
2012-­population-­estimates
National Registry of Exonerations. (2020). [Link]
exoneration/Pages/[Link]
Neal, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2008). Expert witness credibility as a function of
eye contact behavior and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(12),
1515–1526. [Link]
Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A
social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111(2), 486–511.
[Link]
  REFERENCES  149

Newcombe, P.  A., & Bransgrove, J. (2007). Perceptions of witness credibility:

Variations across age. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(4),
318–331. [Link]
Nicholson, A. S., Yarbrough, A. M., & Penrod, S. D. (2014). Jury decision mak-
ing and eyewitness testimony. In Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal jus-
tice (pp. 2727–2735). Springer.
Nicolas, S., Collins, T., Gounden, Y., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2011). Natural sug-
gestibility in children. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal,
20(2), 394–398. [Link]
Nightingale, N.  N. (1993). Juror reactions to child victim witnesses. Law and
Human Behavior, 17(6), 679–694. [Link]
Nikonova, O., & Ogloff, J.  R. (2005). Mock Jurors’ perceptions of child wit-
nesses: The impact of judicial warning. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 37(1), 1–19. https://
[Link]/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1543421
Nunez, N., Kehn, A., & Wright, D. (2010). When children are witnesses: The
effects of context, age and gender on adults’ perceptions of cognitive ability
and honesty. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 460–468. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.1713
O’Donohue, W., Cummings, C., & Willis, B. (2018). The frequency of false alle-
gations of child sexual abuse: A critical review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,
27(5), 459–475. [Link]
Oates, K., & Shrimpton, S. (1991). Children’s memories for stressful and non-­
stressful events. Medicine, Science and the Law, 31(1), 4–10.
Office for National Statistics. (2020, October 28). Crime in England and Wales.
[Link]
bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2020
Olaguez, A. P., & Klemfuss, J. Z. (2020). Differential effects of direct and cross
examination on mock jurors’ perceptions and memory in cases of child sexual
abuse. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(5), 778–796. [Link]
10.1080/13218719.2020.1742239
Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M.  E., Sternberg, K.  J., Esplin, P.  W., &
Horowitz, D. (2000). Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic
interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(6),
733–752. [Link]
Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. (2007). Young children’s references to temporal attri-
butes of allegedly experienced events in the course of forensic interviews.
Child Development, 78(4), 1100–1120. [Link]
­8624.2007.01055.x
Ornstein, P. A., Shapiro, L. B., Clubb, P. A., Follmer, A., & Baker-Ward, L. (1997).
The influence of prior knowledge on children’s memory for salient medical
experiences. In N. L. Stein, P. A. Ornstein, B. Tversky, & C. Brainerd (Eds.),
Memory for everyday and emotional events (pp. 83–112). Erlbaum.
150  REFERENCES

Ost, J., Granhag, P. A., Udell, J., & Roos af Hjelmsäter, E. (2008). Familiarity
breeds distortion: The effects of media exposure on false reports concerning
media coverage of the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July 2005. Memory,
16(1), 76–85. [Link]
Otgaar, H., Candel, I., Merckelbach, H., & Wade, K. (2009). Abducted by a
UFO: Prevalence information affects young children’s false memories for an
implausible event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 115–125. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.1445
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Peters, M., Smeets, T., & Moritz, S. (2014). The pro-
duction of spontaneous false memories across childhood. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 28–41. [Link]
jecp.2013.11.019
Pantell, R. (2017). The child witness in the courtroom. Pediatrics, 139(3),
e20164008. [Link]
Patterson, D., & Campbell, R. (2009). A comparative study of the prosecution of
childhood sexual abuse cases: the contributory role of pediatric Forensic Nurse
Examiner (FNE) programs. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 5(1), 38–45. https://
[Link]/10.1111/j.1939-3938.2009.01029.x
Park, R. C. (2014). Hits, Misses, and False Alarms in Blind and Sequential
Administration of Lineups. Howard Law Journal, 58, 459–478.
Parker, J. F., & Carranza, L. E. (1989). Eyewitness testimony of children in target-­
present and target-absent lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 13(2), 133–149.
[Link]
Patihis, L., Frenda, S. J., LePort, A. K., Petersen, N., Nichols, R. M., Stark, C. E.,
et al. (2013). False memories in highly superior autobiographical memory indi-
viduals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52), 20947–20952.
[Link]
Paulhus, D.  L., & Trapnell, P.  D. (1998). Typological measures of shyness:
Additive, interactive, and categorical. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(2),
183–201. [Link]
Pendergrast, M. (2017). The repressed memory epidemic. Springer. [Link]
org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­63375-­6_5
Perez, C. O., London, K., & Otgaar, H. (2022). A review of the differential con-
tributions of language abilities to children’s eyewitness memory and suggest-
ibility. Developmental Review, 63, 101009. [Link]
dr.2021.101009
Peterson, C., Dowden, C., & Tobin, J. (1999). Interviewing preschoolers:
Comparisons of yes/no and wh- questions. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5),
539–555. [Link]
Peterson, C., & Whalen, N. (2001). Five years later: Children’s memory for medi-
cal emergencies. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society
for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 15(7), S7–S24. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.832
  REFERENCES  151

Pezdek, K. (2003). Event memory and autobiographical memory for the events of
September 11, 2001. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(9), 1033–1045. https://
[Link]/10.1002/acp.984
Pezdek, K., & Roe, C. (1995). The effect of memory trace strength on suggest-
ibility. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60(1), 116–128. [Link]
org/10.1006/jecp.1995.1034
Pierce, H. C. (2019). Perception versus reality: Investigating the impact of talkative-
ness on children’s credibility and reliability (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Victoria University of Wellington.
Poole, D., & Lindsay, D. (2001). Children’s eyewitness reports after exposure to
misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1),
27–50. [Link]
Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1991). Effects of question repetition on the eyewit-
ness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27(6),
975–986. [Link]
Porter, S., Yuille, J., & Lehman, D. (1999). The nature of real, implanted, and
fabricated memories for emotional childhood events: Implications for the
recovered memory debate. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), 517–537.
[Link]
Posner, M.  I., & Rothbart, M.  K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-­
regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 427–441. [Link]
org/10.1017/S0954579400003096
Powell, M. B., & Thomson, D. M. (1996). Children’s memory of an occurrence
of a repeated event: Effects of age, repetition, and retention interval across
three question types. Child Development, 67(5), 1988–2004. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1467-­8624.1996.tb01839.x
Pozzulo, J. D. (2017). The young eyewitness: How well do children and adolescents
describe and identify perpetrators? American Psychological Association. https://
[Link]/10.1037/14956-­000
Pozzulo, J. D., & Balfour, J. (2006). Children’s and adults’ eyewitness identifica-
tion accuracy when a culprit changes his appearance: Comparing simultaneous
and elimination lineup procedures. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(1),
25–34. [Link]
Pozzulo, J. D., & Dempsey, J. (2006). Biased lineup instructions: Examining the
effect of pressure on children’s and adults’ eyewitness identification accuracy.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1381–1394. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.0021-­9029.2006.00064.x
Pozzulo, J. D., & Dempsey, J. L. (2009). Witness factors and their influence on
jurors’ perceptions and verdicts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 923–934.
[Link]
Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J. L., Bruer, K., & Sheahan, C. (2012). The culprit in
target-absent lineups: Understanding young children’s false positive respond-
ing. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1), 55–62. [Link]
org/10.1007/s11896-­011-­9089-­8
152  REFERENCES

Pozzulo, J.  D., Dempsey, J.  L., & Crescini, C. (2009). Preschoolers’ person
description and identification accuracy: A comparison of the simultaneous and
elimination lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
30(6), 667–676. [Link]
Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1997). Increasing correct identifications
by children. Expert Evidence, 5(4), 126–132. [Link]
A:1008875802767
Pozzulo, J. D., & Warren, K. L. (2003). Descriptions and identifications of strang-
ers by youth and adult eyewitnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2),
315–323. [Link]
Pratt, C. (1990). On asking children-and adults-bizarre questions. First Language,
10(29), 167–175. [Link]
Price, H., Connolly, D., & Gordon, H. (2016). Children who experienced a
repeated event only appear less accurate in a second interview than those who
experienced a unique event. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 362–373.
[Link]
Principe, G. F., Greenhoot, A. F., & Ceci, S. (2013). Young children’s eyewitness
memory. In T. J. Perfect & D. S. Lindsay (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied
memory (pp. 363–653). SAGE.
Purdy, T. (2001). The role of the interviewer and type of interview on children’s sus-
ceptibility to false memory (Unpublished master’s thesis). Emporia State
University.
Pynoos, R. S., & Nader, K. (1989). Prevention of psychiatric morbidity in children
after disaster. Prevention of Mental Disorders, Alcohol, and Other Drug Use in
Children and Adolescents. Office for Substance Abuse Prevention Monograph,
2, 225–271.
Quas, J.  A., Bottoms, B.  L., Haegerich, T.  M., & Nysse-Carris, K.  L. (2002).
Effects of victim, defendant, and juror gender on decisions in child sexual
assault cases 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 1993–2021.
[Link]
Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Bidrose, S., et al. (1999). Emotion and memory:
Children’s long-term remembering, forgetting, and suggestibility. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 235–270. [Link]
jecp.1999.2491
Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., & Redlich, A. D. (2000). Questioning the
child witness: What can we conclude from the research thus far? Trauma, Violence,
& Abuse, 1(3), 223–249. [Link]
Quas, J. A., Malloy, L. C., Melinder, A., Goodman, G. S., D’Mello, M., & Schaaf,
J. (2007). Developmental differences in the effects of repeated interviews and
interviewer bias on young children’s event memory and false reports. Developmental
Psychology, 43(4), 823–837. [Link]
R v. Russell Bishop. (2018).
  REFERENCES  153

Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N., &
Collishaw, S. (2011). Child abuse and neglect in the UK today.
Realmuto, G. M., & Wescoe, S. (1992). Agreement among professionals about a
child’s sexual abuse status: Interviews with sexually anatomically correct dolls as
indicators of abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(5), 719–725. [Link]
org/10.1016/0145-­2134(92)90108-­4
Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S. (2012). The own-age bias in face recognition: A
meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(1), 146–174.
[Link]
Roberts, K., & Cameron, S. (2015). Observations from Canadian practitioners
about the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving child and adult wit-
nesses. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(1), 33–57. [Link]
org/10.1080/15228932.2015.997611
Roberts, K. P., & Powell, M. B. (2001). Describing individual incidents of sexual
abuse: A review of research on the effects of multiple sources of information on
children’s reports. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(12), 1643–1659. [Link]
org/10.1016/S0145-­2134(01)00290-­3
Robinson, M.  D., Johnson, J.  T., & Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and
assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy
and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 416–425. [Link]
org/10.1037/0021-­9010.82.3.416
Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2001). Individual differences in children’s eye-
witness recall: The influence of intelligence and shyness. Applied Developmental
Science, 5(1), 9–20. [Link]
Roediger, H., & McDermott, K. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering
words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814. [Link]
7393.21.4.803
Ross, D. F., Dunning, D., Toglia, M. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1990). The child in the eyes
of the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 14(1), 5–23. [Link]
BF01055786
Ross, D. F., Jurden, F. H., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Keeney, J. M. (2003). Replications
and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 418–431. [Link]
1816.2003.tb01903.x
Ross, D.  F., Read, J.  D., & Toglia, M.  P. (1994). Adult eyewitness testimony:
Current trends and developments. Cambridge University Press. [Link]
org/10.1017/CBO9780511759192
Rossi, L., Benatti, F., Pesce, S., Oppo, A., & Avato, F. M. (2011). Suggestionabilità
interrogativa: versione italiana del Bonn Test of Statement Suggestibility
(BTSS). In Suggestionabilità interrogativa: versione italiana del Bonn Test of
Statement Suggestibility (BTSS) (pp.  684–696). [Link]
214628
154  REFERENCES

Royal College of General Practitioners and National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children. (2014). Safeguarding children and young people: The
RCGP/NSPCC safeguarding children toolkit for general practice. RCGP/
NSPCC. [Link]
media/Files/CIRC/Safeguarding-­Children-­Toolkit-­2014/RCGP-­NSPCC-­
Safeguarding-­Children-­[Link]
Rudasill, K. M., Prokasky, A., Tu, X., Frohn, S., Sirota, K., & Molfese, V. J. (2014).
Parent vs. teacher ratings of children’s shyness as predictors of language and
attention skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 57–62. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2014.05.008
Salmon, K., & Pipe, M. E. (1997). Props and children’s event reports: The impact
of a 1-year delay. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65(3), 261–292.
[Link]
Salmon, K., & Pipe, M. E. (2000). Recalling an event one year later: The impact
of props, drawing and a prior interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The
Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,
14(2), 99–120. [Link]
:2<99::AID-ACP639>[Link];2-5
Sandelands, L. E., Brockner, J., & Glynn, M. A. (1988). If at first you don’t suc-
ceed, try, try again: Effects of persistence-performance contingencies, ego
involvement, and self-esteem on task persistence. Journal of Applied Psychology,
73(2), 208. [Link]
Saywitz, K. J., Geiselman, R. E., & Bornstein, G. K. (1992). Effects of cognitive
interviewing and practice on children’s recall performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77(5), 744–756. [Link]
Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). Children’s
memories of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for
reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
59(5), 682–691. [Link]
Saywitz, K. J., Larson, R. P., Hobbs, S. D., & Wells, C. R. (2015). Developing
rapport with children in forensic interviews: Systematic review of experimental
research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33(4), 372–389. [Link]
org/10.1002/bsl.2186
Schacter, D. L., Kagan, J., & Leichtman, M. D. (1995). True and false memories
in children and adults: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 1(2), 411. [Link]
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding:
An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmidt, S. (2004). Autobiographical memories for the September 11th attacks:
Reconstructive errors and emotional impairment of memory. Memory &
Cognition, 32(3), 443–454. [Link]
  REFERENCES  155

Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Springer series in cognitive development.

Memory development between 2 and 20. Springer-Verlag Publishing. https://
[Link]/10.1007/978-­1-­4613-­9717-­5
Schreiber, N., Bellah, L. D., Martinez, Y., McLaurin, K. A., Strok, R., Garven, S.,
& Wood, J.  M. (2006). Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool
and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study. Social Influence, 1(1),
16–47. [Link]
Schutte, J. W., & Hosch, H. M. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault ver-
dicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 759–772.
Scottish Government. (2014, May 14). National guidance for child protection in
Scotland. [Link]
Scullin, M. H. (1997). Development of a suggestibility scale for children (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Cornell University.
Shapiro, L. R., Blackford, C., & Chen, C. F. (2005). Eyewitness memory for a
simulated misdemeanour crime: The role of age and temperament in suggest-
ibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 267–289. [Link]
org/10.1002/acp.1089
Shaw, J. S., III. (1996). Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from poste-
vent questioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(2), 126–146.
[Link]
Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orienta-
tion: Meta-analysis and test of a Threat-Constraint Model. Journal of Research
in Personality, 46(6), 664–677. [Link]
Singh, K., & Gudjonsson, G. (1992). Interrogative suggestibility among adolescent
boys and its relationship with intelligence, memory, and cognitive set. Journal of
Adolescence,15(2), 155–161. [Link]
Sjöberg, R. L., & Lindblad, F. (2002). Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in chil-
dren whose experiences were documented by videotape. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 159(2), 312–314. [Link]
Snow, P. C., Powell, M. B., & Murfett, R. (2009). Getting the story from child wit-
nesses: Exploring the application of a story grammar framework. Psychology, Crime
& Law, 15(6), 555–568. [Link]
Snyder, H.  N. (2000, July). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law
enforcement: Victim, incident, and offender characteristics (Bureau of Justice
Statistics report, NCJ 182990). Washington, DC: U.S.  Government
Printing Office.
Spanos, N. P., Myers, B., Dubreuil, S. C., & Pawlak, A. E. (1992). The effects of
polygraph evidence and eyewitness testimony on the beliefs and decisions of
mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 12(2), 103–113. https://
[Link]/10.2190/1AB2-­3WLX-­BFY1-­8YCP
156  REFERENCES

Spooner, A. L., Evans, M. A., & Santos, R. (2005). Hidden shyness in children:
Discrepancies between self-perceptions and the perceptions of parents and
teachers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982–), 437–466. [Link]
org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0028
St. George, S., Garcia-Johnson, A., Denne, E., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2020). “Did
you ever fight back?” Jurors’ questions to children testifying in criminal trials
about alleged sexual abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(8), 1032–1054.
[Link]
Stanger, C., & Lewis, M. (1993). Agreement among parents, teachers, and children
on internalizing and externalizing behaviour problems. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 22(1), 107–116. [Link]
State of Utah v. Guard. (2015).
Stein, T., End, A., & Sterzer, P. (2014). Own-race and own-age biases facilitate
visual awareness of faces under interocular suppression. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 8. [Link]
Stern, W. (1939). The psychology of testimony. The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 34(1), 3–20. [Link]
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Yudilevitch, L., Orbach, Y., Esplin,
P. W., & Hovav, M. (1997). Effects of introductory style on children’s abilities
to describe experiences of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(11),
1133–1146. [Link]
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2001).
Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses
to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(5), 997–1005. [Link]
Sullivan, C., St. George, S., Stolzenberg, S. N., Williams, S., & Lyon, T. D. (2021).
Imprecision about body mechanics when child witnesses are questioned about
sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. [Link]
0886260521997941
Sutherland, R., & Hayne, H. (2001). Age-related changes in the misinformation
effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(4), 388–404. [Link]
org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2610
Talwar, V., & Crossman, A.  M. (2012). Children’s lies and their detection:
Implications for child witness testimony. Developmental Review, 32(4),
337–359. [Link]
Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2002). Development of lying to conceal a transgression:
Children’s control of expressive behaviour during verbal deception.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(5), 436–444. https://
[Link]/10.1080/01650250143000373
Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2008). Social and cognitive correlates of children’s lying
behavior. Child Development, 79(4), 866–881.
  REFERENCES  157

Tenney, E. R., Small, J. E., Kondrad, R. L., Jaswal, V. K., & Spellman, B. A. (2011).
Accuracy, confidence, and calibration: How young children and adults assess
credibility. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1065–1077. [Link]
10.1037/a0023273
Thomas, R. I. (2018, July 6). Submission to the Commission for Justice in Wales on
the provision of Registered Intermediary assistance for Vulnerable Witnesses.
Welsh Government. [Link]
­0 7/Submission-­f rom-­r egistered-­i ntermediary-­a ssistance-­f or-­v ulnerable-­
[Link]
Tobey, A. E., & Goodman, G. S. (1992). Children’s eyewitness memory: Effects
of participation and forensic context. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(6), 779–796.
[Link]
Townsend, C., & Rheingold, A. A. (2013). Estimating a child sexual abuse preva-
lence rate for practitioners: A review of child sexual abuse prevalence studies.
Charleston, SC: Darkness to Light.
Tubb, A. V., Wood, J. M., & Hosch, H. M. (1999). Effects of suggestive inter-
viewing and indirect evidence on child credibility in a sexual abuse case. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 29(6), 1111–1127. [Link]
1559-­1816.1999.tb02031.x
Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 1–25. [Link]
135114
U.S. v. Mitchell. (2010).
Ullman, S. (2007). A 10-year update of “Review and critique of empirical studies
of rape avoidance”. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 411–429. https://
[Link]/10.1177/0093854806297117
Valentine, T., Darling, S., & Memon, A. (2007). Do strict rules and moving
images increase the reliability of sequential identification procedures? Applied
Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in
Memory and Cognition, 21(7), 933–949. [Link]
Valentine, T., & Endo, M. (1992). Towards an exemplar model of face processing:
The effects of race and distinctiveness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 44(4), 671–703. [Link]
Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2015). Rapport-building with cooperative
witnesses and criminal suspects: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 85–99. [Link]
Volpini, L., Melis, M., Petralia, S., & Rosenberg, M. D. (2016). Measuring chil-
dren’s suggestibility in forensic interviews. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61(1),
104–108. [Link]
Wade, K., Garry, M., Don Read, J., & Lindsay, D. (2002). A picture is worth a
thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 597–603. [Link]
bf03196318
158  REFERENCES

Walsh, W. A., Jones, L. M., Cross, T. P., & Lippert, T. (2010). Prosecuting child
sexual abuse: The importance of evidence type. Crime & Delinquency, 56(3),
436–454. [Link]
Walsh, W. A., Lippert, T., Cross, T. P., Maurice, D. M., & Davison, K. S. (2008).
How long to prosecute child sexual abuse for a community using a children’s
advocacy center and two comparison communities? Child Maltreatment, 13(1),
3–13. [Link]
Wang, R., Li, J., Fang, H., Tian, M., & Liu, J. (2012). Individual differences in
holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23(2),
169–177. [Link]
Ward, R., & Loftus, E. (1985). Eyewitness performance in different psychological
types. The Journal of General Psychology, 112(2), 191–200. [Link]
0.1080/00221309.1985.9711003
Warren, A., Hulse-Trotter, K., & Tubbs, E. C. (1991). Inducing resistance to sug-
gestibility in children. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 273–285. https://
[Link]/10.1007/BF01061713
Waterhouse, G. (2016). Investigating the forensic interviewing of children: Multiple
interviews and social support (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). London
South Bank University.
Waterhouse, G. F., Ridley, A. M., Bull, R., La Rooy, D. J., & Wilcock, R. (2018).
Mapping repeated interviews. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34(4),
392–409. [Link]
Waterman, A. H., & Blades, M. (2011). Helping children correctly say “I don’t
know” to unanswerable questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
17(4), 396–405. [Link]
Waterman, A. H., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (2000). Do children try to answer
nonsensical questions? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(2),
211–225. [Link]
Waterman, A. H., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (2001). Interviewing children and
adults: The effect of question format on the tendency to speculate. Applied
Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in
Memory and Cognition, 15(5), 521–531. [Link]
Waterman, A. H., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (2004). Indicating when you do not
know the answer: The effect of question format and interviewer knowledge on
children’s ‘don’t know’ responses. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
22(3), 335–348. [Link]
Wells, G.  L., & Olson, E.  A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54(1), 277–295. [Link]
101601.145028
Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe,
C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for
lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 603–647.
[Link]
  References  159

Wheatcroft, J. M. (2002). Some influences of courtroom questioning styles on

eyewitness confidence and accuracy. (Unpublished Thesis). University of
Liverpool.
Wheatcroft, J.  M., Wagstaff, G.  F., & Kebbell, M.  R. (2004). The influence of
courtroom questioning style on actual and perceived eyewitness confidence and
accuracy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(1), 83–101. [Link]
org/10.1348/135532504322776870
Wheatcroft, J. M., & Woods, S. (2010). Effectiveness of witness preparation and
cross-examination non-directive and directive leading question styles on wit-
ness accuracy and confidence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof,
14(3), 187–207. [Link]
Wiese, H. (2012). The role of age and ethnic group in face recognition memory:
ERP evidence from a combined own-age and own-race bias study. Biological
Psychology, 89(1), 137–147. [Link]
Wilcock, R., Crane, L., Hobson, Z., Nash, G., Kirke-Smith, M., & Henry, L. A. (2018).
Supporting child witnesses during identification lineups: Exploring the effec-
tiveness of registered intermediaries. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3),
367–375. [Link]
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constrain-
ing function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception.
Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. [Link]
Wixted, J.  T., Mickes, L., Clark, S.  E., Gronlund, S.  D., & Roediger, H.  L.,
III. (2015). Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identifica-
tion accuracy. American Psychologist, 70(6), 515–526. [Link]
org/10.1037/a0039510
Woodruff, G., & Premack, D. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of
mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526. [Link]
S0140525X00076512
Wright, D. B., Hanoteau, F., Parkinson, C., & Tatham, A. (2010). Perceptions
about memory reliability and honesty for children of 3 to 18 years old. Legal
and Criminological Psychology, 15(2), 195–207. [Link]
8/135532508X400347
Xu, X., Mar, R.  A., & Peterson, J.  B. (2013). Does cultural exposure partially
explain the association between personality and political orientation? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1497–1517. [Link]
org/10.1177/0146167213499235
Yang, J., Cao, Z., Xu, X., & Chen, G. (2012). The amygdala is involved in affec-
tive priming effect for fearful faces. Brain and cognition, 80(1), 15–22. https://
[Link].10.1016/[Link].2012.04.005
Yardley, L., McDermott, L., Pisarski, S., Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2008).
Psychosocial consequences of developmental prosopagnosia: A problem of rec-
ognition. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 65(5), 445–451. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2008.03.013
160  References

Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to
rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology,
18(5), 459–482.
Young, K., Powell, M., & Dudgeon, P. (2003). Individual differences in children’s
suggestibility: A comparison between intellectually disabled and mainstream
samples. Personality & Individual Differences, 35, 31–49. [Link]
org/10.1016/S0191-­8869(02)00138-­1
Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2012). Perception
and motivation in face recognition: A critical review of theories of the cross-­
race effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 116–142. https://
[Link]/10.1177/1088868311418987
Youngstrom, E., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2000). Patterns and cor-
relates of agreement between parent, teacher, and male adolescent ratings of
externalizing and internalizing problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 68(6), 1038. [Link]
Zajac, R., & Karageorge, A. (2009). The wildcard: A simple technique for improv-
ing children’s target-absent lineup performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology:
The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,
23(3), 358–368. [Link]
Zajac, R., Westera, N., & Kaladelfos, A. (2018). The “good old days” of courtroom
questioning: Changes in the format of child cross-examination questions over 60
years. Child Maltreatment, 23(2), 186–195. [Link]
1077559517733815
 Index

A Cognitive factors, 98–99

Activity, 99–101 Cognitive interview, 88
Adaptability, 99, 100, 102, 107 Confidence, 22, 23, 100, 116–117,
Age, 4, 5, 24, 33, 35, 37–43, 72, 73, 120, 127
78, 97–99, 105, 114, 119 Creativity, 96
Anatomical dolls, 69, 70
Arousal, 42, 43, 91
Attachment, 26, 96 D
Davies, G. M., 33, 42, 64,
71–73, 79, 125
B Davis, D., 97
Blades, M., 8, 67, 75, 81, 82, 88, 125 Descriptions, 2, 20, 24, 45, 48–51,
Bruck, M., 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 32, 33, 53, 58–60, 66, 106, 116
40, 41, 66, 67, 70, 83–85, Descriptors, 38, 42, 65, 71–73, 75,
93, 96–103 78, 99, 107
Direct questions, 69
Distractibility, 99, 100, 103, 124, 125
C
Ceci, S. J., 3–5, 12, 14, 21, 26–28,
32, 33, 41, 66, 67, 82–85, 97, E
98, 100, 103, 104 Emotionality, 70, 99, 103, 104
Closed-ended, 75, 79, 87, 125 Emotional tone, 84–86, 91, 126
Closed-ended questions, 67, Encode, 32, 34, 37, 38,
87, 89, 124 102–104, 106

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 161

Switzerland AG 2022
B. F. Cotterill, Are Children Reliable Witnesses?,
[Link]
162  INDEX

F 79, 82, 84, 89, 90, 97, 100, 101,

Facial recognition, 3, 105 104, 115–117, 119, 127
False memories, 20, 29, 32–37, 43 Lineups, 2, 38, 41, 48, 51, 52, 55, 59,
Free recall, 23, 29, 36, 69, 78, 60, 64, 71, 73–75, 126, 127
79, 87, 88, 97, 101, Loftus, Elizabeth, 20, 25, 26, 32–34,
102, 125 38, 42, 97, 100
Fuzzy trace theory, 34

M
G Misidentifications, 2, 109, 112
Gender, 72, 97–98, 114 Misleading questions, 22, 23, 25, 40,
Gist, 32, 34, 35 68, 91, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103,
Goodman, G. S., 3, 25, 26, 39, 78, 105, 124
83, 85, 110, 114, 115, 117

N
H National Institute of Child Health and
Hershkowitz, I., 3, 82, 83 Human Development (NICHD),
81, 82, 86–90, 124, 125

I
Identifications, 2, 5, 39, 45, 50, 52, O
55, 61–64, 73–75, 106, 111, Open-ended, 22, 23, 25, 26, 67, 73,
113, 116, 127 78, 79, 82, 87, 105, 125
Interviewer bias, 8, 12, Open-ended questions, 37,
83–85, 91, 126 67, 87, 124
Interviewer status, 84, 85 Option-posing, 17, 18, 75, 79, 80, 82,
84, 87, 90
Options, 8, 125
J Otgaar, H., 34–37, 42, 97
Juror age, 118 Own-age bias, 41
Juror gender, 117–118
Juror personality, 118
Jury gender, 120 P
Persistence, 99, 100, 104, 105, 113
Pozzulo, J. D., 32, 38, 39, 41, 66,
L 71–74, 88, 110, 114, 125, 126
Lamb, M. E., 3, 5, 37, 39, 78, 79, 86,
87, 119, 125, 126
Language abilities, 38–41, 43, R
96, 99, 124 Rapport, 48, 86–89, 125
Leading questions/leading Repeat, 8, 46, 66, 67, 80, 125
questioning, 8, 11, 16, 22, 23, questioning, 23, 81, 90, 91
26, 32, 36, 46, 48, 66, 69, 70, questions, 81, 82
  INDEX  163

Repetition, 84 Suggestive questioning, 4, 14, 20, 21,

Retrieval/retrieved, 32, 34 24, 38, 82, 83, 100, 116
Suggestive questions, 28, 40, 80, 82,
86, 87, 99, 101, 124, 125
S
Sexual abuse, 3–6, 8, 11–16, 18, 20,
27–29, 38, 39, 42, 51, 63, 64, T
68–71, 82–84, 112, 114–120, 126 Temperament, 70, 96, 99–101, 103,
Shyness, 42, 99–102, 105, 117, 120 104, 106, 107, 117, 124, 125
Source monitoring, 27–29, 38
Stepwise Interview, 88, 89
Stereotype induction, 12, 28, V
84, 85, 91 Verbatim, 35
Stored, 32, 34 Verbatim traces, 34