The Diagnostic Value of Children's Responses to Cross-Examination Questioning.
Saved in:
| Title: | The Diagnostic Value of Children's Responses to Cross-Examination Questioning. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Zajac, Rachel, Irvine, Bridget, Ingram, Jacob M., Jack, Fiona |
| Source: | Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Jan/Feb2016, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p160-177. 18p. 2 Black and White Photographs. |
| Subjects: | Childhood attitudes, Cross-examination, Justice administration, Video games, Liar paradox |
| Abstract: | In response to a widespread belief within the legal system that cross-examination is instrumental in uncovering the truth, we examined the effect of cross-examination questioning on the reports of children who had-and had not-been coached to lie. A group of children, aged 6-11 years (N = 65), played three computer games with one of their parents. For half of the pairs, the parents-who acted as confederates-coached their children to make lies of commission concerning the occurrence of two target activities. For the remaining pairs, these two target activities actually occurred, and there was no coaching. Immediately afterwards, children were interviewed about the two activities. Those who-correctly or incorrectly-reported that both activities occurred were retained for the final sample (n = 56); these children were then interviewed again with both neutral questions and cross-examination-style challenges. Neither style of questioning elicited responses that discriminated between liars and truth-tellers: although the accuracy of children who were lying increased in response to cross-examination questions, the accuracy of truth-telling children saw a corresponding decrease. When asked neutral questions, children's responses tended to be consistent with their earlier responses, whether or not those responses were lies. These findings raise important questions about the function that cross-examination might serve in trials involving child witnesses. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Behavioral Sciences & the Law is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
