Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet

Is the cognitive interview efficient on veryyoung children's ability to testify about an

occurrence of a repeated event?

Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet

Clermont Université, Université Blaise PascalLaboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (CNRS UMR 6024)

BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France

3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

Children as eyewitnesses

Odas (National center for social decentralized action)(2001)

Free recall

- often accurate

- few detailed information

- generally focused on central elements

Questions

- more specific information

- less accurate

Suggestibility

Assaults often repeated 60%, perpetrator = family member 46%, perpetrator = child’s father

Children’s testimonies = the sole available source of information

Children victims of physical and/or sexual violences 41% under 11 years old 29% under 6 years old

Odas (National center for social decentralized action)(2007)


Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years old)

Children as eyewitnessesin

put

Encoding Storage RetrievalRecall/

communication

•Less capacity•Less capacity

•Less efficient and sophisticated strategies

•Poor memory organisation (story grammar)



•Limited duration•Limited duration

•Limited vocabulary

•Worse understanding of the situation

•Conversational script unsuitable for II





Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years-old)

Children as eyewitnessesin

put

Encoding Storage RetrievalRecall/

communication

•Less capacity•Less capacity





•Limited duration•Limited duration








Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview

RetrievalRecall/

communication Phased (funnel) approach:

1.Rapport-building •Establishing rapport •Explaining conversational rules

2. Free recall

3. Questioning

4. Closure

Phased (funnel) approach:


2. Free recall

3. Questioning

4. Closure

Cognitive Interview with children (Geiselman & Padilla, 1988; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992)

Mnemonics (cognitive instructions)

1.Mental context reinstatement •Physical surrounding •Internal state

2. Report everything

3. Reverse order

4. Change of perspective




3. Reverse order



RetrievalRecall/

communicationMnemonics (cognitive instructions)



3. Reverse order





3. Reverse order




2. Free recall

3. Questioning

4. Closure



2. Free recall

3. Questioning

4. Closure

FREE RECALL

21% to 27% correct information(Holliday, 2003b; Geiselman & Padilla, 1988)

specific information (location, person, object, action) (e.g., Holliday, 2003a, 2003b)

QUESTIONING

suggestibility to misleading questions(e.g., Memon, Holley, Wark, Bull, & Köhnkenn 1996a; Milne, Bull, Köhnken, & Memon, 1995)

Benefits of the CI



RetrievalRecall/

communicationMnemonics (cognitive instructions)



3. Cued Recall (i.e., “What happened right after that?” )




3. Cued Recall (i.e., “What happened right after that?” )



2. Free recall

3. Questioning

4. Closure



2. Free recall

3. Questioning

4. Closure

FREE RECALL

57 % to 80% correct information(Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 1 & 2)

specific information (location, person, object, action) (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 2)

QUESTIONING

suggestibility to misleading questions(Verkampt & Ginet, 2009)

Benefits of the CI



Repetition of events and children’s recall

S.D., young girl of 8 years old

Mixture of both general script information and particular specific details

- Fixed details = details that are similar across episodes (e.g., my daddy hurt me)

- Variations = details that vary across episodes - Details may vary at each episode Recurring variations (e.g.,

child’s activity before the violences) - Details may vary only once Unique variation (e.g., taking

pictures)


" Because my daddy hurt me … touched me where he should not. I don’t remember which day, I don’t know… in my mom’s house, in our bedroom, he came in the morning, we were in two beds, he has also hurt K. where he should not. He undressed me, put his willy in my flower. It hurt. I don’t remember ... but several times.

Free Recall

Failure to describe a specific/target occurrence (Pearse, Powell, & Thomson, 2003; Price & Connolly, 2007)

Recall focused on fixed details (vs. variations) (see Roberts & Powell, 2001, for a detailed overview)

Many confusions (e.g., Powell, Roberts, Ceci, & Hembrooke, 1999; Price & Connolly, 2004, 2007) = details from nontarget occurrence recalled as having occured in the target one

Questioning (e.g., Connolly & Lindsay, 2001 ; Price & Connolly, 2004)

resistance to the misleading questions about fixed details suggestibility to the misleading questions about variations


Repetition of events and children’s recall

Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated

event

Population 64 children (31 girls and 33 boys), aged 4-5 years old (M = 4.8

years old ; range = 4 years old and one month to 5 years old and 7 months)

Procedure Encoding phase: participation to a painting session once (no

repetition condition) or four times (repetition condition) Interview phase: MCI or SI

Correct information, incorrect information, confabulations, confusions Accuracy rate (correct information/total of reported information) Fixes details, recurring variations, & unique variations Answers to misleading (msled, not misled) and leading (led, not led)

questions


Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1)

Repetition condition

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Fixed detailsPlaster on the nose

Plaster on the nose

Plaster on the nose

Plaster on the nose

Recurring variations

Head HipArm Neck

Uniquevariations

Green apron

Green apron

Green apron

White apron



event


No Repetition condition

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4


Plaster on the nose

Plaster on the nose

Plaster on the nose


Head HipArm Neck

Uniquevariations

Green apron

Green apron

Green apron

White apron



event


No Repetition condition

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4


Plaster on the nose

Plaster on the nose

Plaster on the nose


Head HipArm Neck

Uniquevariations

Green apron

Green apron

Green apron

White apron



event

Procedure – Interview (Phase 2)

1. Rapport-building

2. Free recall

1st FR

2nd FR

3. Questioning

4. Closure

1. Rapport-building

2. Free recall

1st FR

2nd FR

3. Questioning

4. Closure

Modified Cognitive Interview

Structured Interview

✓ ✓

Context reinstatementReport everything

Cued Recall

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

Neutral instruction

Neutral instruction



event

Results: Free Recalls

Means

♯ C

orr

ect

in

form

ati

on

**

Z = -3.325, p < .008



event

Results: Free Recalls


Means

♯ C

orr

ect

in

form

ati

on

Z = -1.725, n.s

+ 42%

Z = -3.229, p < .008

+113%


event

Mean number (and standard deviation) of fixed details (out of 4), unique variations (out of 4) and recurrent variations (out of 4) recalled by repetition and interview



event

CI SI

No repetition

Repetition No repetition

Repetition Sign.

Fixed details 1.05 (0.78) 1.91 (1.37) 1.33 (0.98) 0.68 (1.17) **

Unique variation 0.05 (0.23) 0.82 (0.87) 0.00 (0.00) 0.36 (0.95)

**

Recurring variation 0.00 (0.00) 0.64 (1.21) 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.35)

*

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Mean number (and standard deviation) of fixed details (out of 4), unique variations (out of 4) and recurrent variations (out of 4) recalled by repetition and interview



event

CI SI

No repetition

Repetition No repetition

Repetition Sign.

Fixed details 1.05 (0.78) 1.91 (1.37) 1.33 (0.98) 0.68 (1.17) **

Unique variation 0.05 (0.23) 0.82 (0.87) 0.00 (0.00) 0.36 (0.95)

**

Recurring variation 0.00 (0.00) 0.64 (1.21) 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.35)

*

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Results: Questioning and children’s suggestibility



event

Means

♯ of

« n

o »

answ

ers

(out

of

6)

Z = -2.405, p < .016

Z = -3.546, p < .008

**

A first step towards the use of the CI for some repeated events

Benefits of the (modified) CI for children in repetition condition: Improvement of correct information Without any decline in statements’ accuracy Improvement of reported fixed details but no effect on variations Stronger resistance to adult’s influences « nay-saying bias » (e.g., Fritzley

& Lee, 2003)

… for children in no repetition condition: no benefit of the (modified) CI


Discussion & Conclusion

Need to work with a more emotional event target More naturalistic event

Need to test the relevance of a break because the free recall and questioning phases (cf. “nay-saying bias”): CI may be demanding and resource-dependent technique particularly for

children in repetition condition Nay-saying bias = way for children to indicate that they want to stop the

interview


Discussion & Conclusion

Documents

Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet