Children’s Memory and Delay Effects

The effect of a five-month delay on children’s and adults’ eyewitness memory.
Flin, Rhona, et al.
British Journal of Psychology, Vol 83(3), Aug, 1992. pp. 323-336.
Abstract:
Investigated whether children can retain accurate memories of events witnessed several months earlier. 134 children (aged 5–6 and 9–10 yrs) and 43 undergraduate students witnessed a staged event and were subsequently interviewed in the days following the event and/or 5 mo later. Results indicate that while all witnesses forgot information over this period, the younger children recalled slightly less information than the older children and the adults. The total amount of incorrect information recalled did not increase over the same period. Two different interviewing techniques were used (cued recall vs enhanced recall), the latter incorporating aspects of the cognitive interview procedure. No differences were found relating to the interview techniques employed.  Flin’s study found that the proportion of inaccurate information from six-and-nine-year-old children doubled from 9% one day after the event to 18% five months after the event, whereas the error rate for adults for the two time periods remained constant (10% vs. 8%). This study also found that two years later, 21% of the children attributed actions to one person that had actually been performed by another – an error not made by any of the adults, and one that has obvious legal implications.

Two years later: Effect of question repetition and retention interval on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults.
Poole, Debra A., White, Lawrence T.
Developmental Psychology, Vol 29(5), Sep, 1993. pp. 844-853.
Abstract:
Examined witnesses’ memories for an event experienced 2 yrs earlier. Ss in 4 age groups (6-, 8-, and 10-yr-olds and adults; N = 79) answered repeated questions about an ambiguous incident that occurred as part of an earlier study (D. A. Poole and L. T. White; see record 1992-08648-001). Surprisingly, the effects of question repetitionwere similar to the patterns observed 2 yrs ago. There were important differences in the testimonies of children and adults, however, that were not observed in the initial study: Children were less consistent than adults across sessions on yes–no questions, less accurate in response to open-ended questions, and more likely to fabricate answers to a question about a man’s occupation. Some children also confused the actions of 2 research assistants. These results indicate the need for additional research on qualitative and quantitative changes in children’s testimonies over long delays.

Tell me again and again: Stability and change in the repeated testimonies of children and adults.
Poole, Debra Ann, and White, Lawrence T.
Memory and testimony in the child witness. Zaragoza, Maria S., (Ed); Graham, John R., (Ed); Hall, Gordon C. N., (Ed); Hirschman, Richard, (Ed); Ben-Porath, Yossef S., (Ed); pp. 24-43; Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1995. xii, 298 pp.
Abstract:
Review studies that have examined the eyewitness performance of children and adults across repeated questions [during interviews] / consider the impact of a cross-session repetition, or multiple interviews / review . . . within-session repetition / [describe] the empirical or theoretical bases for predicting that repetition will enhance or degrade testimony / compare those predictions with findings obtained from studies of eyewitness performance / [discuss] unresolved issues and suggestions for future research

Research on children’s suggestibility:  Implications for the Investigative Interview
Amye R. Warren and Lucy S. Mcgough
23 Crim. Just. & Behavior 269 (1996), 35 pages, 269 to 303
Abstract
The authors review research on children’s suggestibility as it applies to the investigative sexual abuse interview. They focus on identifying the optimal conditions for securing an account of a child’s remembered experience that will be equally or more reliable than that of an adult. The discussion is divided into four major sections, corresponding to the questions of how, when, where, and by whom a child witness should be interviewed to diminish potential distortions and enhance the trustworthiness of the child’s remembered account.

The Danger of Value-Laden Investigation in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Are Defendants’ Constitutional Rights Violated When Mental Health Professionals Offer Testimony Based on Children’s Hearsay Statements and Behaviors,”
DeSarbo, Lynne Celander.
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law vol. 2, no. 1 (December 1999): p. 276-317.
Introduction
In criminal cases involving child sexual abuse, an analysis of the extent to which mental health professionals (“MHPs”) should be able to introduce hearsay statements  generated from investigative or therapeutic interviews with  children depends upon a critical examination of the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause and various hearsay exceptions. The Confrontation Clause, as well as the Federal  Rules of Evidence, restrict the introduction of hearsay testimony. Despite this general distrust of hearsay statements and the particular difficulties associated with child witnesses, child hearsay testimony may be the best or only evidence available to a prosecutor in a criminal sexual abuse  case. As a result, MHPs are frequently called upon to testify to children’s hearsay statements and behaviors based on  their interview with those children.

Why children’s suggestibility remains a serious concern.
Amye R. Warren and Dorothy F. Marsil
65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 124 (2002)
Introduction
After more than two decades of continuous contemporary research on the child as a witness in legal proceedings, a great deal is known about children’s eyewitness memory and suggestibility. Excellent reviews of this research are available,1 and their summaries and conclusions will not be reiterated here. Instead, this article will focus on six areas representing some of the most intractable problems that will require further attention from scientists and practitioners alike. This list of issues is selective and somewhat idiosyncratic, but should serve to illustrate why the current understanding of children’s suggestibility is far from complete. Research on each issue will be highlighted, concentrating primarily on studies published or presented in the past ten years.