Dutton Dissertation Quotes

Dr. Wendy Dutton has been used thousands of times to provide cold testimony for CSA trials. In her 2011 doctoral dissertation, she notes:

CSAAS

The validity of the CSAAS has been challenged by both legal defense advocates and scholars (Pipe, Orbach, Lamb & Cederborg, 2007; Summit, 1992). One of the most influential recent scholarly challenges was raised by London, Bruck, Ceci, and Shuman (2005) in a meta-analysis of 28 CSA disclosure studies conducted with adults and children published between 1990 and 2002. These authors cited methodological concerns in many of the research studies they analyzed. These concerns included the lack of definitive corroborating evidence of abuse in adult and child populations studied, and the use of suggestive or coercive interview methods by investigators to obtain abuse disclosures from children. In spite of these methodological flaws, conclusions on this meta-analysis supported the validity of Summits ‘s concerns of secrecy and delay disclosure. However, the authors challenge the rigor of scientific evidence to validate the concepts of conflicted disclosures, denial of abuse, and retractions as occurring commonly.¹ London and her colleagues argued that CSAAS did not meet the standards of reliability necessary for admission is expert evidence in legal proceedings.² In their conclusion, the author stated,

“According to these testimonial standards, the only component of the CSAAAS that has empirical support is the delay of abuse disclosure is very common. However, the probative value of expert testimony on the latest closure, weather for evidentiary or rehabilitative reasons, is undetermined; . . . In summary, there is no convincing evidence that CSAAAS testimony on denial or recantation provides relevant or reliable assistance to the fact finder to assist allegations of CSA.” (London at all., 2005, p. 220).

This challenge to the validity of CSAAS has since stimulated new debate and additional inquiry into the nature children’s disclosures and reactions to sexual abuse (Pipe et al., 2007).

Gender differences in children’s disclosures and legal narratives of sexual abuse.
Wendy A. Dutton. A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree doctor of philosophy. Approved April 2011, Madelaine Adelman, Chair. Arizona State University. Page 6.

Incidence Rates

One of the best methods for approximating the scope of CSA has been retrospective surveys of randomly selected adult populations. However, the surveys conducted to date show considerable variability, best explained by differences in research methodology (London et al., 2005). The survey population, the method of administration, questions asked, and definitions of sexual abuse appeared to influence the incidence data reported (Finkelhor, 1994a). The accuracy of survey research has also been impacted by the ability or willingness of individuals to truthfully report their sexual abuse histories (Finkelhor whore, 1994a).

Need for CSA testimony

These authors found that potential jurors lacked accurate knowledge about many characteristics of CSA. In particular, these subjects lacked accurate knowledge about suggestibility, common medical findings, and symptoms of CSA.

Internal variables

A few studies have examined the influence of cultural and race on CSA disclosure.

Disclosure

Other researchers have described disclosure as an event, and that most children made a clear disclosure initially and remained consistent in their accounts over time (Bradley & Wood, 1996).

Qualitative studies

Qualitative Research: How and Why Children Disclose CSA
To date, only a handful of qualitative studies have been conducted that specifically addressed the motivating factors present when CSA victims disclosed during childhood. Sorensen & Snow (1991) studied the disclosure patterns of 116 children, 3- to 17- years of age, evaluated or treated in their private clinical practice. The authors reported that the abuse of the children included in this study was confirmed by medical evidence, confession by the perpetrator, or a finding of guilt in judicial proceedings. The authors classified disclosures as accidental or purposeful, encompassing prompted disclosures in the purposeful category. The abuse of the majority of children in this study was discovered accidentally. The impetus for these disclosures included exposure to a known perpetrator, inappropriate sexual behavior or statements, medical evidence of abuse, or offender confession. Only 29 children in the study disclosed purposefully. Children reported that they disclosed due to raised awareness through educational programs about sexual abuse prevention, or because they were concerned that other children may be harmed. Adolescents reported that they disclosed because they were angry with the perpetrator. However, this study has been sharply criticized concerning the lack of documentation of the interview and therapy methods used to elicit disclosures from children (London et al., 2005). Concerns have been raised that the authors of this study may have used suggestive techniques, thereby raising doubts about the reliability and validity of the information children disclosed (Bradley & Wood, 1996; London et al., 2005).

Disclosing

Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige, Reichelt, & Tjersland (2005) conducted a qualitative study of 22 children, 15 girls and seven boys, between 3- and 16- years of age. The children in this sample received psychological treatment for sexual abuse at a university based clinic. Children and their caretakers were interviewed by researchers after therapeutic interventions were completed. Therapeutic sessions and research interviews were video and audio recorded. Researchers evaluated the children’s interviews to identify reasons why children delayed disclosing CSA, and what factors facilitated their disclosures. Children reported that they feared the consequences of telling, in particular, that disclosure would negatively impact their mothers. Children were concerned that disclosures would negatively impact themselves, their siblings, or the perpetrator. Children were also concerned that they would not be believed or supported if they disclosed. Children stated that it was difficult to find the right time or opportunity to disclose. Common triggers for disclosure included potential exposure to the perpetrator, exposure to abuse-prevention media, or someone questioning them directly about concerning behaviors or emotional problems. As compelling as these findings were, the authors reported that there were significant limitations in this study. For example, corroboration of abuse was present for only four children involved in the study. In addition, caretakers and siblings were included in the children’s therapeutic sessions and interviews. Therapists or the children’s family members may have influenced or shaped children’s interpretations and accounts of their experiences.

Discriminate Validity

Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, and Romito (2004) conducted a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews of 36 adolescent girls, 12 to 17 years of age, who called an anonymous toll-free line advertised in a youth oriented magazine. The advertisement recruited sexually abused adolescents and specified the purpose of the research. Results indicated that the girls did not report the abuse to their parents due to fear of not being believed, shame, and the negative consequences their disclosures could have on their families. The researchers did not report data concerning what prompted the girls to call. The authors did not include interviews that lacked credible accounts of abuse in their analyses; however, no corroborative evidence of abuse was available.

Staller and Nelson-Gardell (2005) analyzed interviews conducted in focus groups of 34 pre-adolescent and adolescent female survivors of CSA, ages 10 to 18. Many of the girls reported feelings shame and responsibility for the abuse, which were barriers to disclosure. Girls were also concerned about the impact of their disclosure on their families. Many reported that it was difficult to choose the time, place and person to tell, and that their confidants’ reactions of disbelief or hostility were difficult to endure. The focus groups were conducted after the girls had completed treatment for abuse. Their responses may have been influenced by therapists, peers, or family members. The authors did not report whether they sought independent corroboration of abuse.

Internal factors and accurate recall

Researchers have also examined the effects of stress and trauma on children’s recall. Goodman, Hirschman, Hepps & Rudy (1991) and Merritt, Ornstein, & Spiker (1994) studied children who underwent painful medical procedures involving urinary catheterization. These studies indicated that children have accurate recall of the procedures, and that accuracy improves with age and discussion with parents. Ornstein (1995) found that children recalled more detail about painful medical procedures than did another group of children who recalled a routine visit to the doctor. Peterson and Bell (1996) found that children who received treatment for traumatic injuries were able to give clear detailed accounts of the event that led to their emergency room visits, even after a period of two years (Peterson, 1999).

False and Unproven / Suggestibility

The following quotes are from Dr. Dutton’s dissertation, page 35-40.

Laboratory studies have also indicated that given the right conditions, inaccurate reports or false memories are relatively easy to create in young children, especially children under the age of five (Ceci, Huffman, Smith, & Loftus, 1994; Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck, 1994; Leichtman & Ceci, 1995).

Rudy and Goodman (1991) studied 4- and 7-year old children’s recall of their interaction with an unfamiliar male. Pairs of children were sent into a trailer and interacted with a male research assistant who was dressed as a clown. The children were interviewed, and were asked specific and misleading questions about their interactions. Some of these questions falsely suggested abuse, such as, “He took your clothes off, didn’t he?” Both age groups of children were highly resistant to suggestions of abuse. However, they were more likely to make errors in response to suggestive questions unrelated to abuse.

Goodman and her colleagues (1995) studied the effect of interviewer status and preconceived bias on the accuracy of recall by four-year-old children about a staged event. In this laboratory study, 40 children engaged in play activities with an unfamiliar female adult. The children were randomly assigned to one of four interview conditions. The children were interviewed about the activities by either their mothers or by an unfamiliar female interviewer. The mothers and the unfamiliar interviewer conducted the interviews in one of two conditions–either uninformed, or they were given misleading or biased information by the researcher about what occurred during the play activities. Children provided less accurate information when questioned by misinformed strangers. Children were found to be more accurate, resistant to misleading suggestive questions about abuse-related topics when asked by their mothers. Overall, children’s free recall accuracy was diminished by biased interviewers. Children provided less information, or made more errors with regard to the order of events when questioned by misinformed interviewers.

In 1994, Stephen Ceci and his colleagues published seminal studies in which they demonstrated how false memories can be implanted in preschool aged children (Ceci, Huffman, Smith, & Loftus, 1994; Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck, 1994). These studies have come to be known as the “mousetrap” studies, both in the research community and popular media. In the first study, (Ceci & Huffinan, et al., 1994), the researchers asked children’s parents about events that had actually occurred in children’s lives. The researchers then instructed children that they were going to read a list of events that may have happened to them, based on conversations that the interviewer had with their parents. The interviewer warned that not all of the events really happened. The fictitious events included a description of the child getting his or her finger caught in a mousetrap and having to go to the hospital for treatment. During the first session, children were told to think about the event and were asked if they could remember it. The children were interviewed seven to ten times with a several day interval in between over a ten-week period. Results indicated that by the final interview, 34% of the children assented to the fictitious events, and some provided elaborate narrative accounts of the false event. Ceci & Loftus et al., (1994), repeated this experiment with some key differences. The children were told that the fictitious events had actually occurred, and the time span of the study was increased to 12 weeks, with children undergoing seven to ten interviews. Results indicated that false assents increased from an initial 34% to 45% among the three- and fouryear old subjects and from 25% to 40% for the five- and six year olds over the course of the study.

Researchers have also studied whether children can incorporate false details into their memories for an event (Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; Poole & Lindsay, 2001 ). These studies have been conducted in controlled laboratory experiments in which researchers either staged an event or presented media depictions of an event. Subjects were then interviewed several times about the event, using leading or suggestive techniques. A final interview was conducted using open-ended techniques. The degree to which suggested information was incorporated into the subjects’ accounts was then evaluated.

One of the most well known of these laboratory studies is the “Sam Stone” study, conducted by Leichtman & Ceci (1995). Children were exposed to stereotypic inductions-a statement about Sam Stone indicating that he was clumsy but well-meaning by their preschool teacher. These statements were made once a week for four weeks. Another group of children was used as a comparison and were not exposed to the stereotypic inductions. A research confederate posing as Sam Stone made a brief visit to the classroom of both groups of children, during which no adverse events occurred. The two groups of children then interviewed four times over a 10-week period. The comparison group was interviewed using no suggestive techniques. The experimental group was interviewed using suggestive questions indicating that Sam Stone tore a book and soiled a teddy bear. One month after the interviews, the children were interviewed again by a new interviewer in a non-suggestive manner. In the comparison group, none of the five-and six year olds and only 10% of the threeand four- year olds reported that Sam Stone ripped a book or soiled the teddy bear. In the experimental group, the results were different—44% of the younger children and 11 % of the older ones reported that they actually witnessed Sam Stone do one or both of the fictitious misdeeds.

Other authors have focused on the effect of post-event information on children’s memories and abilities of children to distinguish the source of their knowledge (Poole & Lindsay, 2001). One of the most often cited laboratory studies is known as “Mr. Science” (Poole & Lindsay, 2001 ). The subjects in this study were children ranging from 3 to 8 years of age. The children participated in a science demonstration that included four different activities. Immediately after the demonstration, children were interviewed about what they observed using open-ended invitations. Three months later, the researchers sent books entitled “A Visit to Mr. Science” to the children’s parents. Parents were instructed to read the book, which included their child’s name, once a day for three consecutive days. The story was similar to the events the children experienced earlier, including two descriptions of the science activities they observed and two descriptions of science activities that were not part of the original demonstration. Children were then questioned about their visit to Mr. Science by different interviewers at the children’s homes. Results indicated that many of the children had difficulty distinguishing between events they actually witnessed during the science experiments and those that were depicted in the book.

Garven, Wood, Malpass, and Shaw (1998) conducted a laboratory study to examine the effects of interview techniques used by interviewers in the McMartin Preschool investigation. These techniques included suggestive questions, introducing information obtained from other witnesses, praising or criticizing answers, repeated questions and inviting speculation. Preschool children were exposed to a staged event in their classroom. The event consisted of a male research assistant introduced as “Manny Morales” reading a story in an animated way while wearing a large, colorful hat. One week later, the children were interviewed using one (suggestive questions only) or combination (suggestive questions, social influence, reinforcement and speculation) of these problematic techniques. The authors found that use of these combined techniques resulted in increased reporting of false allegations of the research assistant committing a misdeed such as stealing a pen or bumping the teacher.

Overall, laboratory studies have demonstrated that many factors can enhance or negatively influence children’s accuracy. Interviewer variables such as bias, high status, emotional tone or friendliness have been shown to have effects on children’s accuracy (Goodman, 2006). Interviewers who have a friendly demeanor and make supportive statements have been shown to increase children’s narrative production and accuracy (Goodman, 2006). Interview techniques, such as repeated questions, repeating misinformation, social pressure, and stereotypic induction, have been shown to be detrimental (Garven et al., 1998). Bribes, rewards, and threats have significantly altered children’s reports and accuracy as well (Ceci & Bruck, 1995). The overall body of memory and suggestibility research stressed the importance of minimizing the amount of information and conversational control introduced by the interviewer, while simultaneously providing support for children to maximize narrative information about their experiences (Goodman, 2006).

Ground Truth

Both qualitative and quantitative studies have been informative in explaining children’s reluctance to disclose, however qualitative studies are few. Researchers have challenged the results of the studies on three major issues. The first concern was focused on establishing the ‘ground truth’ of the allegations involved. Horowitz, Lamb, Esplin, Boychuk, Reiter-Lavery, & Krispin (1996) cautioned that independent confirmation of the allegations, such as confessions or medical evidence, was crucial to assure the validity of research in this field. The second concern related to the accuracy of children’s statements of CSA. London et al. (2005) stressed the importance of using interview methods that avoided suggesting information to children, thereby improving the reliability of the data children provided. Third, other researchers expressed concerns over the social construction of children’s narratives. Children’s narratives obtained during or after therapeutic interventions may have reflected the influence of their therapists, or family members, as children negotiated or co-created the meaning of their lived experiences (Crossley, 2000; MacMartin, 1999). To date, no studies have qualitatively examined the nature of how sexual abuse narratives emerged in the investigation phase of confirmed cases, using interview techniques designed to maximize the amount, accuracy and quality of information children provide.

Confirmatory Bias

As a forensic interviewer, I was generally considered a neutral party in the investigation process. However, I was also considered an advocate for abused children in other areas of my professional life. For example, I have served on the Governor’s Office Children’s Justice Task Force, a task force that sought to improve how child abuse cases are investigated and prosecuted. I have also advocated for individual children in the legal system as the need arose. Therefore, I had to be vigilant in my research process to identify, ameliorate and report my potential bias. I was also open to conclusions driven by data that had the potential to be contrary to my prior expert testimony in child abuse litigation.

Discriminate Validity

One common criticism of prior disclosure research was the lack of corroboration of the abuse claims made by the study subjects (Horowitz et al., 1996).

Gender differences in children’s disclosures and legal narratives of sexual abuse.

Wendy A. Dutton. A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree doctor of philosophy. Approved April 2011, Madelaine Adelman, Chair. Arizona State University. Page 172.