Abstract
In cases of child abuse and neglect, children’s statements can form the main, and perhaps sole, piece of evidence (Leander, 2010; Faller, 2016). Thus, it is important to elicit honest account from child witnesses because lie-telling in the legal setting may result in miscarriages of justice (Faller, 2016). For instance, a child who falsely denies experiencing abuse, in a situation where they might be the only witness of a crime, might be more vulnerable to experiencing repeated abuse by the perpetrator (Paine & Hansen, 2002). Therefore, researchers have sought to develop interview techniques that promote honesty in child victims and witnesses. The overarching aim of the current doctoral research programme was to investigate an evidence-based honesty-promoting strategy that does not negatively impact children’s perceived credibility in court.The first study (Chapter 2) was conducted with police officers in England and Wales. This mixed-methods study sought to explore police officers’ perspectives and experiences of promoting honesty with child victims and witnesses. Through an online survey, I investigated the breadth of police officers’ experiences interviewing children, with a focus on their use of and adherence to the ‘Achieving Best Evidence’ (ABE) guidelines (Ministry of Justice, 2022). Participants reported always using Truth-Lies Discussions (TLDs) in interviews, not because they believed the strategy promoted honesty in children, but because a deviance from guidelines jeopardised the quality of the interview. Participants reported different ways in which they implemented TLDs in practice, such as through the use of video TLDs, story TLDs, or hypothetical scenarios involving the child interviewee.
Subsequently, follow-up online interviews were conducted on a sub-sample of the survey respondents to gain an in-depth understanding of police officers’ practices and perceptions of using TLDs. Participants described the uses for TLDs, such as gauging children’s understanding of truths and lies, ensuring adherence to guidance, and communicating children’s credibility to the court.
Participants also revealed challenges and obstacles they encountered when embarking on TLDs, such as one type of TLDs was not suitable for all children, the training received was insignificant and the application of TLDs was inappropriate, and other strategies more effectively promoted honesty with children. An example of another strategy that participants reported using was engaging in an open and honest conversation with children to prime them with reciprocating this behaviour.
I conducted two laboratory experiments (Chapter 3) to investigate the effect of several honesty-promoting strategies, reported by police officers in the field study, at efficiently promoting honesty in children. In Experiment 1, I varied the medium of presentation of TLDs. Child participants witnessed a confederate commit a minor mock theft then were interviewed about the event they had witnessed. Prior to the interview, children either watched a video TLD of a protagonist committing a transgression then lying by falsely denying committing it, listened to a story TLD narrating the same scenario, or listened to a neutral story (control condition). TLDs, regardless of their medium of presentation, did not significantly promote honesty in children. Further, children who demonstrated a good understanding of truths and lies during the conceptual questions were not more likely to tell the truth about the transgression than children who showed a poorer understanding.
Even though research has shown that asking children to promise to tell the truth significantly increased their truth-telling behaviour (Evans & Lee, 2010; Lyon & Dorado, 2008; Quas et al., 2018; Talwar et al., 2004), it is not recommended to ask child witnesses in England and Wales to promise to tell the truth as it is akin to taking an oath. In Experiment 2, I suggested reciprocity as a novel interview strategy that could promote honesty in children. To prime children with reciprocity, the interviewer first asked child participants two open-ended rapport-building questions paired with self-disclosures by the interviewer. Then, prior to the interview, the interviewer informed the child that they both ought to be honest and truthful throughout the interview. Child participants witnessed the same mock theft as in Experiment 1 and were subsequently interviewed about it.
Prior to the interview, children were either asked to promise to tell the truth, were primed to reciprocate an open and honest conversation with the interviewer, or simply listened to the ‘ground rules’ and were reminded of the importance of telling the truth (control condition). Children in the reciprocity condition were not more truthful about the mock theft they witnessed than children in the control condition. Surprisingly, neither were children who promised to tell the truth. Interestingly, children were more likely to disclose witnessing a transgression, that they were asked to keep secret, in response to a direct question than during the free narrative phase of their interviews.
In the final study (Chapter 4), I examined mock jurors’ perceptions of the credibility of children who took part in one of the five different interview strategies investigated in the laboratory experiments. Mock jurors watched a video-recorded interview between a child and an interviewer. Prior to the interview, the child either “failed” a TLD, “passed” a TLD, promised to tell the truth, was primed by the interviewer to tell the truth with reciprocity, or simply listened to the ‘ground rules’ and was reminded of the importance of telling the truth (control condition). Children’s participation in the different interview strategies did not influence mock jurors’ perceptions of whether the child told the truth or a lie. However, children’s demeanour in the interview did, with evidence of participants’ reliance on children’s non-verbal behaviour as cues to deceit. Importantly, the child who “failed” the TLD was reported as less credible than children from the other interview conditions. Further, participants who believed that children were generally honest gave higher credibility ratings to the child in question than participants who tended to believe that children were not generally honest.
In sum, police officers reporting using TLDs with child witnesses, even though taking part in a TLD does not significantly promote honesty with children. Children’s performance on the TLD did not predict their subsequent truth and lie-telling behaviour during the interview. Thus, children who “passed” a TLD were not more likely to tell the truth during their interview and children who “failed” the TLD were not more likely to tell a lie during their interview. Despite this lack of predictive relationship, mock jurors are influenced by children’s performance on TLDs. Children who “failed” the TLD were perceived as less credible than children who took part in other interview conditions.
Interestingly, asking children to promise to tell the truth and priming them with reciprocity did not significantly promote their truth-telling behaviour either. Taken together, these findings indicate the need to continue investigating evidence-based honesty-promoting strategies, whilst considering their influence on jurors’ perceptions of children’s credibility.
| Date of Award | 1 May 2025 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Lucy Akehurst (Supervisor), Hannah Cassidy (Supervisor) & Victoria Talwar (Supervisor) |