1 / 21

Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet

Is the cognitive interview efficient on very young children's ability to testify about an occurrence of a repeated event?. Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (CNRS UMR 6024) BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.

mahina
Télécharger la présentation

Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is the cognitive interview efficient on veryyoung children's ability to testify about anoccurrence of a repeated event? Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (CNRS UMR 6024) BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  2. Children as eyewitnesses • Children victims of physical and/or sexual violences • 41% under 11 years old • 29% under 6 years old • Assaults often repeated • 60%, perpetrator = family member • 46%, perpetrator = child’s father Odas (National center for social decentralizedaction)(2007) • Children’s testimonies = the sole available source of information Odas (National center for social decentralized action)(2001) • Questions • - more specific information • - less accurate •  Suggestibility • Free recall • - often accurate • - few detailed information • - generally focused on central elements 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  3. Children as eyewitnesses • Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years old) •Less capacity •Limited duration •Less efficient and sophisticated strategies •Poor memory organisation (story grammar) •Limited vocabulary •Worse understanding of the situation •Conversational script unsuitable for II Encoding Storage Retrieval Recall/ communication input 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  4. Children as eyewitnesses • Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years-old) •Less capacity •Limited duration •Less efficient and sophisticated strategies •Poor memory organisation (story grammar) •Limited vocabulary •Worse understanding of the situation •Conversational script unsuitable for II Encoding Storage Retrieval Recall/ communication input 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  5. Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview • Cognitive Interview with children (Geiselman & Padilla, 1988; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992) • Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) • Mental context reinstatement • •Physical surrounding • •Internal state • 2. Report everything • 3. Reverse order • 4. Change of perspective • Phased (funnel) approach: • Rapport-building • •Establishing rapport • •Explaining conversational rules • 2. Free recall • 3. Questioning • 4. Closure Retrieval Recall/ communication 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  6. Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview • Benefits of the CI QUESTIONING 21% to 27% correct information (Holliday, 2003b; Geiselman & Padilla, 1988) FREE RECALL • specific information • (location, person, object, action) • (e.g., Holliday, 2003a, 2003b) • suggestibility to misleading questions • (e.g., Memon, Holley, Wark, Bull, & Köhnkenn 1996a;Milne, Bull, Köhnken, & Memon, 1995) • Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) • Mental context reinstatement • •Physical surrounding • •Internal state • 2. Report everything • 3. Reverse order • 4. Change of perspective • Phased (funnel) approach: • Rapport-building • •Establishing rapport • •Explaining conversational rules • 2. Free recall • 3. Questioning • 4. Closure Retrieval Recall/ communication 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  7. Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview • Benefits of the CI QUESTIONING 57 % to 80% correct information (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 1 & 2) FREE RECALL • specificinformation • (location, person, object, action) • (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 2) •  suggestibility to misleading questions • (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009) • Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) • Mental context reinstatement • •Physical surrounding • •Internal state • 2. Report everything • 3. Cued Recall (i.e., “What happened right after that?” ) • Phased (funnel) approach: • Rapport-building • •Establishing rapport • •Explaining conversational rules • 2. Free recall • 3. Questioning • 4. Closure Retrieval Recall/ communication 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  8. Repetition of events and children’s recall • S.D., young girl of 8 years old " 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. • 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) 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  9. Repetition of events and children’s recall • 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 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  10. 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 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  11. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event • Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1) Repetition condition Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Fixed details Recurring variations Head Arm Hip Neck Unique variations Green apron Green apron Green apron White apron 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  12. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event • Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1) No Repetition condition Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Fixed details Recurring variations Head Arm Hip Neck Unique variations Green apron Green apron Green apron White apron 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  13. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event • Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1) No Repetition condition Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Plaster on the nose Fixed details Recurring variations Head Arm Hip Neck Unique variations Green apron Green apron Green apron White apron 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  14. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event • Procedure – Interview (Phase 2) Modified Cognitive Interview Structured Interview • Rapport-building • 2. Free recall • 1st FR • 2nd FR • 3. Questioning • 4. Closure ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Context reinstatement Report everything Neutral instruction Cued Recall Neutral instruction 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  15. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event • Results: Free Recalls ** Means ♯ Correct information Z = -3.325, p < .008 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  16. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event • Results: Free Recalls +113% + 42% Means ♯ Correct information Z = -1.725,n.s Z = -3.229,p < .008 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  17. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated 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 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  18. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated 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 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  19. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event • Results: Questioning and children’s suggestibility ** Means♯ of « no » answers (out of 6) Z = -3.546, p < .008 Z = -2.405, p < .016 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  20. Discussion & Conclusion • 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 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

  21. 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 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

More Related