Suggestibility and anxiety as predictors of performance in children undergoing cross-examination

1. Suggestibility and anxiety as predictors of performance in children undergoing cross-examination Caroline Bettenay, Lucy Henry, & Anne Ridley

2. Cross-examination • In contrast to the vast literature available on how children deal with investigative interviews (and an increasing literature devoted to individual differences relevant to such interviews) there is very limited evidence concerning the cross-examination of children. • The purpose of this paper is to present some initial data on the sorts of individual differences variables that might relate to a child’s resilience to cross-examination pressure. May 2011

3. Cross-examinationresearch • It is becoming clear that children change responses under cross-examination: • Zajac, Gross & Hayne (2003a) - court transcripts of cross-examinations of typical children - 75% changed at least one aspect of their testimony • Zajac & Hayne (2003b) – typical children aged 5 and 6 years changed answers in a ‘mock’ cross-examination - 85% made at least one change to their previous statements (one third changed all their responses). 9-10 year olds also changed responses (Zajac & Hayne, 2006), although less likely to do so than the 5 and 6 year olds. • Bettenay, Henry & Ridley (submitted) primary school age children with varying cognitive abilities changed their responses under mock cross-examination -98% ceded to one or more challenges; and 10% changed all of their responses. May 2011

4. “For now, as scientists, the most we can tell the court is that suggestive interviewing techniques have a high risk of tainting children’s testimony; we cannot provide them with reliable information about the types of children whose reports are most likely to be tainted by suggestive interviewing” Bruck & Melnyck (2004) May 2011

5. Likely predictors of cross-examination resilience? • An important predictor of suggestibility in forensic interviews for typical children is age (Bruck & Melnyk, 2004). • For children with intellectual disabilities, an important predictor is IQ (Agnew & Powell, 2004; Bruck& Melnyk, 2004; Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003; Henry & Gudjonsson, 1999, 2003, 2007). • We included both of these factors, hypothesising that either/both may relate to performance in cross-examination interviews, given the ‘pressure’ and ‘challenge’ to change responses • We also assessed standardised measures of suggestibility (GSS2), given evidence that some of these measures relate to eyewitness recall and suggestibility (e.g. Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003) May 2011

6. Likely predictors of cross-examination resilience? • Findings into the effects of anxiety on children’s suggestibility are mixed: around half the studies fail to show relationships (or a negative relationship); around half show increased suggestibility for those with higher arousal/anxiety (Bruck & Melnyk, 2004). • Children report high levels of anxiety when involved with the criminal justice system (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2004) due to: • Lack of understanding of the criminal justice system (Bottoms, Najdowski & Goodman, 2009). • Speaking in public, embarrassment, peer-rejection and losing control in public (Saywitz & Snyder, 1993). • Accusations directly & indirectly of lying causing anxiety (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2007) May 2011

7. The current study Evidence-in-chief interview • Live scripted magic show at school • Day 3-6 post-event, video and audio-taped interview according to ABE guidelines

8. The current study Evidence-in-chief interview • Live scripted magic show at school • Day 3-6 post-event, video and audio-taped interview according to ABE guidelines Cross-examination • 10 months later • Taken from classroom, anxiety measured • Introduced to a real Barrister (in training) • Viewed video of evidence-in-chief interview • Cross-examined • Anxiety measure repeated

9. The current study Evidence-in-chief interview • Live scripted magic show at school • Day 3-6 post-event, video and audio-taped interview according to ABE guidelines Cross-examination • 10 months later • Taken from classroom, anxiety measured • Introduced to a real Barrister (in training) • Viewed video of evidence-in-chief interview • Cross-examined • Anxiety measure repeated 78 participants (43 female) Age range: 4 – 11 years IQ range: 47 - 121

10. Cross-examination • Child advised to tell the truth and to say if they do not remember • 23 questions; approximately 15 minute session • These included 12 four-part structured cross-examination questions, increasing in pressure • You told Caroline there was a magician doing tricks, do you still believe that to be true? • Are you sure the magician did tricks? • I don’t think the magician did tricks. I think maybe you are mistaken and the magician did not do tricks? • If someone in your class told me the magician didn’t do tricks they would be right wouldn’t they? May 2011

11. Individual differences measures • Anxiety • State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC; Spielberg, 1973) • State anxiety before and after the interview • Suggestibility • Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales version 2 short (GSS2 short; Henry & Gudjonsson, 2007). • IQ • Stanford-Binet Version 5, (SB5; Roid, 2003) May 2011

12. Age and IQ Profiles May 2011

13. Anxiety & Suggestibility Scores May 2011

14. Cross-examination measures • Susceptibility to Cross-examination (SCE) • If a child did not change a response, this was coded as zero. If a child ceded, responses were given a score of 1, 2, 3, or 4 depending upon when during the four-part challenge process the child gave way (1 = ceded only at the fourth challenge; 2 = ceded after three challenges; 3 = ceded after two challenges; 4 = ceded at the first challenge). Hence, on a scale of 0 - 48 (12 questions) the higher scores indicated that the child was ceding early in the process and was thus less resilient to cross-examination challenges. May 2011

15. Cross-examination measures • Absolute count • This referred to the total number of cross-examination questions children ceded to (at any point in the four stage process). Each response received a 1 if the child ceded and a 0 if not. Hence on a scale of 0 - 12, the higher scores indicated the child was ceding more often. May 2011

16. Initial findings • A measurement was taken of the difference in scores between state anxiety before and after the cross-examination interview for each child. Anxiety levels, overall, increased after the interview. • Initial examination of correlations indicated that state anxiety before the cross-examination interview did not relate strongly to any other variables, whereas state anxiety after the cross-examination interview was significantly correlated with a number of measures. Trait anxiety was not a strong predictor. • Therefore, we included state anxiety after the cross-examination interview in our regressions. May 2011

17. Predicting performance under cross-examination Multiple regressions were all of the same format as follows • Step 1– two variables were entered • Age • IQ • Step 2- four further variables were entered • GSS yield • GSS free recall • GSS shift • Anxiety after the interview May 2011

18. Regression Predicting SCE Scores • Note: R² = .11 for Step 1 • * p < .05; ** p < .01 May 2011

19. Regression Predicting SCE Scores • Note: R² = .11 for Step 1; ∆R² = .30 for Step 2 (p < .01) • * p < .05; ** p < .01 May 2011

20. Regression Predicting Absolute Count • Note: R² = .12 for Step 1 May 2011

21. Regression Predicting Absolute Count • Note: R² = .12 for Step 1; ∆R² = .32 for Step 2 (p < .01) May 2011

22. Forensic Implications • Cross-examination style interviews increased levels of state anxiety in primary school age children (who had a range of cognitive abilities). • Anxiety levels measured at the end of a cross-examination interview predicted the rate at which children ceded to cross-examination challenges (SCE), as well as the absolute numbers of answers they changed overall (absolute count). • After age and IQ were accounted for, state anxiety measured after the interview was the key predictor of cross-examination performance. Measures of suggestibility and free recall were not significant predictors of performance. May 2011

23. Theoretical Implications • Giving in to cross-examination could be a form of interrogative suggestibility (‘the extent to which people come to accept messages communicated during formal questioning, as a result of which their subsequent behavioural response is affected’), compliance (‘general tendency of individuals to comply with requests and obey instructions that they would rather not do for some immediate instrumental gain’), or acquiescence (‘the tendency to answer questions affirmatively regardless of content’)Gudjonsson, 2003. • The fact that children became more anxious as a result of cross-examination suggests that perhaps they did not come to believe the answers they were giving were correct (i.e. there was no personal acceptance of the proposition or request)? • Our measures of suggestibility (GSS) did not contribute to the regression model. May 2011

24. Other questions ... • Do children know they have changed their answers from their original account during cross-examination and, hence, feel uncomfortable with the interview? • Does the simple fact that someone in authority is telling them indirectly that they were lying cause anxiety? • Do children feel powerless to resist the authority of the barrister and tell their own story? (unlike an ABE interview). • How much does anxiety affect credibility with jurors? (lack of consistency is likely to reduce perceptions of credibility) • What other unmeasured factors might be relevant to cross-examination resilience? (Full regression models accounted for no more than 1/3 of the variance in performance on cross-examination interviews). May 2011

25. Sincere thanks to the staff, parents and children of Marlborough Primary School, Isleworth and Woolgrove School, Hertfordshire. Thanks also to the barristers in training who worked pro bono for this study. May 2011