“That never happened”: Adults' discernment of children's true and false memory reports.

Adults’ evaluations of children’s reports can determine whether legal proceedings are undertaken and whether they ultimately lead to justice. The current study involved 92 undergraduates and 35 laypersons who viewed and evaluated videotaped interviews of 3- and 5-year-olds providing true or false memory reports. The children’s reports fell into the following categories based on a 2 (event type: true vs. false) × 2 (child report: assent vs. denial) factorial design: Accurate reports, false reports, accurate denials, and false denials. Results revealed that adults were generally better able to correctly judge accurate reports, accurate denials, and false reports compared to false denials: For false denials, adults were, on average, “confident” that the event had not occurred, even though the event had in fact been experienced. Participant age predicted performance. These findings underscore the greater difficulty adults have in evaluating young children’s false denials compared to other types of reports. Implications for law-related situations in which adults are called upon to evaluate children’s statements are discussed

Disputant Psychology in International Arbitration: What Can the Comparison with Domestic Arbitration Teach Us?

Item does not contain fulltex

“I Didn’t Do That!” Event Valence and Child Age Influence Adults’ Discernment of Preschoolers’ True and False Statements

Justice can hinge on adults’ abilities to distinguish accurate from inaccurate child testimony. Yet relatively little is known about factors that affect adults’ abilities to determine the accuracy of children’s eyewitness reports. In this study, adults ( N = 108) viewed videoclips of 3- and 5-year-olds answering open-ended and leading questions about positive and negative actually experienced (“true”) events or never experienced (“false”) events that the children either affirmed or denied. Analyses revealed that adults were more accurate at determining the veracity of negative compared with positive incidents, particularly when children said that they had experienced the event. Moreover, adults’ accuracy was at chance for older children’s false denials. Psycholegal implications are discussed. </jats:p

“That never happened”: Adults' discernment of children's true and false memory reports.

Adults’ evaluations of children’s reports can determine whether legal proceedings are undertaken and whether they ultimately lead to justice. The current study involved 92 undergraduates and 35 laypersons who viewed and evaluated videotaped interviews of 3- and 5-year-olds providing true or false memory reports. The children’s reports fell into the following categories based on a 2 (event type: true vs. false) × 2 (child report: assent vs. denial) factorial design: Accurate reports, false reports, accurate denials, and false denials. Results revealed that adults were generally better able to correctly judge accurate reports, accurate denials, and false reports compared to false denials: For false denials, adults were, on average, “confident” that the event had not occurred, even though the event had in fact been experienced. Participant age predicted performance. These findings underscore the greater difficulty adults have in evaluating young children’s false denials compared to other types of reports. Implications for law-related situations in which adults are called upon to evaluate children’s statements are discussed

Discernment of Children's True and False Memory Reports: Police Officers and Laypersons.

Adults' ability to accurately evaluate children's statements can have far-reaching consequences within the legal system. This study examined the evaluations of police officers ("experts") and laypersons ("nonexperts") when presented with videotaped interviews of children aged 3 and 5 years who provided either true or false reports or denials. Participants were drawn from several counties in the eastern United States. Children's interview statements fell within four statement types: accurate reports, false reports, accurate denials, and false denials. Both groups of participants displayed overbelief in false denials. Several control variables predicted accuracy, including children's age and children's race. A significant interaction emerged: Experts (vs. nonexperts) had greater odds of being accurate when judging false reports (vs. false denials). These findings highlight the challenges adults face when distinguishing between various types of children's statements. The results have important implications for legal contexts, emphasizing that fact finders need to be mindful of the risks associated with both overaccepting false denials and accepting false reports