Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 11:20:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maggie Bruck 
Subject: kelly2
To: harris@MIT.EDU
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE


Kelly Part II

A recent study by Tobey and Goodman (1992) suggests that=20
interviews by high status adults who make such statements may=20
have negative effects on the accuracy of children's reports.  In=20
their study, 4-year-olds played a game with a research assistant=20
who was called a "baby-sitter".  Eleven days later, the children=20
returned to the laboratory.  Half of the children met a police=20
officer who said

"I am very concerned that something bad might have happened the=20
last time that you were here.  I think that the babysitter you saw here=20
last time might have done some bad things and I am trying to find=20
out what happened the last time you were here when you played=20
with the babysitter.  We need your help.  My partner is going to=20
come in now and ask you some questions about what happened."

A research assistant dressed-up as a police officer then=20
questioned these children.  The other children never met the=20
police officer; they were only questioned by a neutral interviewer=20
about what happened with the baby-sitter. When the children=20
were asked to tell everything they could remember, the children=20
in the police condition gave fewer accurate statements and more=20
inaccurate statements than children in the neutral condition. =20
Two of the 13 children in the police condition seemed to be=20
decisively misled by the suggestion that the baby sitter had done=20
something bad.  One girl said to her mother, "I think the baby-
sitter had a gun and was going to kill me."  Later, in her free=20
recall, the same child said, "That man he might try to do=20
something bad to me....really bad, yes siree."  The second child=20
inaccurately reported his ideas of what something bad might be, =20
by saying "I fell down, I got lost, I got hurt on my legs, and I cut=20
my ears." =20
Goodman (1993) summarizes these findings as follows:=20
=20
"One should be concerned not only with the actual questions but=20
also with the context of the interview.  An accusatory or intimidating=20
context leads to increased errors in children's reports (p. 15)."
(FOOTNOTE.  Note the discrepancy between Goodman's=20
interpretations of her own results and that of the district attorney =20
(see p. 45 supplemental brief).

Another feature of some of the Wee Care interviews was that=20
there was often more than one adult questioner present in the=20
interview.  One might argue that this might be a safe-guard to=20
ensure that the child tells the truth--especially if one of the=20
adults is the child's parent.  However, it also seems that=20
additional adults merely multiply the number of questions that=20
the child is asked about the same theme-"Tell us how you were=20
sexually abused by Kelly".  And these increased questions may=20
increase children's willingness to defer to the adults' agenda=20
rather than to their own memories of whether an event actually=20
occurred.

In the following 13C is interviewed by Fonelleras  (L) and=20
Detective Mastroangelo (R)

L:  What little girls did she do that to?
13C: (names a child)
L:  Who?
13C:  (repeats)
L:  really
R:  You want to show us again what she did with the fork?
L:  Show us again what you just showed us
R:  She put the fork where?
13C:  The vagina
R:  OK, whose vagina?
13C:  um
R:  Do you know.  Who, honey?
13C:  Down there.
L:  OK but who's this little girl?
13C:  Huh?

7.  The Effects of Stereotype Inducement
As we have argued above, suggestions do not have to=20
necessarily be in the form of an explicit (mis)leading question=20
such as, "Show me how she touched your bottom."  One component=20
of a suggestive interview involves the induction of stereotypes. =20
That is, if a child is repeatedly told that a person "does bad=20
things", then the child may begin to incorporate this belief into=20
his or her reports.  As the following two studies demonstrate,=20
stereotype induction can have a very powerful effect on children's=20
subsequent reports.
In the first study (Lepore & Sesco, in press), children ranging in=20
age from 4- to 6-years old played some games with a man called=20
Dale.  Dale played with some of the toys in a researcher's=20
laboratory room and he also asked the child to help him take off=20
his sweater.  Later, an interviewer asked the child to tell her=20
everything that happened when Dale was in the room.  For half the=20
children, the interviewer maintained a neutral stance whenever=20
they recalled an action.  For the remaining children,  the=20
interviewer re-interpreted each of the child's responses in an=20
incriminating way by stating, "He wasn't supposed to do or say=20
that.  That was bad.  What else did he do?"  Thus, in this=20
incriminating condition, a negative stereotype was induced.  At=20
the conclusion of these incriminating procedures, the children=20
heard three misleading statements about things that had not=20
happened ("Didn't he take off some of your clothes, too?",  "Other=20
kids have told me that he kissed them, didn't he do that to you?"=20
and, "He touched you and he wasn't supposed to do that, was he?") =20
All children were then asked a series of direct questions,=20
requiring "yes" or "no" answers, about what had happened with=20
Dale. =20
 Children in the incriminating condition gave many more=20
inaccurate responses to the direct yes-no questions than children=20
in the neutral condition.  Interestingly, 1/3 of the children in the=20
incriminating condition embellished their responses to these=20
questions, and the embellished responses were always in the=20
direction of the incriminating suggestions.  The question that=20
elicited the most frequent embellishments was:  "Did Dale ever=20
touch other kids at the school?"  Embellishments to this question=20
included information about who Dale touched (e.g., "He touched=20
Jason, he touched Tori, and he touched Molly."), where he touched=20
them (e.g., "He touched them on their legs."), how he touched them=20
(e.g., "....and some he kissed....on the lips"), and how he took their=20
clothes off ("Yes, my shoes and my socks and my pants.  But not=20
my shirt.").  When they were re-interviewed one week later,=20
children in the incriminating condition continued to answer the=20
yes/no questions inaccurately and they continued to embellish=20
their answers.=20
The second study also demonstrates the powerful effects of=20
stereotype inductions especially when these are paired with=20
repeated suggestive questioning.  A stranger named Sam Stone=20
paid a two-minute visit to preschoolers (aged 3 to 6 years) in=20
their daycare center (see Leichtman & Ceci, in press).  Following=20
Sam Stone's visit, the children were asked for details about the=20
visit on 4 different occasions over a 10-week period.  During=20
these 4 occasions, the interviewer refrained from using=20
suggestive questions.  She simply encouraged children to describe=20
Sam Stone's visit in as much detail as possible.  One month=20
following the fourth interview, the children were interviewed a=20
fifth time, by a new interviewer who asked about two "non-
events" which involved Sam doing something to a teddy bear and a=20
book.  In reality, Sam Stone never touched either one.  When asked=20
in the fifth interview: "Did Sam Stone do anything to a book or a=20
teddy bear?" most children rightfully replied "No."  Only 10% of=20
the youngest (3 to 4-year- old) children's answers contained=20
claims that Sam Stone did anything to a book or teddy bear. When=20
asked if they actually saw him do anything to the book or teddy=20
bear, as opposed to "thinking they saw him do something," or"=20
hearing he did something," now only 5% of their answers=20
contained claims that anything occurred.  Finally, when these 5%=20
were gently challenged ("You didn't really see him do anything to=20
the book/the teddy bear, did you?") only 2.5% still insisted on the=20
reality of the  fictional event.  None of the older (5 to 6-year-old)=20
children claimed to have actually seen Sam Stone do either of the=20
fictional events.
A second group of preschoolers were presented with a=20
stereotype of Sam Stone before he ever visited their school.  Each=20
week, beginning a month prior to Sam Stone's visit, these children=20
were told a new Sam Stone story, in which he was depicted as=20
very clumsy.  For example: =20

You'll never guess who visited me last night. [pause] That's right.=20
Sam Stone! And guess what he did this time?  He asked to borrow=20
my Barbie and when he was carrying her down the stairs, he tripped=20
and fell and broke her arm.  That Sam Stone is always getting into=20
accidents and breaking things!

Following Sam Stone's visit, these children were given 4=20
suggestive interviews over a ten-week period.  Each suggestive=20
interview contained two erroneous suggestions, one having to do=20
with ripping a book and the other with soiling a teddy bear (e.g.,=20
"Remember that time Sam Stone visited your classroom and=20
spilled chocolate on that white teddy bear? Did he do it on=20
purpose or was it an accident?" and  "When Sam Stone ripped that=20
book, was he being silly or was he angry?").
Ten weeks later, when a new interviewer probed about these=20
events ("Did anything happen to a book?" "Did anything happen to a=20
teddy bear?"), 72% of the youngest preschoolers claimed that Sam=20
Stone did one or both misdeeds, a figure that dropped to 44% when=20
asked if they actually saw him do these things.  Importantly, 21%=20
continued to insist that they saw him do these things, even when=20
gently challenged.  The older preschoolers, though more accurate,=20
still included some children (11%) who insisted they saw him do=20
the misdeeds.
Stereotype induction was rampant in the initial Wee Care=20
interviews.  The interviewers explicitly repeated in various=20
interviews that Kelly was bad.  Based on analyses of the existing=20
interviews, the investigator told 15 of the 34 interviewed=20
children that Kelly was in jail because she had done bad things. =20
The investigators told the children that they needed their help to=20
keep Kelly in jail.  The investigators also promoted fear by asking=20
leading questions about whether Kelly had threatened them or=20
their families if they were to tell on her.  Sometimes the=20
investigators suggested that she had claimed to have=20
supernatural powers ("Kelly said a lot of things to some kids and I=20
think that she might have said them to you too, like she had some=20
special powers like she can come through a wall and she could=20
lift our bed and stuff like that...").  The investigators constantly=20
told the children that they were now safe and could talk because=20
Kelly was in jail.
It is interesting that despite these statements that pervaded=20
the interviews, in the  early interviews at least, the children did=20
not completely incorporate the suggested stereotypes of Kelly. =20
Sixteen of the 34 children never said they were afraid of her and=20
the remaining children never volunteered that information.  Some=20
children claimed that Kelly was bad, but these claims were never=20
completely justified by the children.  For example, in one of the=20
few examples we have of two transcribed interviews for the=20
same child, we see that in the first of the transcribed interviews=20
(but not the first interview) the child is repeatedly asked about=20
bad things that Kelly did.  She denies that Kelly did anything bad=20
to her.  In the next (transcribed) interview, the following=20
exchange takes place:

Q:  Was Kelly a good girl or a bad girl?
A:  She was a bad girl.
Q:  She was a bad girl. Were there any other teachers who were bad?
A:  No
Q:  Kelly was the only bad girl?  What did Kelly do that made her a=20
bad girl?
A:  She readed
Q:  She what?
A:  She readed and she came to me and I said no, no, no.
Q:  Did she hurt you?
A:  I hurted her.
Q:  How did you hurt her?
A:  Because I didn't want to write and she write and I said no, no,=20
no, no and I hit her.

When other children made statements that Kelly was bad, it is=20
impossible to tell whether these statements reflect the fact that=20
Kelly actually did bad things or whether these reports reflect the=20
children's adoption of the interviewers' suggested stereotypes of=20
Kelly, an indeterminacy exacerbated by the general absence of=20
recorded initial interviews.=20

8.  The Use of Anatomically Detailed Dolls
Anatomically detailed dolls are frequently used by=20
professionals, including child therapists, police, child protection=20
workers, and attorneys, when interviewing children about=20
suspected sexual abuse.  They were used repeatedly in the=20
interviews with the Wee Care children. =20
One rationale for the use of anatomical dolls is that they allow=20
children to manipulate objects reminiscent of a critical event,=20
thereby cuing recall and overcoming language and memory=20
problems.  Another rationale is that their use is thought to=20
overcome motivational problems of embarrassment and shyness. =20
The dolls have also been used as projective tests.  Some=20
professionals claim that if a child actively avoids these dolls,=20
shows distress if they are undressed, or shows unusual=20
preoccupation with their genitalia, this is consistent with the=20
hypothesis that the child has been abused (see Mason, 1991).=20
The use of anatomically detailed dolls has raised scepticism,=20
however, among researchers and professionals alike. Two related=20
arguments are frequently invoked against their use.  The first is=20
that the dolls are suggestive, that they encourage the child to=20
engage in sexual play even if the child has not been sexually=20
abused (e.g., Gardner, 1989; Terr, 1988).  A child, for instance,=20
may insert a finger into a doll's genitalia simply because of its=20
novelty or "affordance," much the way a child may insert a finger=20
into the hole of a doughnut.  Another criticism is that it is=20
impossible to make firm judgments about children's abuse status=20
on the basis of their doll play because there are no normative=20
data on nonabused children's doll play.  Over the past several=20
years, researchers have conducted a number of studies to address=20
these concerns.
In several studies, researchers have compared the doll play of=20
children suspected of having been sexually abused with children=20
not suspected of having been abused.  In addition, there have been=20
a score of studies examining the doll play of non-abused children. =20
Reviews of this literature (Berry & Skinner, 1993; Ceci & Bruck,=20
1993a; Wolfner, Faust, & Dawes, 1993) indicate that many of the=20
studies are methodologically inadequate and do not allow for firm=20
interpretations about the potential usefulness or risks of using=20
dolls.  Furthermore, other data indicate that some of the play=20
patterns thought to be characteristic of abused children, such as=20
playing with the dolls in a suggestive or explicit sexual manner,=20
or showing reticence or avoidance when presented with the dolls,=20
also occur in samples of nonabused children.
More recent studies have focused on how accurately young=20
preschoolers use dolls to represent themselves.  For example,=20
DeLoache (1993) used dolls to interview 2.5-,  3-,  and 4-year-old=20
children about a play session they had had with a male=20
experimenter.  The dolls did not help the children report their=20
experiences.  The younger children in particular gave fuller and=20
more accurate accounts of where they had been touched without=20
the dolls than they did with the dolls.  When asked to place=20
stickers on the doll in the same places that stickers had been=20
placed on their own bodies, the younger children were not very=20
successful.  Indeed, many of the children did not seem to realize=20
that they were supposed to treat the doll as a representation of=20
themselves.  Further, several children in this and a subsequent=20
on-going study rejected the suggestion that they "pretend that=20
this doll is you."  This last finding is important, since a=20
reluctance to play with dolls in forensic or therapeutic interview=20
sessions is often taken as a possible indicant of abuse.  Generally=20
these results indicate that very young children may not have the=20
cognitive sophistication to use a doll to represent their own=20
experiences.  Hence, the use of dolls may actually impede or=20
distort, rather than facilitate and clarify, their ability to provide=20
accurate testimony.
Two studies have examined how accurately non-abused children=20
use the dolls to show how they were touched during a pediatric=20
visit.  In both studies, half the children received genital=20
examinations and half did not.  If the dolls provide children with a=20
tool that will allow them to overcome their shyness, and=20
embarrassment concerning sexual matters, then reports of=20
genital touching should be more accurate when children are=20
allowed to re-enact events with the dolls.  The results of both=20
studies fail to support this hypothesis.  The first study included =20
5- and 7-year old girls (Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas & Moan,=20
1991).  When the children were asked for a verbal report of their=20
genital examination, 78% of the children who had received a=20
genital examination failed to disclose genital touching.  When=20
given the opportunity to provide the same information with the=20
dolls ("Show me with the dolls what happened"), 83% of these=20
children failed to disclose genital touching.  However, when the=20
experimenter pointed to either the genitalia or buttocks of the=20
doll and asked a direct question, "Did the doctor touch you here?",=20
only 22% of the responses were incorrect denials.  Children who=20
did not receive a genital examination never made a false report in=20
the verbal free recall or doll enactment conditions.  However,=20
when the experimenter pointed to the genital or anal region of the=20
doll and asked, "Did the doctor touch you here?", 9% of these=20
children inaccurately claimed that they had been touched.  These=20
results indicate that regardless of interviewing technique,  5-=20
and 7- year old children rarely make false reports about genital=20
touching.  These data also indicate that the dolls do not assist the=20
children to divulge potentially embarrassing material, unless the=20
interviewer uses highly directive questioning.  As the next study=20
shows, however, a very different pattern of results is obtained=20
for younger children.=20
Three-year old children visited their pediatrician for their=20
annual check-up (Ceci & Bruck,1993b).  Half the children received=20
a genital examination where the pediatrician gently touched their=20
buttocks and genitals.  The other children were not touched in=20
these areas.  Immediately after the examination, an experimenter=20
pointed to the genitalia or buttocks of an anatomically detailed=20
doll and asked the child, "Did the Doctor touch you here?"  Only=20
45% of the children who received the genital exam correctly=20
answered yes; and only  50% of the children who did not receive a=20
genital exam correctly answered "No" (i.e. 50% of these children=20
falsely reported touching).  When the children were simply asked=20
to "Show on the doll" how the doctor had touched their buttocks or=20
genitalia, accuracy did not improve.  Now only 25% of the children=20
who had received genital examinations correctly showed how the=20
pediatrician had touched their genitals and buttocks.  Accuracy=20
decreased in part because a significant number of female=20
subjects inserted their fingers into the anal or genital cavities of=20
the dolls; the pediatrician never did this.  Only 45% of the=20
children who did not receive genital examinations were accurate=20
by not showing any touching.  That is 55% of the children who did=20
not receive genital examinations falsely showed either genital or=20
anal touching when given the dolls.  Thus these data indicate that=20
three-year-old preschool children are inaccurate when reporting=20
how and where they were touched, even when the touching=20
occurred five minutes prior to the interview.  Children who were=20
not touched demonstrated on the dolls that they were touched and=20
children who were touched either refused to admit that they were=20
touched, or at the other extreme they showed penetration when=20
none had occurred.  The use of the dolls increases this type of=20
inaccurate reporting in three-year-old children.
The interview procedures in this study also elicited a number=20
of other behaviors that adults might interpret as sexual.  When=20
the children were given a stethoscope and asked to show what the=20
doctor did with it, some children incorrectly showed that he used=20
the instrument to examine their genitals.  The children were also=20
shown a small spoon and asked whether the doctor had used it=20
(the doctor had not used a spoon).  A number of the children were=20
inaccurate, stating that he had given them medicine with it.  The=20
children were then asked one time, "How might he use this=20
spoon?"  A small but significant number of children (18%)=20
inserted the spoon into the genital or anal openings or hit the=20
doll's genitals.
These "sexualized" behaviors do not reflect three-year-old=20
children's sexual knowledge or experiences but two other factors. =20
First, the types of questions and props used in the interviews=20
(asking children to name body parts, including genitals, showing=20
children anatomically detailed dolls and asking children to=20
manipulate these dolls) make the children come to think that it is=20
not only permissible but it is expected to respond to the=20
interviewers' questions using these same terms.  Second, the=20
children insert fingers or objects into the dolls openings for the=20
same reasons they would insert a finger into the hole of a=20
doughnut;  it is there, it is something to manipulate.
In the initial interviews with the Wee Care children,=20
anatomically detailed dolls were shown to the children before=20
they said anything about abuse in 24 of the 39 interviews.  Most=20
of the leading and suggestive aspects of the transcribed=20
interviews involve the interviewers' interactions with the dolls=20
and their asking children sexualized questions in the contexts of=20
the demonstrations with the dolls.  In 17 of the 39 sessions=20
silverware was given to the children with dolls.  The children=20
were asked such questions as: =20

Interviewer: Did Kelly ever do anything to you with a knife that hurt=20
you ?
Child: No.
Interviewer:  Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a spoon?=20
Child: No.
Interviewer:  Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a knife?=20
Child: No.
 Interviewer  Okay. What about a wooden spoon? =20
Child:  No.

Children were asked to speculate about how silverware could=20
have been used. =20

Interviewer:  Why don't you show me how you think a little girl can=20
be hurt by the fork?
And

Interviewer:  Why don't you show me what Kelly did with the big=20
wooden spoon.

Often, as shown above, the children resisted these suggestions,=20
but sometimes after much repetition, the children responded by=20
poking the silverware into the genitalia or buttocks of the doll:

Interviewer:  Can you think of a way somebody might have used=20
this to hurt little girls?
Child:  (indicates the tummy)
Interviewer:  Where else do you think a little girl could have gotten=20
hurt with a wooden spoon?
Child:  The belly button.
Interviewer:  Where else do you think a little girl might get hit with a=20
wooden spoon?  How do you think Kelly used this fork to hurt little=20
girls?
Child:  Belly button.
Interviewer:  Where else?

(finally after many more persistent questions)
Child:.Bottom.=20

Researchers Bruck & Ceci, were much more successful than the=20
Wee Care interviewers in eliciting sexualized reports from=20
children when they were first asked how one might use a spoon! =20
Remember, the three-year-old children in the Bruck and Ceci=20
study were only asked one time about how a spoon might be used.
There are difficulties in drawing parallels between the=20
behaviors of children in research studies and the behaviors of=20
children in actual forensic contexts or clinical settings. =20
Transcripts of some of these sessions with children suspected of=20
having been sexually abused reveal the following practices by=20
interviewers: naming the dolls after defendants (In 12 of the=20
transcribed interviews, Wee Care investigators named a doll=20
Kelly rather than allowing the child to do so); berating the dolls=20
for alleged abuses against the child (e.g., shaking a finger at the=20
male doll who has been named after the defendant, and yelling:=20
"You are naughty for hurting Jennifer!"); assuming the role of=20
fantasy characters in doll play; creating a persistent atmosphere=20
of accusation; and asking a stream of suggestive questions that=20
reflect the sexual knowledge of the adult interviewer (ROBERT=20
PUT IN EXAMPLES OF THESE).  Non-abused children in research=20
studies were never subjected to such highly suggestive=20
experiences; they were never given prior motivation to play with=20
the dolls suggestively or aggressively.  If they had been, it is=20
possible that their play with the dolls would contain many=20
explicit sexual events, reflecting prior interviewing techniques=20
rather than sexual abuse.
Because the initial interviews with the Wee Care children=20
were not recorded, we cannot determine how Wee Care children=20
were first interviewed with the dolls and how they responded to=20
their introduction. But we do know from comments in the later=20
transcribed interviews that children had interacted with the=20
dolls on previous occasions.  This raises the issue of whether any=20
sexualized behavior or sexualized reports in the transcribed=20
interviews reflects the children's prior exposure to the dolls=20
rather than their attempt to demonstrate how they were sexually=20
abused.  That is, the dolls may serve as a nonverbal suggestive=20
device which promotes subsequent sexualized play and sexualized=20
verbalizations, none of which are accurate indicators of past=20
abuse.  These concerns are raised by the behavior of one non-
abused child who served as a pilot subject in a study of young=20
children's interactions with anatomically detailed dolls=20
(described in Ceci, in press and Ceci & Bruck1993b).=20
A three-and-a-half year old non-abused girl was examined by a=20
pediatrician.  She was not given a genital examination. =20
Immediately after the examination, when interviewed by the=20
experimenter, she correctly said that the doctor had not touched=20
her genitals or buttocks.  Furthermore, when shown an=20
anatomically detailed doll and told to show how the doctor had=20
touched her genitals and buttocks, she correctly stated that he=20
had not touched her.  Three days later, the same child was given=20
an anatomically detailed doll and asked to show all the things=20
that the doctor had done in her previous visit.  This time, she=20
inserted a stick into the vagina of the doll and said that this had=20
happened at the doctor's office.  However, upon further=20
questioning, she said that the doctor did not do this.  Three days=20
later, the child was asked to use the anatomically detailed doll=20
and to show her father everything that had happened at the=20
examination.  This time, she hammered a stick into the doll's=20
vagina and then inserted a toy earscope into the doll's anus.  When=20
asked if this really happened, she said "Yes it did."  When her=20
father and the experimenter both tried to debrief her with such=20
statements as, "Your doctor doesn't do those things to little girls. =20
You were just fooling.  We know he didn't do those things", the=20
three-year-old  tenaciously clung to her prior claims that she had=20
just demonstrated on the doll (a videotape of this child's doll play=20
is enclosed with the brief. maybe).  Thus, repeated exposure to=20
the doll, with minimal suggestions, resulted in highly sexualized=20
play for this one 3-year-old subject.  Although this pilot=20
observation calls for more systematic research on the influence=20
of repeated exposure to anatomically detailed dolls in interviews=20
with sexual themes, the dramatic and startling results of this=20
one subject demonstrates vividly the potential suggestiveness of=20
anatomical dolls with non-abused 3-year-olds.=20
 Wolfner and his colleagues (993) concluded their recent review=20
article on the use of anatomical dolls with the following=20
statement:
...we are left with the conclusion that there is simply no scientific=20
evidence available that would justify clinical or forensic diagnosis of=20
abuse on the basis of the dolls.  The common counter is that such=20
play is "just one component" in reaching such a diagnosis based on=20
a "full clinical" picture....[Doll] play cannot be validly used as a=20
component, however, unless it provides incremental validity and=20
there is virtually no evidence that it does."(Wolfner, et al.,  p. 9).

Since this statement was written, we now have data on three-
year-old children's interactions with anatomically detailed dolls=20
(Ceci & Bruck, described above).  If replicated, these data would=20
appear to suggest that dolls ought not be used in interviews with=20
young children, as their use promotes sexualized behavior and=20
false reports in non-abused children.=20

9.  Less Invasive Methods:  Source Attribution Errors
In the previous sections, we have presented some of the=20
elements of interviews that may produce inaccurate reporting. =20
To a large extent, these elements are quite salient; their=20
presence can be easily isolated in recorded interviews.  Some=20
authors of this brief have recently conducted three different=20
types of studies that illustrate how suggestions that are=20
delivered in a much milder and less detectible manner can also=20
have repercussions on children's memories and reports.=20
These three studies focus on the theoretical construct of=20
"source attribution error".  This refers to the problems that both=20
children and adults have in separating the sources of their=20
memories.  In some cases, this may be particularly problematic=20
for some children.  For example, 6- and 9- year- old children=20
make more errors than adults when discriminating between=20
actions they performed and actions they merely imagined=20
themselves performing (Foley & Johnson, 1985).  When asked to=20
remember which of two people said what, preschool children have=20
a more difficult time than adults, if the two people speaking=20
share similar physical characteristics (Foley & Johnson, 1985;=20
Lindsay, Johnson, & Kwon, 1991).
Zaragoza and her colleagues (Ackil & Zaragoza, 1993) have used=20
some of these same techniques to explore the basis of children's=20
suggestibility.  In these experiments, subjects viewed a=20
videotape, after which the experimenter read them a summary of=20
the video which contained events that were part of the video as=20
well as events that were not part of the video.  Sometime later,=20
subjects were given a surprise memory test; here they were read=20
a list of events and asked to say whether they remembered seeing=20
the event on the video, or hearing the event from the summary, or=20
both.  The youngest children (6-year-olds) were most prone to=20
confusing actually viewed with suggested (heard) events.  These=20
findings suggest that suggestibility effects reflect young=20
children's susceptibility to serious memory errors, namely the=20
tendency to believe they remembered seeing details that were=20
only suggested to them.  The next two experiments take this=20
paradigm closer to the field of children's testimony in the=20
forensic context.=20
In the following experiment, Poole and Lindsay (unpublished)=20
demonstrated how source attribution errors may occur through=20
subtle interventions, such as parents reading a book to their=20
child.  In this study, preschoolers played with "Mr. Science" for 16=20
minutes in a university laboratory.  During that time the child=20
participated in four demonstrations (e.g, lifting cans with=20
pulleys).  Four months later, the parents were mailed a story book=20
which was specially constructed for each child.  It contained a=20
biographical description of their child's visit to Mr. Science. =20
However, not all of the information was accurate; the story=20
described two of the experiments that the child had seen and it=20
also described two that the child had not seen.  Furthermore, each=20
story finished with the following fabricated account of what=20
happened when it was time to leave the laboratory,
 "Mr Science wiped (child's name) hands and face with a wet-wipe. =20
The cloth got close to (child's name) mouth and tasted really=20
yuckie."

The parents read the story to their children three times.=20
These young children were very susceptible to source=20
attribution errors.  When later interviewed by the experimenters,=20
the children reported that they had participated in=20
demonstrations which had only been mentioned in the stories read=20
to them by their parents.  When asked whether Mr. Science put=20
anything "yuckie" in their mouths, more than half of the children=20
inaccurately replied "yes", and these children elaborated their=20
"yes" answers.  Moreover, inaccurate reports of having something=20
"yuckie" put in their mouths increased on repeated questioning; =20
when asked, "Did Mr. Science put something yuckie in your mouth=20
or did your Mom just read you this in a story?", now 71% of the=20
children said that it really happened.  This study demonstrates=20
how very subtle suggestions can influence children's inaccurate=20
reporting of  non-events which can have a sexual interpretation.
The next study, conducted by Ceci and his colleagues (Ceci,=20
Crotteau, Smith & Loftus, in press) was designed to pursue the=20
question of whether preschoolers exhibit source misattributions=20
when they are repeatedly encouraged to think about events that=20
never occurred.  Each week for 10 consecutive weeks, an=20
interviewer asked preschoolers to think about both actual events=20
that they had experienced in their distant past (e.g., an accident=20
that eventuated in stitches) and fictitious events that they had=20
never experienced (e.g., getting their hand caught in a mousetrap=20
and having to go to the hospital to get it removed; seeing an=20
alligator on a bus with an apple in its mouth).  Each of these=20
events and non-events was wri=06 on a separate card.  The child=20
selected a card, the interviewer would read it aloud, and then ask=20
if the event ever happened.  For example, when the child selected=20
the card that read: "Got finger caught in a mousetrap and had to go=20
to the hospital to get the trap off", the interviewer would ask: =20
"Think real hard, and tell me if this ever happened to you.  Can you=20
remember going to the hospital with the mousetrap on your=20
finger?"  (This study will be henceforth referred to as "The=20
Mousetrap Study".)
After 10 weeks of thinking about both real and fictitious=20
events, these preschool children were interviewed by a second=20
interviewer.  Initially, the interviewer asked:  "Tell me if this=20
ever happened to you: Did you ever get your finger caught in a=20
mousetrap and have to go to the hospital to get the trap off?" =20
Following the child=D5s reply, the interviewer asked for additional=20
details (e.g., "Can you tell me more?").
When exposed to these very mild manipulations, 58% of the=20
preschool children produced false narratives to one or more of=20
these fictitious events; 25% produced false narratives to the=20
majority of them.  Furthermore, the children's reports did not=20
solely contain one word responses; their narratives contained=20
elaborated and embellished descriptions of events that never=20
occurred.  Some accounts were internally coherent, containing not=20
only details and sequences of events that never occurred but also=20
containing descriptions of the child's affect during these non-
events (see enclosed videotape, maybe).
MAKE THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH A FOOTNOTE:  It should be noted=20
that subsequent work with same paradigm indicates that the=20
same quality of false report can be produced in half the time as=20
the original experiment.  Furthermore,  similar patterns of=20
results have been recently reported for adult subjects (e.g.,=20
Hyman et al., 1993; Loftus, 1993).  END OF FOOTNOTE.
These data indicate that children can come to make false=20
reports about non-occurring events, even ostensibly painful=20
bodily events, when suggestions are mildly made in the course of=20
a conversation or a story-telling activity.  If children are=20
repeatedly asked by investigators, therapists, and parents to try=20
to remember "how someone touched you" or "if someone touched=20
your vagina", will children eventually come to make statements=20
that they had been sexually abused, when abuse had never taken=20
place?  Furthermore, when parents or therapists read books with=20
abuse themes to children, do children come to believe what=20
happened in the book actually happened to them? (For example, Dr.=20
Susan Esquilin read Where the Wild Things Are to some the the=20
Wee Care children.  One of the pictures contains a monster with=20
a fork running after a child.  After reading this book, some=20
children began reporting abuse with utensils. ROBERT IS THIS=20
CORRECT??)  There are no data on these important issues. =20
However, the results of the studies that we have just reviewed=20
provide a theoretical and empirical framework for suspecting=20
that such activities=06ld lead to significant source=20
misattributions.=20
Source: geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt/Wee_Care

( geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt) ( geocities.com/jgharris7)