Jason J. Dickinson

The phenomenology of carryover effects between show-up and line-up identification

This study explored carryover effects from show-ups to subsequent line-up identifications using a novel paradigm in which participants rendered multiple identification judgements. A total of 160 participants studied a series of faces and subsequently viewed a series of target-absent and target-present show-ups. Following a retention interval, participants then made identification judgements from a series of target-absent and target-present line-ups. Remember-Know-Guess judgements were collected to assess the phenomenological basis of carryover effects in face identification. Our results indicated clear carryover effects from show-ups to line-ups, such that repeated exposure to a face increased the likelihood that it would later be identified, regardless of whether or not it had been presented at the time of study. The phenomenological basis for these carryover effects is discussed, as are the implications of these findings for police conduct of multiple eyewitness identification procedures.

Evidence supporting restrictions on uses of body diagrams in forensic interviews.

OBJECTIVE This study compared two methods for questioning children about suspected abuse: standard interviewing and body-diagram-focused (BDF) interviewing, a style of interviewing in which interviewers draw on a flip board and introduce the topic of touching with a body diagram. METHODS Children (N=261) 4-9 years of age individually participated in science demonstrations during which half the children were touched two times. Months later, parents read stories to their children that described accurate and inaccurate information about the demonstrations. The stories for untouched children also contained inaccurate descriptions of touching. The children completed standard or BDF interviews, followed by source-monitoring questions. RESULTS Interview format did not significantly influence (a) childrens performance during early interview phases, (b) the amount of contextual information children provided about the science experience, or (c) memory source monitoring. The BDF protocol had beneficial and detrimental effects on touch reports: More children in the BDF condition reported experienced touching, but at the expense of an increased number of suggested and spontaneous false reports. CONCLUSIONS The two props that are characteristic of BDF interviewing have different effects on testimonial accuracy. Recording answers on a flip board during presubstantive phases does not influence the quality of information that children provide. Body diagrams, however, suggest answers to children and elicit a concerning number of false reports. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Until research identifies procedures and/or case characteristics associated with accurate reports of touching during diagram-assisted questioning, interviewers should initiate discussions about touching with open-ended questions delivered without a body diagram.

Back to the Future: A Comment on the Use of Anatomical Dolls in Forensic Interviews

ABSTRACT Many researchers and interviewers have become disenchanted with the practice of using anatomically detailed (AD) dolls during forensic investigations, yet there is still support for doll-assisted interviews. This comment discusses five major concerns about AD dolls, involving child-related and interviewer-related factors. The research findings suggest that individuals who advocate for AD dolls bear the burden of proving that dolls are the best alternative for eliciting information about personally-experienced events from children.

Comfort drawing during investigative interviews: evidence of the safety of a popular practice.

OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the impact of comfort drawing (allowing children to draw during interviews) on the quality of childrens eyewitness reports. METHODS Children (N=219, 5 to 12 years) who had participated in an earlier memory study returned 1 or 2 years later, experienced a new event, and described these events during phased, investigative-style interviews. Interviewers delivered the same prompts to children in the no drawing and drawing conditions but provided paper and markers in the drawing condition, invited these children to draw, and periodically asked if they would like to make another picture. RESULTS Most children in the drawing condition were interested in using the materials, and measures of eyewitness performance were sensitive to differences in cognitive ability (i.e., age) and task difficulty (i.e., delay between the remote event and interview). Comfort drawing had no overall impact as evidenced by nonsignificant main effects of condition across 20 performance measures, although more of the younger children reported experienced touching in the drawing than no drawing condition. CONCLUSIONS The children successfully divided attention between voluntary drawing and conversations about past events. Importantly, comfort drawing did not impair the amount of information recalled, the accuracy of childrens answers, or even the extent to which interviewers needed to prompt for answers. Due to the large number of analyses, the benefit of drawing for younger, touched children requires replication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Comfort drawing poses no documented risks for typically-developing school-aged children, but the practice remains untested for younger children and those with cognitive impairments.

The influence of disclosure history and body diagrams on children's reports of inappropriate touching: Evidence from a new analog paradigm.

We tested a new paradigm for child eyewitness research that incorporates children’s disclosure histories into analog study designs. Mr. Science—Germ Detective creates meaningful touching experiences and varied patterns of preinterview disclosures by convincing children that touching in the laboratory is potentially contaminating (germy). Children (N = 287, 4 to 8 years) heard that Mr. Science could no longer touch children’s skin and then participated in an educational program involving 2 attempted touches. A week later, their disclosure histories were determined by a phone call that occurred a day before a forensic-style interview in the laboratory. This interview was delivered in 1 of 2 conditions: with early open-ended and more focused prompts delivered without a diagram (conventional-first condition) or with an initial diagram-assisted phase (diagram-first condition). Results confirmed that the new paradigm produces salient touches and performance patterns across open-ended and more focused questions that mirror well-known findings in eyewitness studies. A diagram made it easier for research assistants to elicit detailed reports of touching, but only among children 5 years and older who had not previously disclosed. Accuracy rates were comparable across interview conditions for early substantive phases but declined among older children when interviewers used diagrams to elicit additional reports late in interviews. These findings demonstrate that disclosure history is an important variable to include in analog study designs and confirm that Germ Detective is a promising paradigm for initial tests of new interviewing strategies.