The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children: A synthesis and call for research

被引:57
作者
Brubacher, Sonja R. [1 ]
Poole, Debra Ann [1 ]
Dickinson, Jason J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Cent Michigan Univ, Dept Psychol, Mt Pleasant, MI 48859 USA
[2] Montclair State Univ, Dept Psychol, Montclair, NJ 07006 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Investigative interviewing; Children; Ground rules; Interview instructions; Metacognition; REPEATED QUESTIONS; DONT KNOW; FORENSIC INTERVIEWS; ACCURACY MOTIVATION; HELPING CHILDREN; SPACE ANALYSIS; EVENT REPORTS; KNOWLEDGE; SUGGESTIBILITY; RECALL;
D O I
10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.001
中图分类号
B844 [发展心理学(人类心理学)];
学科分类号
040202 ;
摘要
Guidelines for conducting investigative interviews with children often include instructions that explain the conversational rules of the interview. Despite the widespread and international use of such instructions (also referred to as "ground rules"), the body of research characterizing children's understanding of these rules and documenting the impact of instruction on memory reports is relatively small. We review the use of ground rules in investigative interviews, the developmental differences that likely underlie children's ability to make sense of these rules, and research pertaining to the effects of the ground rules commonly included in interview guidelines on the reports of 3- to 13-year-old children. We then present a study space analysis concerning the five ground rules reviewed: (a) a statement about interviewer naivete regarding the target events, (b) instructions to tell the interviewer when a mistake has been made, (c) cautions that some questions may be repeated, and instructions to say (d) "I don't understand" and (e) "I don't know." The results demonstrate obvious gaps in this body of literature, with only the "I don't know" ground rule having received significant attention. In addition to exploring how individual rules impact interview performance, we encourage more process-oriented studies that relate developmental differences in ground rules benefits to the cognitive processes that underlie rule understanding and implementation. Optimally, this research should identify the most suitable format and placement of instruction in interviews and broaden to more often include field studies of child witnesses. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:15 / 33
页数:19
相关论文
共 112 条
  • [1] Anderson J., 2010, The Thomas M. Cooley Journal of Practical and Clinical Law, V12, P193
  • [2] Anderson J., 2013, APSAC Advisor, V25, P2
  • [3] Anderson J. N., 2014, SOC SOC WORK RES 18
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2011, ACH BEST EV CRIM P G
  • [5] Does a warning help children to more accurately remember an event, to resist misleading questions, and to identify unanswerable questions?
    Beuscher, E
    Roebers, CM
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 52 (03) : 232 - 241
  • [6] Bourg W., 1998, OREGON INTERVIEWING
  • [7] BUSSEY K, 1992, CHILD DEV, V63, P129, DOI 10.2307/1130907
  • [8] Unwarranted assumptions about children's testimonial accuracy
    Ceci, Stephen J.
    Kulkofsky, Sarah
    Klemfuss, J. Zoe
    Sweeney, Charlotte D.
    Bruck, Maggie
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 3 : 311 - 328
  • [9] Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: Evidence from source identification tests
    Chambers, KL
    Zaragoza, MS
    [J]. MEMORY & COGNITION, 2001, 29 (08) : 1120 - 1129
  • [10] Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Children's Knowledge of the Juvenile Dependency Court System
    Cooper, Alexia
    Wallin, Allison R.
    Quas, Jodi A.
    Lyon, Thomas D.
    [J]. CHILD MALTREATMENT, 2010, 15 (03) : 255 - 260