Eyewitness memory (child testimony)

The encoding process, retrieval traces and contextual cues of the newly learned information play significant roles in impairment. The ways that information is encoded can impair the retrieval performance of that information. The better encoding, the better retrieval will be, especially under circumstances of appropriate retrieval traces and sufficient contextual cues.[23] How to retrieve the encoded information, a.k.a. retrieval strategy, is also essential for preventing retroactive interference. The failure in binding and tracking the contextual information has an increased impact on the retroactive interference effect.^[24]

Retroactive interference can also be attributed to personal experiences and memories. The schematic knowledge in memory is useful in forming expectations and drawing inferences for understanding, but it is also able to cause distortion and interference when the encoding information is inconsistent with what has been stored.^[25] In addition, the extent of knowledge stored in memory affects the accuracy of the encoding and storing of information.^[26] Knowing a lot about a subject helps to improve the accuracy of other related subjects. A lack of essential experience can interfere with the processes of learned knowledge and increase the risk of retroactive interference when learning new information about the already learned subject.

Memory capacity involves the state of maturity and

In children, memory capacity, source monitoring, and language development are limited because their brains are not yet mature. These limitations enhance the effect of retroactive interference on the accuracy of a child's eyewitness testimony. For instance, a five-year-old child is generally able to tell the genital contact of a sexual abuse perpetrator, but it is difficult for the child to identify other features such as facial features and clothing due to their underdeveloped memory capacity.^[10] The undeveloped conceptual functions of a child's brain restricts their capacities in object recognition, social cognition, language, and human capacity (the ability to remember the past and imagine the future), and impairs the retrieval and accuracy of their eyewitness memory.^[23]

Due to their young age, children have less personal experience, making them vulnerable to impairments from retroactive interference. Therefore, when used as eyewitnesses, it is less possible for them to encode and store the features of the criminal in an appropriate or sufficient way, which impedes the accuracy of the eyewitness retrieval.^{[citation needed]}

Stress and trauma

The American Psychological Association often claims that emotional events are remembered less accurately than details of neutral or everyday events. Their explanation for why stress and trauma could impair memories under high emotional arousal is a decrease in the available processing capacity which leads to lower memory processing.^[27]

Stressful events can also have positive effects on children. Physiological evidence indicates that stressful events are retained particularly well the more children experience positive events in their lives.^[28]

Other theorists have relied on

In order to help reduce stress and trauma to the child, some studies have shown that good social support during the interviewing process can help children reduce their anxiety. If an interviewer is supportive by smiling, nodding his head and compliments the child during the interviewing process the child's anxiety decreased by a decent margin. The study also showed that the less supportive an interviewer was, the higher the child's anxiety rose.[29]

Early research has studied the impacts of emotion on memory. Sigmund Freud used his psychoanalytic approach to study people with hysteria. Freud found that people are constantly confronted with thoughts and some of the memories are too painful, so people become repressed.^[30]

Another method by Kuehn analyzed the data from police reports about victims experiencing traumatic events. He looked specifically at how capable these victims were in being able to provide a description of the traumatic event in a police report. These victims experienced two homicides, 22 rapes, 15 assaults and 61 robberies, respectively. He found that victims of robberies were able to provide more detailed description for the events than did victims of rape or assault. He also found that people who were injured provided more less of description than non injured people.^[30]

Stress and trauma can also cause create other problems in eyewitness testimonies such as repression. Repression influences eyewitness testimonies because if a child goes through a stressful or traumatic event they will sometimes repress their memories. According to Freud's theory on repression, a repressed memory is the memory of a traumatic event unconsciously retained in the mind, where it is said to adversely affect conscious thought, desire, and action. As a result, children will have trouble recalling this information or accessing it consciously. If a child who has witnessed a traumatic event is used as an eyewitness, they may have a harder time recalling the event due to the possibility of memory repression.

According to the journal of Law and Human Behaviour, children who have been through traumatic events will find it harder to remember a regular event as opposed to a non-traumatic event. In a study conducted by Goodman, they found that non-abused children were more accurate in answering specific questions and made fewer errors in identifying an unfamiliar person in pictures.^[31]

Intelligence

Another factor that has been studied as a contributing variable in the accuracy of child eyewitness testimony is intelligence. Individual differences in intelligence, based on IQ, have been used to explain variances in memory performance among children giving eyewitness testimonies.

The ability for a child to give a free narrative of what happened involves the practice of episodic memory and working memory, which are both influenced by an individual's capacity to cognitively process events.

Further analyses of research concerning intelligence and free recall have shown that there are relatively large differences in intelligence when a positive correlation between recall and intelligence is demonstrated.[34] This implies that intelligence significantly influences child eyewitness memory when comparing high and low levels; however, small differences in intelligence are not significant.^[34]

Another finding in the influence of intelligence on a memory recall in children is that it seems to be age-dependent.^[34] Differences in age group explains the variance in which intelligence has an effect on memory performance. Older children have higher correlations of intelligence and recall, whereas chronological age is more significant of a factor than intelligence for young children's eyewitness memory.^[34] More specifically, a study examining the influence of fluid intelligence on recall of children's eyewitness memory regarding a videotaped event found that there was not a positive relationship between fluid intelligence and free narrative for six- and eight-year-olds; however, the positive relationship was present for ten-year-olds.^[34]

Likewise, in studies of real cases of children testimony, the general finding is that intelligence is a considerable predictor for witness reports for children in their late elementary school years, but not for children up to the age of six.^[33] Therefore, the effect of individual differences in intelligence on eyewitness memory increases with the child's age.^[34]

The range in children's intellectual capacities may explain the positive relationship between intelligence and eyewitness memory.^[33] Intellectually disabled children and children with below average to very low IQ's have been included in studies examining the influence of intelligence on memory recall. It was found that when giving an eyewitness testimony, there is a stronger positive relationship between intelligence and recall for intellectually disabled children, with recall accuracy being poorer with children of lower IQ than for children with average or high intelligence.^[35] A possible explanation for this may be that in comparison to a child of mainstream intelligence, children of lower intelligence encode weaker memory traces of events.^[35]

Another explanation is that individuals with intellectual disabilities have poorer cognitive and language functioning, which would directly impact their performance on memory and language tasks.^[36] A study examining the extent to which the degree of intellectual disability (mild to moderate) has an effect on the relationship between intelligence and witness memory found that there was no significant difference in same-aged children with mild intellectual disabilities (IQ 55-79) and children with normal intelligence (IQ 80-100). Individuals with moderate intellectual disabilities (IQ 40-54) performed significantly worse on almost every eyewitness measure.^[37]

Suggestibility

In general, the judicial system has always been cautious when using children as eyewitnesses resulting in rules that demand all child testimonies be confirmed by designated officials prior to its acceptance as evidence in the court of law.^[38] One of the reasons for this partiality is suggestibility—a state in which a person will accept the suggestions of another person and act accordingly.^[39] With regards to court proceedings, a child's testimony or recollection of an event is especially vulnerable to leading questions.^[38]

Although suggestibility decreases with age, there is a growing consensus that the presence of an interplay between individual characteristics and situational factors may affect suggestibility, in this case, of children. This explains why children of the same age may significantly vary in levels of suggestibility.^[40]

There are several factors that contribute to a child's suggestibility. Age-related differences are often synonymous with developmental differences, though the latter, when not comparing two different age groups, has no effect on a child's suggestibility.^[41] Basically, individual differences between children of the same age group do not play a significant role in a child's level of suggestibility. If there is a difference in suggestibility levels of children that are of the same age, they are most likely due to maturational differences in specific cognitive skills.^[40]

Studies also show that it is not the leading questions themselves that can alter a child's recall of the event, but the event in question. When children are questioned about true events that they actually participated in, they are much more accurate with their answers. With suggested events in which the questioner is suggesting the child may have been involved, children become more suggestible and easier to influence. Younger children also have a larger tendency to change their answers when making "yes," "no," or "I don't know" statements.^[40]

It is yet to be determined whether there is a particular age or level of specific cognitive functioning at which suggestibility becomes more of a universal trait or characteristic; However, a study involving four-year-olds suggests that due to their development of theory of mind, this may be close to the age at which suggestibility begins its 'trait-like' transition.^[40]

Emotion can also make children more suggestible. When using sad stories, children are much more vulnerable to misleading questions than when using angry or happy events. In an experiment, when asked to recall a sad story previously read to them, children were much more descriptive and detailed when answering misleading questions, as opposed to when regular, stories were used.^[42] Very similar results were found in a separate experiment in which stress was induced in children.^[43]

Children were also more likely to agree with misleading questions and more likely to incorporate fabricated details when asked to recall the event. In this experiment using sad, angry or happy stories, it is at age six that the researchers deemed the average age at which suggestibility levels off.

As with most factors that elicit suggestibility, susceptibility to emotional influences decrease with age. Possible reasons for this may be the increase in narrative skill, knowledge, memory abilities, as well as the ability to properly encode memories. It is also implied that older children may be less trusting of adults' omniscience and more willing to contradict them.^[42]

In 1999, Ceci and Scullin developed the Video Suggestibility Scale for Children (VSSC), which measures individual differences in suggestibility in preschool children.^[44] The scale was administered to children of 3–5 years of age.

The results suggested that children tend to respond affirmatively to suggestive questions and change their answers in response to negative ones. Older children were able to recall the events in the video better than younger children, but were also more likely to shift their answers in response to negative feedback. Overall, this scale and study supports Gudjonsson's view that there are at least two basic types of interrogative suggestibility.^[45]

Source misattribution

The concepts of source monitoring and source misattribution have been implicated as a reason for the construction of inaccurate memory reports. Source monitoring refers to understanding the origin of one's memories. Source misattributions are issues in retrieval in which the subject struggles to separate two or more sources of memory; it is not an issue necessarily with the memory itself. In other words, source misattributions are errors in source monitoring. The subject may have trouble discriminating between his or her actual perception of an event and their imagined version of these memories (Ceci et al., 1994). Some research suggests that children have more issues with source misattribution compared to adults. Children as old as nine years may have difficulty in discriminating between things they actually did and things that they imagined themselves doing (Foley & Johnson, 1985). Ceci et al. (1994) researched source monitoring and source misattributions among pre-school aged children. 96 pre-school aged children from central New York State were chosen to participate. After the main group of children was selected, they were divided into smaller groups based on their ages: the younger group consisted of three- and four-year-olds and the older group consisted of five- and six-year-olds. To carry out the experiment, the children's parents were interviewed to find out about both positive and negative events that did indeed occur in the child's life. The parents were then asked to verify what certain events did not occur in their child's life. Following the parental interview, the children were interviewed and shown a list of events that happened to them and events that did not happen to them. The events that did actually happen to them were quite salient and the events that did not happen to them were very specific. Of the events that did not happen to the children, one of them described the child getting his or her hand caught in a mousetrap and then going to the hospital to get it removed. The other one entailed going on a hot air balloon ride. The children were asked to decide which events actually happened to them and which ones did not. These interviews with the children happened on about seven or eight occasions, each spaced out by approximately a week. The spacing of the interviews is important, as the researchers used timing as a variable that affects source monitoring. At the final interview, a novel interviewer that the children had not met before asked them to elaborate as much as they could about all of the events, both real and imagined. A new interviewer was used so that the answers the children gave were neutral and not influenced by previous interviewers in any way. They were also asked to rate their confidence level for every detail given about each event.

Ceci et al. (1994) hypothesized that the children would confirm the events that did happen and deny the false events that did not happen. However, this was not the case in their findings; both groups of young children had fallen victim to false memories. When analyzing the results for the two different age groups, the effect of age becomes even more apparent. The children from the 3- and 4-year-old group confirmed false events almost twice as often as the 5- and 6-year-old children. To test the child's apparent credibility, the researchers had over 100 professionals in the field of psychology view recordings of the children during their final session recounting both the actual and false memories. As it happened, many of these professionals were fooled by the children's recounts and were unable to distinguish the false memories from the real ones (Ceci et al., 1994).

Script-based inferences

Erskine, Markham, and Howie (2001) discuss script-based inferences and their effects on memory retrieval and eyewitness testimony. Scripts are schemas for specific events that are constructed from experience (Lindsay, J., 2014). For example, when you walk into a restaurant, you generally know to tell the host or hostess the number of people in your party; once you are seated at your table, you know you must decide what to order. These commonly known actions are part of the general restaurant script. Scripts are usually beneficial in that they help organize one's thoughts and they facilitate a better understanding of a situation (Abelson, 1981). However, these script biases can also have effects that are damaging in the retrieval of accurate memories. Scripts can lead people to report details of events that did not happen, even if those details fit with the script of the event.

Erskine, Markham, and Howie (2001) studied how scripts can affect accurate memory retrieval. A group of 60 5- and 6-year-olds and a group of 60 9- and 10-year-olds were shown one of two slide sequences portraying eating at a McDonald's. McDonald's was chosen because it is a script that most American children reliably have in their cognition starting from around age 4. Half of the younger group and half of the older group were shown a slide sequence in which three script-central details were left out of the sequence. A central detail could be ordering the food at the counter or eating the food in the restaurant. The other half of the participants were shown a slide sequence in which three script-peripheral details were left out. A peripheral detail could be spilling a drink or tying a shoelace. These details did not infringe upon the traditional McDonald's script, but they are not inherently a central part of the script either. Once the children had seen the slide sequence, they were placed into one of two delay conditions: within 90 minutes of viewing the slides, or a week after viewing the slides. After the delay, they were asked to recall the slide sequence.

This study provided evidence that children will utilize scripts to make inferences about parts of a story (Erskine, Markham, & Howie, 2001). The researchers found that children in the younger group, the 5- and 6-year-olds, used incorrect script inferences more often than the children in the older group, the 9- and 10-year-olds. Additionally, the younger children did worse in both the immediate recall condition and the week-long delay condition. Both age groups used significantly more script inferences when they were asked to recall the slide sequence a week later compared to the 90-minute delay. These results were found for recall of script-central details. Neither the older nor the younger groups made a significant number of errors in recalling the script-peripheral details.

Socially encountered misinformation

Socially encountered misinformation also has the potential to distort children's memories. The misinformation effect occurs when our recall of a memory becomes distorted because of new information introduced after the initial event (Weiten, 2010). This is an extremely important topic to research, as in the judicial process misinformation is often disclosed during the initial interview phase. The interview is also the phase in which witnesses, specifically children, are most susceptible to suggestibility. A study conducted by Akehurst, Burden, and Buckle (2009) investigated the impact of socially supplied misinformation on children. Children witnessed an event and subsequently were exposed to two different types of misinformation about the event they saw: one from another person, a co-witness to the event, and one in the form of written information in either a newspaper or a magazine. The researchers thought that the children who received misleading information, both written and verbal, would be more suggestible than those who were not exposed to misleading information. First, they hypothesized that the children who were exposed to the misleading verbal information would be more susceptible to suggestion compared to the children who were exposed to the written misinformation (Akehurst, Burden, and Buckle, 2009). In addition to the different methods of delivery of the misinformation, Akehurst, Burden, and Buckle wanted to investigate the effects of time delay on the suggestibility of children. They hypothesized that after three months, the way in which the misinformation was delivered to the child would not matter as much, and the strength of the memory trace would become more prominent.

To carry out the experiment, Akehurst, Burden, and Buckle had a total of 105 participants aged between 9–11 years. These participants were shown a video of a woman arriving at the dentist for dental surgery, checking in at reception, and having her teeth looked at by the dentist. The woman was portrayed as afraid of the dentist, so the video had a negative emotional quality. After viewing the video, the children were given misinformation about the event either verbally or written based on the condition that they were placed in. In the written narrative condition, misinformation was introduced, such as mislabeling the color of the woman's coat or mentioning that she was wearing glasses when she was not. In the co-witness, verbal misinformation condition, a confederate recited the same misinformation that was in the narrative condition. The only difference between the two conditions was the method in with the misinformation was delivered. The participants were interviewed twice following the receipt of the misinformation: once immediately after, and then three months later. In these interview sessions, the participants were asked to answer questions about the event solely based on what they had seen in the video.

Akehurst, Burden, and Buckle's (2009) study of misinformation provided evidence that 9- to 11-year-old children can be susceptible to suggestion and misinformation under the right conditions. The children were most susceptible in the interview right after they were given the misinformation, both verbally and written. This finding corresponds to their second hypothesis. Additionally, Akehurst, Burden, and Buckle (2009) found that children in the condition where the misinformation was provided socially and verbally via a confederate were more susceptible to recalling the misleading information compared to the children who received the misinformation in a written narrative, which corresponds to their first hypothesis. According to Tajfel and Turner (1986), people are more likely to believe information that they receive through a social route because of a need to affiliate with others. Children are specifically susceptible to social misinformation because they generally believe in the authority of adults simply based on the age difference. Thus, the effects of misinformation can be reduced if the misleading information is not provided socially (Akehurst, Burden, and Buckle, 2009).

From childhood to adolescence

In general, adolescents are far more trustworthy eyewitnesses than children. They are already fully mature in terms of cognition (i.e. narrative skills, memory recall and encoding, etc.) Researchers found that the ability to recall single pieces of spatial information developed until ages 11 to 12, while the ability to remember multiple units of information developed until ages 13 to 15. However, strategic self-organized thinking, which demands a high level of multi-tasking skill, continues to develop until ages 16 to 17.

The frontal lobe and prefrontal cortex continues to develop until late adolescence, depending on the complexity of the task. When accomplishing complicated tasks, teenagers are still developing the cognitive skills necessary to efficiently manage multiple pieces of information simultaneously. These skills improve over time as the connections between brain cells become more refined, enabling more information to be simultaneously managed.^[46]

In regards to credibility as an eyewitness, adolescents are no longer easy to manipulate and are not suggestible like young children. This is due to obvious cognitive factors, as well as maturation as a person. Young children look at adults as powerful and extremely knowledgeable whereas adolescents are not so intimidated when questioned by adults.^[47]

However, this does not mean that adolescents are invincible and impermeable when on the stand. Because adolescents have much more experience in the world, their knowledge may actually hinder their eyewitness performance. When asked about details of a story or movie that was just read or watched, college students were just as likely as sixth graders to produce detailed, but false additions.^[43] This study further explains that this is a result of behavioural scripts. They used inferences from what they already knew about people, actions, and situations and acted based on their instincts.

For example, when asked about a movie about cheating on tests, the college students added details explaining why the student cheated although it was not included in the film. They described the thoughts and feelings of the student because they are able to draw from their own separate experiences and knowledge of the situation. However, third graders were found to be less suggestible in questioning due to their limited knowledge as well as their limited script involving cheating.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• Eyewitness identification
• Eyewitness memory
• Eyewitness testimony
• Memory development

External links

• The Interaction Between Children's Developmental Capabilities and the Courtroom Environment: The Impact on Testimonial Competen

References