- Anatomically detailed dolls are often used to help young children describe complex and embarrassing events, often related to abuse.
Previous
Research
-Deloache and her collegues placed stickers on children’s bodies, and asked them to show on a doll where the sticker was placed on them. Children between 2.5 and 3.5 years old had difficulty. Points to symbol referant problems. Concluded that children do poorly when using dolls as symbol of a person.
-Bruck et al found that dolls do not increase 3-year-old children’s accuracy in reporting genital or buttock touching. Children were given a routine medical exam and asked to show on a doll where they were touched. Dolls sometimes even increased children’s inaccuracies in this study. Concluded dolls should only be used with great caution.
-Saywitz et al found inaccuracies to be generally absent in 5-7year old girls. Children subjected to a scoliosis exam displayed high accuracy to direct questions. Commission errors present in Bruck study did not surface here. Concluded dolls should only be used in very directive manner.
- Several studies (Goodman & Aman, 1990; Goodman, et al, 1992; Goodman & Clarke-Stewart, 1991) claim children make more omission errors than commission errors.
Goal
of present article
Previous studies had large age spread, and the factor of gender has not been significantly explored.
This study adds 4 year old age group to previous Bruck study for developmental comparison, and increases sample size to allow for more examination of gender differences.
Method
-Subjects
84 total (40 three year olds, 44 four to five year olds).
Three year old group = 24 girls, 16 boys
Four to five year old group = 24 girls, 20 boys
Children randomly assigned to either a genital exam condition (genital exam before interview), or nongenital exam condition (genital exam after interview).
Children were dressed in Mickey Mouse T-shirt, underpants, and pair of white socks.
Pediatrician conducted a routine medical exam, as well as three nonscripted events (not usually occurring in medical exams):
1. Wrapping a ribbon around the child’s wrist
2. Placing a sticker on child’s stomach
3. Tickling childs foot with yellow stick while their socks were on.
Genital exam condition – pediatrician lightly touched the child’s genitals and buttocks.
Child taken into different room and shown a “doctor” doll and an anatomically detailed “child” doll (dressed similarly to child).
Child was asked warm-up questions, then interviewer pointed to buttocks and genitals and asked if the doctor had touched them there (direct questions). Interviewer then redressed doll minus the socks.
Child was asked whether the doctor had used certain instruments on him/her, including the yellow stick, and whether the child had his/her socks on when the yellow stick was in use.
Child then asked two doll-demonstration questions (“Show me on the doll what the doctor did.”)
Child was then asked about a spoon to determine base rates.
Finally, child asked to demonstrate on self the use of instruments.
Results
- Overall, four year olds more accurate than three year olds in showing how doctors used certain unusual props, like stickers. However, no developmental differences could be found in reports of genital and buttock touching.
- Children in both age groups made many errors showing genital and buttock touching on dolls and themselves.
- Children in both age groups showed comparable numbers of sexualized behaviors.
- Errors of omission and commission were comparable.
Discussion
- Previous studies indicate that children are not likely to make commission errors, children in this study were as likely to make omission errors as commission errors. Combination of younger age group and suggestive questioning techniques may explain difference.
- Present study indicates that under certain conditions, dolls may increase inaccuracies in reporting among children. However, because of lack of doll-absent condition, conclusion that the dolls themselves caused inaccuracy cannot be made.
- Reports about bodily touching highly inaccurate in this study, possibly due to suggestive props and suggestive questioning. This supports previous research stating that in certain contexts, bodily touching reports can be highly inaccurate.
- Acceptability of touching has implications on accuracy. Some touching (i.e. toilet assistance) may be viewed as acceptable by young children, and therefore suggestive questioning may lead them to believe that they were touched.
- The researchers attribute children’s errors to poor memories, as well as to the presence of leading questions in the experiment. Questions encouraged children to focus on genital and buttock regions. Also, the novelty of the dolls to the children may have been a factor. Questions also may have placed implicit demands upon children, such as avoiding embarrassment or general confusion.
- Gender differences occurred. Girls demonstrated more sexualized behaviors, possibly due to novelty of dolls, a hypothesis supported by the fact that girls had more overtouching errors in the genital exam condition than boys.
Conclusion
- The use of dolls may not significantly aid in children’s reporting, and under certain circumstances, the dolls may cause children to be less accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|