Presented by Megan A. Mooney on February 16, 1999

• Often the "event" about which a child is being questioned does not include personal interaction between the child and an adult. Instead, it is presented in the context of stories, pictures, audiotapes, films, videotapes, slides, or a staged interaction of confederates. The authors contend that these methods may fail to adequately catch children’s attention and interest.
• Studies that did involve direct interaction of a child with an adult were often in situations that have a somewhat routine "script" and thus suggestions of deviation from normal procedures are less likely to create reports of false memories in children.
• Previous research has not evaluated the effect of suggestive interviewing on whether a child keeps a secret when directed to do so by a perpetrator.
• Other studies had only asked the misleading question once during a single interview rather than repeatedly as is often seen in "real" situations. Additionally, the questions asked often utilize syntax that is too complicated for young children to understand.

1. "To explore children’s susceptibility to suggestion about an event that involved a novel and complex interaction with an adult whose intentions were somewhat ambiguous."
2. To evaluate the effect of suggestive interviewing on secret-keeping by children instructed not to tell.
3. Test the effects of persistent suggestive questions containing a common theme and asked by separate interviewers.

Participants: Fifty-six 5-6 year-old children from a "relatively affluent area near the university."

 Method: 3x3x4 Design

Conditions:

1. Janitor’s Actions (cleaning, playing, or secret)
2. Mode of Interrogation (incriminating, neutral, or exculpating)
3. Interviews ("boss," experimenter, parent1, parent2)

Basic Procedure: 1hr. 1 wk.

Kids do memory -> Janitor enters and -> Questioning by ------> Parent

tasks does something all 3 adults interviews

(clean, play, secret) consecutively again

Interviews: The manner in which the interviews were conducted obviously varies by condition. However, all interviews were conducted in a friendly and encouraging manner.

1. Child’s First Account – based on open-ended questions and probes
2. Identifying Inconsistencies – leading questions pointing out inconsistencies with the "suggested interpretation" and hints that the child should reconsider his/her position
3. Affirmation – Leading questions using interviewer’s descriptions of janitor’s actions asking child to affirm
4. Child’s Second Account – child retells in his/her own words account of event
5. Request for Retraction – If new account is inconsistent with the suggested interpretation, the interviewer gently insisted that the child was wrong and urged him/her to "tell the truth"
6. Factual Questions – specific yes/no questions about janitor’s actions
7. Interpretive Questions – questions concerning child’s interpretation of janitor’s actions (whether he meant to clean or play during specific actions)
8. Parental Questioning1 – parents ask rehearsed questions and use a prepared script
9. Parental Questioning2 – about 1 week later parents administer a follow-up questionnaire and mail back

Results:

• Videotapes of children’s open-ended responses are coded on a 5-point scale regarding bias towards cleaning, playing, or neutral.
• "Children questioned in a neutral manner consistently gave accurate accounts of what they had seen, but those questioned in a suggestive manner gave accounts that, over time, became consistent with the interviewer’s suggestions regardless of what they had seen"
• *Significant main effects for janitor’s action, interview style, and interview session
• *Significant two-way interactions between janitor’s action and interview style and between interview style and interview session

• Significant main effects were found for janitor’s action and interview style
• Significant two-way interaction between janitor’s action and interview style

• generally corresponded to what they had seen the janitor do
• Incriminating interviews increased the proportion of answers consistent with playing

• No significant differences b/n the play and secret conditions
• In response to open-ended questions children kept the secret but when an incriminating or exculpating suggestion at the beginning of the interview, children made not attempt to protect the janitor