Age Differences in Eyewitness Testimony
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1986
Age Differences in Eyewitness Testimony*
Gail S. Goodmant and Rebecca S. Reed1:
This study examined age differences in eyewitness testimony. Children, three and six years of age, and adults interacted with an unfamiliar man for 5 minutes. Four or five days later, the witnesses answered objective and suggestive questions, recalled what happened, and tried to identify the confederate from a target-present photo line-up. The adults and 6-year-olds did not differ in their ability to answer objective questions or identify the confederate, but 6-year-olds were more suggestible than adults and recalled less about the event. Compared to the older age groups, the 3-year-olds answered fewer objective questions correctly, recalled little about what happened, and identified the confederate less frequently. In addition, they were the most suggestible. The experiment extends our knowledge of children's ability to provide accurate eyewitness reports to a very young age group and to a situation in which participants are not merely bystander witnesses but instead directly interact with the confederate.
INTRODUCTION
Children, like adults, witness and fall victim to crime. When they do, children's statements may serve as important information in police investigations; if the case goes to trial, children may be called to testify. Children provide eyewitness reports about a wide variety of criminal acts (e.g., sexual assult, murder, kidnapping) and have testified in courts of law for centuries (see Goodman, 1984a), but recent increases in reported crimes against children have heightened concerns about their ability to provide accurate eyewitness testimony. These concerns rest
* The authors would like to thank: Cathy Clark for research assistance; Walter Houghtaling for serving as the confederate; Donald Mulnix, Chief of the Investigative Division of the Denver Police Department, for stimulus materials; and Darleen Yorty, Director
Age Differences in Eyewitness Testimony*
Gail S. Goodmant and Rebecca S. Reed1:
This study examined age differences in eyewitness testimony. Children, three and six years of age, and adults interacted with an unfamiliar man for 5 minutes. Four or five days later, the witnesses answered objective and suggestive questions, recalled what happened, and tried to identify the confederate from a target-present photo line-up. The adults and 6-year-olds did not differ in their ability to answer objective questions or identify the confederate, but 6-year-olds were more suggestible than adults and recalled less about the event. Compared to the older age groups, the 3-year-olds answered fewer objective questions correctly, recalled little about what happened, and identified the confederate less frequently. In addition, they were the most suggestible. The experiment extends our knowledge of children's ability to provide accurate eyewitness reports to a very young age group and to a situation in which participants are not merely bystander witnesses but instead directly interact with the confederate.
INTRODUCTION
Children, like adults, witness and fall victim to crime. When they do, children's statements may serve as important information in police investigations; if the case goes to trial, children may be called to testify. Children provide eyewitness reports about a wide variety of criminal acts (e.g., sexual assult, murder, kidnapping) and have testified in courts of law for centuries (see Goodman, 1984a), but recent increases in reported crimes against children have heightened concerns about their ability to provide accurate eyewitness testimony. These concerns rest
* The authors would like to thank: Cathy Clark for research assistance; Walter Houghtaling for serving as the confederate; Donald Mulnix, Chief of the Investigative Division of the Denver Police Department, for stimulus materials; and Darleen Yorty, Director
References: Bartlett, E (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press. Berliner, L., & Barbieri, M. K. (1984). The testimony of the child victim of sexual assault. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 125-137. Binet, A. (1900). La suggestibilite. Paris: Schleicher-Freres. Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177-220. Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., & Martinez, D. (1983). The effect of arousal on facial recognition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 279-293. Brown, A. L. (1979). Theories of memory and the problem of development: Activity, growth, and knowledge. In E I. M. Craik & L. S. Cermak (Eds.). Levels of processing and memory. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum. Bulkley, J. (1982). Intrafamily child sexual abuse cases. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association. Bulkley, J. (1983). Evidentiary theories for admitting a child 's out-of-court statement of sexual abuse at trial. In J. Bulkley (Ed.), Child sexual abase and the law (pp, 153-165). Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association. Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1983). Accessory-to-sex: Pressure, sex, and secrecy. In A. W. Burgess, A. N. Groth, L. L. Holmstrom, & S. M. Sgroi (Eds.), Sexual assault of children and adolescents (pp. 85-98). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Carey, S., Diamond, R., & Woods, B. (1980). Development of face recognition--a maturational component. Developmental Psychology, 16, 257-269. Chance, J. E., & Goldstein, A. G. (1984). Face recognition memory: Implications for children 's eyewitness testimony. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 69-85. Chi, M. M. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory development. In R. Siegler (Ed.), Children 's thinking: What develops? (pp. 73-96). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum. Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66. 364-370. Cohen, R. L., & Harnick, M. A. (1980). The susceptibility of child witnesses to suggestion. Law and Human Behavior, 4(3), 201-210. Dale, E S., Loftus, E. E, & Rathbun, L. (1978). The influence of the form of the question on the eyewitness testimony of preschool children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7, 277-289. Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979a). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 41-51. Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979b). Identification evidence: Experimental investigations of factors affecting the reliability of juvenile and adult witnesses. In D. E Farrington, K. Hawkins, & S. M. Lloyd-Bostock (Eds.), Psychology, law, and legal process (pp. 195-206). Atlantic Highlands, N J: Humanities Press. Duncan, E. M., Whitney, E, & Kunen, S. (1982). Integration of visual and verbal information in children 's memory. Child Development, 83, 1215-1223. Eagty, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologis, 38, 971-981. Feinman, S., & Entwhistle, D. R. (1976). Children 's ability to recognize other children 's faces. Child Development, 47, 506-510. Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control of hierarchies of skill. Psychological Review, 87, 477-531. Flavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Engelwood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Flin, R. (1980). Age effects in children 's memory for unfamiliar faces. Developmental Psychology, 16, 373-374. Gelles, R. J. (1984). Child abuse in the context of violence in the family and society. In D. Bross (Ed.), Multidisciplinao, advocacy for mistreated children (pp. 1-26). Denver, CO: National Association of Counsel for Children. Goodman, G. S. (1984a). Children 's testimony in historical perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 9-31. 332 GOODMAN AND REED Goodman, G. S. (1984b). The child witness: Conclusions and future directions for research and legal practice. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 157-175. Goodman, G. S., Golding, J. M., & Haith, M. M. (1984). Jurors ' reactions to child witnesses. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 139-156. King, M. A. (1984). An investigation of the eyewitness abilities of children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Canada. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells. G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70. 556-564. Loftus, E. E (1979). The malleability of human memory. American Scientist, 67, 312-320. Loftus, E. E, & Burns, T. E. (1982). Mental shock can produce retrograde amnesia. Memo~ and cognition, 10(4), 318-323, Loftus, E. E, & Davies, G. (1984). Distortions in children~ memory. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 51-67. Mandler, J. M. (1983). Representation. In J. Flavell & E. Markman (Eds.). Vol. 4 of E Mussen (Ed.). Handbook of child psychology (pp. 420-494). New York: Wiley. Marin, B. V., Holmes, D. L., Gutb, M., & Kovac E (1979). The potential of children as eyewitnesses: A comparison of children and adults on eyewitness tasks. Law and Haman Behavior, 3. 295-305. Melton, G., Bulkley, J., & Wulkan, D. (1983). Competency of children as witnesses. In J. Bulkley (Ed.), Child sexual abuse and the law (pp. 125-145), Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association. Myers, N. A., & Perlmutter, M. (1978). Memory in the years from two to five. In E Ornstein (Ed.), MemoJy development in children (pp. 139-145). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum. Nelson, K. (1983). The derivation of concepts and categories from event representations. In E. K. Scholnick (Ed.). New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget 's theo13"? (pp. 131-150). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum. Pear, T. H., & Wyatt. S. (1914). The testimony of normal and mentally defective children. British Journal of Psychology. 3, 388-419. Perlmutter, M. (1984). Continuities and discontinuities in early human memory paradigms, processes. and performance, In R. Kail & N. E. Spear (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on the development ofmemolw (pp. 253-286). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum. Preventing child assault. (November, 1983). Criminal Justice Newsletter, 14, 3. Price, D. W. W. (1984). The development of children 's comprehension of recurring episodes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO. Rex v. Braddon and Speke 9 How. St. Tr. 1127, 1148 (1684). Rex V. Braiser I1 Leach 199, 168 Eng. Rep. 202 (1779). Stern. W. (1910). Abstracts of lectures on the psychology of testimony and on the study of individuality. American Jotunal of Psychology, 21,273-282. Stern, W. (1939). The psychology of testimony, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 34. 3-30. U.S. Department of Justice (1983). Report to the nation on crime and jttstic 'e. Washington. DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 19. Varendonck, J. (191 I). Les temoignages d 'enfants dans un proces retentissant. Archives de Psychologic. 11, 129-171, Whipple, G. M. (1909). The observer as reporter: A survey of the psychology of testimony. Psychological Bulletin, 6, 153-170. Whipple, G. M. (1911). The psychology of testimony. Psychological BuUetin. 8, 307-309. Whipple, G, M. (1912). Psychology of testimony and report. Psychological Btdletin, 9. 264-268. Whitcomb, D., Shapiro, E, R.. & Stellwagen, L. D. (1985). When the victim is a child: Issues for judges and prosecutors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Yarmey, A. D. (1984). Age as a factor in eyewitness memory. In G. L. Wells & E. E Loftus (Eds.), Eyewimess testimony (pp. 142-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. E T. (1982). Police awareness of the fallibility of eyewitness identification, Canadian Police College Journal, 6, 120. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. E T. (1983). Is the study of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp.. 13-40). Chichester: Wiley.