1. Is the cognitive interview efficient on very young children's ability to testify about an occurrence of a repeated event? Fanny Verkampt, Cindy Colomb, & Magali Ginet Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (CNRS UMR 6024) BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

2. Children as eyewitnesses Odas (National center for social decentralized action)(2001) Free recall - often accurate - few detailed information - generally focused on central elements Questions - more specific information - less accurate  Suggestibility  Assaults often repeated  60%, perpetrator = family member  46%, perpetrator = child’s father  Children’s testimonies = the sole available source of information  Children victims of physical and/or sexual violences  41% under 11 years old  29% under 6 years old Odas (National center for social decentralized action)(2007) 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

3.  Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years old) Children as eyewitnesses input EncodingStorageRetrieval Recall/ communication Less capacity L ess efficient and sophisticated strategies Poor memory organisation (story grammar) L ess efficient and sophisticated strategies Poor memory organisation (story grammar) Limited duration Limited vocabulary Worse understanding of the situation Conversational script unsuitable for II Limited vocabulary Worse understanding of the situation Conversational script unsuitable for II 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

4.  Age differences in eyewitness memory (e.g., 4-5 vs. 9-10 years-old) Children as eyewitnesses input EncodingStorage Retrieval Recall/ communication Less capacity L ess efficient and sophisticated strategies Poor memory organisation (story grammar) L ess efficient and sophisticated strategies Poor memory organisation (story grammar) Limited duration Limited vocabulary Worse understanding of the situation Conversational script unsuitable for II Limited vocabulary Worse understanding of the situation Conversational script unsuitable for II 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

5. Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview Retrieval Recall/ communication Phased (funnel) approach: 1.Rapport-building Establishing rapport Explaining conversational rules 2. Free recall 3. Questioning 4. Closure Phased (funnel) approach: 1.Rapport-building Establishing rapport Explaining conversational rules 2. Free recall 3. Questioning 4. Closure  Cognitive Interview with children (Geiselman & Padilla, 1988; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992) Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) 1.Mental context reinstatement Physical surrounding Internal state 2. Report everything 3. Reverse order 4. Change of perspective Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) 1.Mental context reinstatement Physical surrounding Internal state 2. Report everything 3. Reverse order 4. Change of perspective 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

6. Retrieval Recall/ communication Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) 1.Mental context reinstatement Physical surrounding Internal state 2. Report everything 3. Reverse order 4. Change of perspective Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) 1.Mental context reinstatement Physical surrounding Internal state 2. Report everything 3. Reverse order 4. Change of perspective Phased (funnel) approach: 1.Rapport-building Establishing rapport Explaining conversational rules 2. Free recall 3. Questioning 4. Closure Phased (funnel) approach: 1.Rapport-building Establishing rapport Explaining conversational rules 2. Free recall 3. Questioning 4. Closure FREE RECALL  21% to 27 % correct information (Holliday, 2003b; Geiselman & Padilla, 1988)  specific information (location, person, object, action) (e.g., Holliday, 2003a, 2003b) QUESTIONING  suggestibility to misleading questions (e.g., Memon, Holley, Wark, Bull, & Köhnkenn 1996a ; Milne, Bull, Köhnken, & Memon, 1995)  Benefits of the CI Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

7. Retrieval Recall/ communication Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) 1.Mental context reinstatement Physical surrounding Internal state 2. Report everything 3. Cued Recall (i.e., “What happened right after that?” ) Mnemonics (cognitive instructions) 1.Mental context reinstatement Physical surrounding Internal state 2. Report everything 3. Cued Recall (i.e., “What happened right after that?” ) Phased (funnel) approach: 1.Rapport-building Establishing rapport Explaining conversational rules 2. Free recall 3. Questioning 4. Closure Phased (funnel) approach: 1.Rapport-building Establishing rapport Explaining conversational rules 2. Free recall 3. Questioning 4. Closure FREE RECALL  57 % to 80% correct information (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 1 & 2)  specific information (location, person, object, action) (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009, study 2) QUESTIONING  suggestibility to misleading questions (Verkampt & Ginet, 2009)  Benefits of the CI Investigative Interviews Framework – The particularity of the Cognitive Interview 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

8. Repetition of events and children’s recall  S.D., young girl of 8 years old  Mixture of both general script information and particular specific details - Fixed details = details that are similar across episodes (e.g., my daddy hurt me) - Variations = details that vary across episodes - Details may vary at each episode  Recurring variations (e.g., child’s activity before the violences) - Details may vary only once  Unique variation (e.g., taking pictures) 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) " Because my daddy hurt me … touched me where he should not. I don’t remember which day, I don’t know… in my mom’s house, in our bedroom, he came in the morning, we were in two beds, he has also hurt K. where he should not. He undressed me, put his willy in my flower. It hurt. I don’t remember... but several times.

9.  Free Recall  Failure to describe a specific/target occurrence (Pearse, Powell, & Thomson, 2003; Price & Connolly, 2007)  Recall focused on fixed details (vs. variations) (see Roberts & Powell, 2001, for a detailed overview)  Many confusions ( e.g., Powell, Roberts, Ceci, & Hembrooke, 1999; Price & Connolly, 2004, 2007) = details from nontarget occurrence recalled as having occured in the target one  Questioning (e.g., Connolly & Lindsay, 2001 ; Price & Connolly, 2004)   resistance to the misleading questions about fixed details   suggestibility to the misleading questions about variations 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Repetition of events and children’s recall

10. Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event  Population  64 children (31 girls and 33 boys), aged 4-5 years old ( M = 4.8 years old ; range = 4 years old and one month to 5 years old and 7 months)  Procedure  Encoding phase: participation to a painting session once (no repetition condition) or four times (repetition condition)  Interview phase: MCI or SI  Correct information, incorrect information, confabulations, confusions  Accuracy rate (correct information/total of reported information)  Fixes details, recurring variations, & unique variations  Answers to misleading (msled, not misled) and leading (led, not led) questions 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway)

11.  Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1) Repetition condition Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Fixed details Plaster on the nose Recurring variations HeadHipArmNeck Unique variations Green apron Green apron Green apron White apron 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event

12.  Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1) No Repetition condition Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Fixed details Plaster on the nose Recurring variations HeadHipArmNeck Unique variations Green apron Green apron Green apron White apron 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event

13.  Procedure – Encoding (Phase 1) No Repetition condition Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Fixed details Plaster on the nose Recurring variations HeadHipArmNeck Unique variations Green apron Green apron Green apron White apron 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event

14.  Procedure – Interview (Phase 2) 1. Rapport-building 2. Free recall  1 st FR  2 nd FR 3. Questioning 4. Closure 1. Rapport-building 2. Free recall  1 st FR  2 nd FR 3. Questioning 4. Closure Modified Cognitive Interview Structured Interview ✓✓ Context reinstatement Report everything Cued Recall ✓✓ ✓✓ Neutral instruction 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event

15.  Results: Free Recalls Means ♯ Correct information ** Z = -3.325, p <.008 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event

16.  Results: Free Recalls 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Means ♯ Correct information Z = - 1.725, n.s + 42% Z = - 3.229, p <.008 +113% Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event

17.  Mean number (and standard deviation) of fixed details (out of 4), unique variations (out of 4) and recurrent variations (out of 4) recalled by repetition and interview 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event CISI No repetition RepetitionNo repetition RepetitionSign. Fixed details 1.05 (0.78)1.91 (1.37)1.33 (0.98)0.68 (1.17) ** Unique variation 0.05 (0.23)0.82 (0.87)0.00 (0.00)0.36 (0.95) ** Recurring variation 0.00 (0.00)0.64 (1.21)0.00 (0.00)0.14 (0.35) * * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

18.  Mean number (and standard deviation) of fixed details (out of 4), unique variations (out of 4) and recurrent variations (out of 4) recalled by repetition and interview 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event CISI No repetition RepetitionNo repetition RepetitionSign. Fixed details 1.05 (0.78)1.91 (1.37)1.33 (0.98)0.68 (1.17) ** Unique variation 0.05 (0.23)0.82 (0.87)0.00 (0.00)0.36 (0.95) ** Recurring variation 0.00 (0.00)0.64 (1.21)0.00 (0.00)0.14 (0.35) * * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

19.  Results: Questioning and children’s suggestibility 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Cognitive Interview used with children testifying about an occurrence of a repeated event Means ♯ of « no » answers (out of 6) Z = -2.405, p <.016 Z = -3.546, p <.008 **

20.  A first step towards the use of the CI for some repeated events  Benefits of the (modified) CI for children in repetition condition:  Improvement of correct information  Without any decline in statements’ accuracy  Improvement of reported fixed details but no effect on variations  Stronger resistance to adult’s influences  « nay-saying bias » (e.g., Fritzley & Lee, 2003)  … for children in no repetition condition: no benefit of the (modified) CI 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Discussion & Conclusion

21.  Need to work with a more emotional event target  More naturalistic event  Need to test the relevance of a break because the free recall and questioning phases (cf. “nay-saying bias”):  CI may be demanding and resource-dependent technique particularly for children in repetition condition  Nay-saying bias = way for children to indicate that they want to stop the interview 3rd Annual iIIRG Conference 2010 - Stavern (Norway) Discussion & Conclusion