Forensic developmental psychology

Last updated

Forensic developmental psychology is a field of psychology that focuses on "children's actions and reactions in a forensic context" and "children's reports that they were victims or witnesses of a crime". [1] [2] Bruck and Poole (2002) first coined the term "forensic developmental psychology". [1] Although forensic developmental psychology specifically focuses on a child's reliability, credibility, and competency in the courtroom setting, it also includes topics such as autobiographical memory, memory distortion, eyewitness identification, narrative construction, personality, and attachment. [1]

Contents

Distinction between forensic, developmental, and forensic developmental psychology

Forensic psychology Developmental psychology Forensic developmental psychology
What is it?
  • Field of psychology that focuses on the field of criminal investigation and the law
  • Areas of study: "ability to testify in court, reformulating psychological findings into the legal language of the courtroom, providing information to legal personnel in a way that can be understood"
  • Field of psychology that studies growth and development throughout an individual's lifespan
  • Areas of study: Infant, Childhood and Adolescence development, early Adulthood, Middle Adulthood and Older Adults, Cognitive development [3]
  • Field of psychology that focuses on children's actions and reactions in a forensic context [1]
  • Areas of study: autobiographical memory, memory distortion, eyewitness identification, narrative construction, personality, and attachment [1]
Work setting
  • Criminal and civic court systems
  • Treatment facilities [4]
  • Schools, universities, nonprofit agencies, and hospitals [3]
  • Day cares and preschools [3]
  • Rehabilitation hospitals, clinics, or residential facilities (nursing homes) [3]
  • Criminal and civic court systems [1]
Types of patients
  • Individuals, families, adults, elderly, and juvenile populations [4]
  • Prisons and correctional facilities [4]
  • Governmental agencies (criminal profiling) [4]
  • Client base is mostly criminal [4]
  • Physically and mentally disabled children and adults [3]
  • Patients dealing with substance abuse [3]
  • Victims of abuse [3]
  • Families [3]
  • Aging population [3]
  • Strong focus on children and adolescents, but may include adults as well [1]
  • Criminal and civic court systems
Career paths
  • Can be both lawyers and psychologists [4]
  • Consultants to attorneys and the courts [4]
  • Expert witnesses [4]
  • Treatment facilities (develop intervention techniques and treatment programs for prisoners) [4]
  • Research [3]
  • Academia (Professors/Teachers) [3]
  • Psychologists [3]
  • Lawyers
  • Psychologists
  • Consultants to attorneys and the courts
  • Expert witnesses

Child testimony process

Similar to adults, children who testify must undergo a testimony process in order to determine their relative competency, reliability, and credibility. [5] This is important because trauma resulting from exposure to an open courtroom or confrontation with a defendant can ultimately lead to inaccurate testimony. [6]

There are several similarities and differences between the competency evaluation for adults and for children. Both adults and children must be deemed as competent in order to testify in court. With regards to children, competency refers to a child's capacity and relative intelligence, their ability to distinguish between truth and lie, and their duty to tell the truth. [7] In order to determine a child's competency, four factors may be considered: [6]

These guidelines were determined by the Wheeler v. United States (1985) Supreme Court case in which a 5-year-old boy was the only witness to a murder. [5] The boy's testimony was ruled as admissible on the grounds that he was "sufficiently intelligent", could "distinguish between truth and lies", and understand that he was "morally obligated to tell the truth". [7] Although federal guidelines exist for determining a child's competency, the capacities required for a child to be deemed competent also vary from state to state. [6] For example, some states may require a child to be able to differentiate between truth and lie as well as recall past incidents, whereas other states may only require that the child is able to tell the truth. [6]

Along with competency, a child's reliability and credibility must be tested as well. However, the guidelines for a determining a child's reliability and credibility are not as stringent as determining the child's competency. [6] Although it is important to establish a child's relative reliability and credibility for their testimony, a judge cannot bar a witness from testifying on the grounds that he or she is competent but not credible. [6]

Factors impacting children's reports

Although measures exist to try and prevent poor reliability, credibility, and accuracy of children's reports, research of the child testimony process indicates that there are several difficulties that may be associated with the child testimony process, especially with regards to eyewitness testimony. Topics such as language development, memory skills, susceptibility to suggestion, the truth-lie competency, and credibility and deception detection are currently being researched to determine their impact on a child's competency, reliability, and credibility.

Language development

Individual differences in language development and comprehension may cause difficulties in determining a child's relative competence with the child testimony process and the trial. Although attorneys are required to use language that is developmentally appropriate with young child witnesses, children may still have difficulty understanding the difficult terminology associated with the courtroom. [8] Even if a child's report is accurate, adults can also make inaccurate inferences based on their report. [5] However, some research suggests that the reliability of children's communicative competence can be minimized by better and clearer instructions as well as by more thorough preparation before the trial. [9]

Memory skills

The inconsistency of children's memory potentially creates a problem with the reliability of children's reports. A study done by Klemfuss and Ceci (2012) indicates that "general memory skill is inconsistently associated with children's accuracy". [5] Children younger than the age of 6 also tend to remember a higher proportion of details inaccurately in their reports when compared to children of ages 8 and 10. Along with the problem of poor memory development at a young age, there is a problem with remembering information accurately after a certain period of time. According to Beuscher and Roberts (2005), individuals tend to remember a higher ratio of accurate to inaccurate information over time. [10]

Susceptibility to suggestion

Suggestibility is defined by Ceci and Bruck (1995) as "the degree to which the encoding, storage, retrieval, and reporting of events can be influenced by internal and external factors". [11] Although children's autobiographical recall can be highly accurate in many situations, increased exposure to suggestion can potentially increase the inaccuracy of a child's report. [5] While previous research focused on the impact of a single piece of misinformation on the accuracy of children's reports, current research is now focusing on how multiple suggestive techniques affect the accuracy of children's reports. [12] Ceci & Friedman (2000) suggest that a combination of implicit and explicit suggestive techniques such as bribes, threats, and repetitions of questions can have a large impact on young children's reports. [13] These techniques are especially prevalent when interviewer bias is present during an interview with a child. [12] Interviewer bias refers to when an interviewers' own prejudices or opinions about the event influence the manner in which they conduct the interview, and can occur when interviewers mold the interview to maximize disclosures that are consistent with their beliefs by gathering confirmatory evidence and neglecting disconfirmatory evidence. [12] [14]

Several other factors may contribute to a child's susceptibility to suggestion such as internal or external factors. [11] For example, the child's memory report could have been permanently altered which would be an internal factor, or the child could simply be trying to please the report interviewer or another adult which would be an external factor. [11] Another factor that contributes to increased susceptibility to suggestion is seen through the use of peer pressure. Ceci and Bruck (2002) stated that children who were exposed to higher amounts of peer pressure were more prone to change their perception of the event in question even if their initial report was accurate. [1] Although it is difficult to predict whether or not a child will be more susceptible to suggestion, age and language skills are currently the most reliable predictors of children's resistance to suggestion. [13]

Truth-lie competency

Another difficulty encountered with a child's credibility and reliability in the courtroom setting is truth-lie competency. Truth-lie competency refers to a child's relative accurate conception of the truth, and how a child perceives the truth when compared to an adult's perceptions. [15] In order to determine whether a child is providing truthful testimony, the judge must determine whether the child has an accurate conception of the truth from an adult perspective before the child's testimony. [6] There are three traditional methods of assessing a child's ability to differentiate between truth and lies such as asking the child to (1) define two concepts, (2) explain the difference between truth and lies and (3) identify examples of truth and lies statements. [15]

Although limited, research suggests that young children may have differing definitions of lies than older children and adults. [6] Developmentally inappropriate methods of gauging a child's truth-lie competency could also hinder a child's ability to distinguish between truth and lie. [15] Two specific factors that may also influence a child's definition of a lie include the intention of the speaker and the virulence of what is said. [6] Furthermore, a child's perception of the truth can be influenced by personal gain or reward or by the child's desire to please significant others such as parents, lawyers, or therapists. [16]

Credibility and deception detection

Although the legal system takes care to ensure that children are sufficiently competent before testifying, it is still difficult to determine a child's credibility. [5] Because of the relative difficulty in determining a child's reliability and credibility, few techniques exist to determine a child's ability to recount narratives accurately. [12] One potential method of determining the reliability of a child's report is by the number of "fantastical" or highly implausible or imaginary details within the narrative. [12] According to Bruck, Ceci, & Hembrooke (2002), a higher number of fantastical details are correlated with false narratives. [12] Furthermore, children who describe false narratives tend to creatively utilize incorrect information to construct a false narrative. [12] Research also suggests that the accuracy and credibility of children's reports are closely related when reports are influenced by suggestion. [12]

A study done by Nysse-Carris et al. (2011) had adults rate videos of children's truthfulness and deceitfulness. [17] The study's results indicated that the adults' accuracy was low (only slightly above chance) when rating the children. [17] Furthermore, the study concluded that adults tend to be more biased in labeling children as liars. [17] In general, adults—even adults who are experts in the field—cannot reliably predict the accuracy of a child's report or a child's competence. [5]

False Memories

Dr. Steven Ceci, [18] a child development expert at Cornell University, warns people about the dangers of relying on eyewitness testimony of children without having looked at the information obtained. There’s a possibility that children can create false memories. Children who attended McMartin preschool outside of Los Angeles in the 1980s accused their caregivers of sexual abuse. The children's stories turned out to be false. However, Ceci said that the children in this example, as well as others, were not lying. "Their recollections have been affected by the constant, provocative interviews they were subjected to," he stated, adding that the kids were repeatedly given leading questions.

What experts have to say about child testimony

Expert Testimony: Children as Witnesses

How accurate are children as witnesses in court? Dr. Lyn Haber, Ph.D., goes over the whole child interviewing protocol on how children are asked to testify in court and analyzes the ways in which people could be skeptical on the credibility and reliability of their testimonies. Before questioning the child, some things you might want to be aware of includes who questions the child, the experience of the interview, how many people are asking the questions, where the interview is taking place, and who is present. [19] You should be careful during the questioning protocol, thinking about how the questions are being asked and how the child is answering them. Be mindful of using leading, misleading, biased, and repeated questions. Suggestions on what to ask include who has discussed the crime with the child and how often would they be asking them about it. Some factors included in making the child’s memory more accurate include no one pressuring the child to explain what happened, the child telling the event to a trusted adult immediately, the child being questioned by a trained specialist, and the child testifying under emotionally safe and supported conditions. Some factors that may make the child’s memory inaccurate include the event being frightening, the child reporting the event to an unfamiliar person or authority figure, being questioned in a frightening, unfamiliar setting, and the child being reported to tell the story often. For more information, visit the sourcebook on child witnesses: Stephen Ceci and Maggie Bruck (1995). Jeopardy in the Courtroom; A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony. Washington: American Psychological Association Books. [20]

The Question of Credibility when it comes to Child Witnesses

Sometimes when police come across a crime, they are left with a single eye witness which begs the question of whether they can rely on the child for a reliable testimony. Dr. Steven Ceci is a child development expert at Cornell University and talks about how the memory of children and adults are different based on their past knowledge of things, but that doesn’t mean children are less reliable than adults when it comes to credibility. An instance of this is underlined in the 2002 Samantha Runnion case [21] where the 5-year-old girl was kidnapped just outside her Stanton, Calif., home. The only person around to witness her kidnapping was Sarah Ahn, a playmate. Ahn had given the police a detailed description of the suspect and the car he drove. Her description was so detailed that days later, he was captured. Although, as Ceci says, there is a limit when it comes to validity in statements, especially when the child is a 2 or 3 year old. Ceci also claims that sometimes an adult’s witness can be less reliable than a young kid’s in the sense that they can cheat or lie.

Related Research Articles

In law, a witness is someone who has knowledge about a matter, whether they have sensed it or are testifying on another witnesses' behalf. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.

Suggestibility is the quality of being inclined to accept and act on the suggestions of others. One may fill in gaps in certain memories with false information given by another when recalling a scenario or moment. Suggestibility uses cues to distort recollection: when the subject has been persistently told something about a past event, his or her memory of the event conforms to the repeated message.

Forensic psychology Using psychological science to help answer legal questions

Forensic psychology involves the application of psychological knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions arising in civil or criminal proceedings. Historically, forensic psychology was defined narrowly as the application of clinical psychological knowledge to criminal cases or questions in criminal justice settings. Contemporary definitions of forensic psychology recognize that several subfields of psychology apply "the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law." While the American Psychological Association (APA) officially recognized forensic psychology as a specialty under the narrower definition in 2001, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists were revised in 2013 and now reference several psychology subdisciplines, such as social, clinical, experimental, counseling, and neuropsychology).

Stephen J. Ceci is an American psychologist at Cornell University. He studies the accuracy of children's courtroom testimony, and he is an expert in the development of intelligence and memory. He has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the prestigious Lifetime Contribution Awards from the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Association for Psychological Science (APS) as well as many divisional and smaller society awards.

William Stern (psychologist) German psychologist (1871-1938)

William Stern, born Ludwig Wilhelm Stern, was a German-Jewish psychologist and philosopher. He is known for the development of personalistic psychology, which placed emphasis on the individual by examining measurable personality traits as well as the interaction of those traits within each person to create the self.

Wee Care Nursery School, located in Maplewood, New Jersey, was the subject of a day care child abuse case that was tried during the 1980s. Although Margaret Kelly Michaels was prosecuted and convicted, the decision was reversed after she spent five years in prison. An appellate court ruled that several features of the original trial had produced an unjust ruling and the conviction was reversed. The case was studied by several psychologists who were concerned about the interrogation methods used and the quality of the children's testimony in the case. This resulted in research concerning the topic of children's memory and suggestibility, resulting in new recommendations for performing interviews with child victims and witnesses.

Forensic hypnosis is the use of hypnosis in the investigative process and as evidence in court which became increasingly popular from the 1950s to the early 1980s with its use being debated into the 1990s when its popular use mostly diminished. Forensic hypnosis's uses are hindered by concerns with its reliability and accuracy. The United States Department of Justice states that hypnosis may be occasionally used in investigation, but that the method faces "serious objections" and that information from hypnosis may be considered inadmissible. Forensic Hypnosis has been considered for several uses including: hypnotic memory enhancement, evaluating a defendant's mental state, determining if a subject is telling the truth, preparing a witness for trial, determining if one is feigning trauma or a mental injury, and supporting the defense in a criminal case. Some of these uses have found more support than others as academic psychologists have reviewed these. While psychologists may find it appropriate to use memory enhancement to help in finding leads in the investigation process which should lead to uncovering more concrete evidence, its use in determining if a subject is telling the truth has been widely criticized.

Statement analysis, also called scientific content analysis (SCAN), is a technique for analyzing the words people use to try to determine if what they said is accurate. Proponents claim this technique can be used to detect concealed information, missing information, embedded confessions and whether the information that person has provided is true or false.

The cognitive interview (CI) is a method of interviewing eyewitnesses and victims about what they remember from a crime scene. Using four retrievals, the primary focus of the cognitive interview is to make witnesses and victims of a situation aware of all the events that transpired. The interview aids in minimizing both misinterpretation and the uncertainty that is otherwise seen in the questioning process of traditional police interviews. Cognitive interviews reliably enhance the process of memory retrieval and have been found to elicit memories without generating inaccurate accounts or confabulations. Cognitive interviews are increasingly used in police investigations, and training programs and manuals have been created.

Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed; however, this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness' point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased. As a result of this, many countries, and states within the United States, are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.

Memory conformity, also known as social contagion of memory, refers to the phenomenon where memories or information reported by others influences an individual and is incorporated into the individual's memory. Memory conformity is a memory error due to both social influences and cognitive mechanisms. Social contamination of false memory can be exemplified in prominent situations involving social interactions, such as eyewitness testimony. Research on memory conformity has revealed that such suggestibility and errors with source monitoring has far reaching consequences, with important legal and social implications.

A suggestive question is one that implies that a certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact. Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional. For example, the phrasing "Don't you think this was wrong?" is more suggestive than "Do you think this was wrong?" despite the difference of only one word. The former may subtly pressure the respondent into responding "yes", whereas the latter is far more direct. Repeated questions can make people think their first answer is wrong and lead them to change their answer, or it can cause people to continuously answer until the interrogator gets the exact response that they desire. The diction used by the interviewer can also be an influencing factor to the response given by the interrogated individual.

In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of retrieval. Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.

Eyewitness memory is a person's episodic memory for a crime or other dramatic event that he or she has witnessed. Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. It can also refer to an individual's memory for a face, where they are required to remember the face of their perpetrator, for example. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible. It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined. This may be due to the fact that details of unpleasant emotional events are recalled poorly compared to neutral events. States of high emotional arousal, which occur during a stressful or traumatic event, lead to less efficient memory processing. The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.

Gail S. Goodman is an American psychologist, known as one of the first in her field to study children's roles in the legal system, specifically children's eyewitness testimony pertaining to the Sixth Amendment. Her awards for her contributions to research, writing, and teaching include the American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest in 2017. Her involvement includes being cited in United States Supreme Court cases, which is rare for psychologists.

Roderick Cameron Lodge Lindsay is a Canadian psychologist who studies the area of psychology and law, and focuses on eyewitness memory. In 1974, he received his bachelor's degree at the University of Toronto and in 1978 he received his master's degree from the University of Alberta. Lindsay also received his Ph. D from the University of Alberta in 1982.

Eyewitness memory (child testimony)

An eyewitness testimony is a statement given under oath by a person present at an event who can describe what happened. During circumstances in which a child is a witness to the event, the child can be used to deliver a testimony on the stand. The credibility of a child, however, is often questioned due to their underdeveloped memory capacity and overall brain physiology. Researchers found that eyewitness memory requires high-order memory capacity even for well-developed adult brain. Because a child's brain is not yet fully developed, each child witness must be assessed by the proper authorities to determine their reliability as a witness and whether or not they are mature enough to accurately recall the event, provide important details and withstand leading questions.

Memory implantation is a technique used in cognitive psychology to investigate human memory. In memory implantation studies researchers make people believe that they remember an event that actually never happened. The false memories that have been successfully implanted in people's memories include remembering being lost in a mall as a child, taking a hot air balloon ride, and putting slime in a teacher's desk in primary school.

Children's use of information is an issue in ethics and child development. Information is learned from many different sources and source monitoring is important in understanding how people use information and decide which information is credible.

Judith Daylen

Judith L. Daylen(previously Cutshall) is a board-certified psychologist. In 1982, she received her B.A. in psychology and philosophy from the University of North Carolina. In 1985, Dr. Daylen received her M.A. in cognitive psychology, and in 1994 she received her PH.D. in clinical psychology both from the University of British Columbia. Dr. Daylen currently works as a clinical and consulting psychologist- she assesses the harm suffered to sexual assault victims and provides expert testimony in court. Recently, Dr. Daylen has focused on providing psychological assessments of victims of physical and sexual assault; however, she has past experience in providing both individual and group treatment to assault victims. To better understand the experience of assault victims and to assist them during times of crisis, Dr. Daylen also volunteered at a rape crisis center. She has even contributed to a book: "Trauma, Trials, and Transformation, Guiding sexual assault victims through the legal system and beyond". In addition to her work with sexual assault victims, Dr. Daylen has contributed to assessing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Along with John C. Yuille in 1986, Dr. Daylen published a psychological experiment which concluded that eyewitness testimony is often reliable and has merit. Dr. Daylen is also an ordained lay practitioner of Zen Buddhism.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bruck, M.; Poole, D.A. (2002). "Introduction to the special issue on forensic developmental psychology". Developmental Review. 22 (3): 331–333. doi:10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00001-1.
  2. ↑ Bruck, M.; Ceci, S. (2004). "Forensic developmental psychology: Unveiling four common misconceptions". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 13 (6): 229–232. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00314.x. S2CID   145270682.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "Careers in developmental psychology", Psychology Career Center
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Forensic psychologist, Psychology Career Center
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Klemfuss, J. Z.; Ceci, S. J. (2012). "Legal and psychological perspectives on children's competence to testify in court". Developmental Review. 32 (3): 268–286. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.005.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Haugaard, J.J.; Reppucci, N.D.; Laird, J.; Nauful, T. (1991). "Children's Definitions of the Truth and Their Competency as Witnesses in Legal Proceedings". Law and Human Behavior. 15 (3): 253–271. doi:10.1007/bf01061712. S2CID   143966012.
  7. 1 2 Wheeler v. US (1985)
  8. ↑ Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., & Lyon, T. D. (2002). Interviewing children in and out of court: Current Research and Practice Implications. In John E. B. Myers, Lucy Berliner, John Brier, C. Terry Hendrix, Carole Jenny, & Theresa A. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (pp. 349–378). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
  9. ↑ Saywitz, K. J.; Snyder, L.; Nathanson, R. (1999). "Facilitating the communicative competence of the child witness". Applied Developmental Science. 3 (1): 58–68. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0301_7.
  10. ↑ Beuscher, E.; Roebers, C. M. (2005). "Does a warning help children to more accurately remember an event, to resist misleading questions, and to identify unanswerable questions?". Experimental Psychology. 52 (3): 232–241. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.232. PMID   16076071.
  11. 1 2 3 Bruck, M.; Ceci, S. J.; Francoeur, E.; Barr, R. (1995). "I hardly cried when I got my shot!:Influencing children's reports about a visit to their pediatrician". Child Development. 66 (1): 193–208. doi:10.2307/1131200. JSTOR   1131200. PMID   7497825.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bruck, M.; Ceci, S.J.; Hembrooke, H. (2002). "The nature of children's true and false narratives". Developmental Review. 22 (3): 520–554. doi:10.1016/s0273-2297(02)00006-0.
  13. 1 2 Ceci, S. J.; Friedman, R. D. (2000). "The suggestibility of children: Scientific research and legal implications". Cornell Law Review. 86: 34–108.
  14. ↑ "Interviewer bias"
  15. 1 2 3 McCarron, A.L.; Ridgway, S.; Williams, A. (2004). "The truth and lie story: Developing a tool for assessing child witness's ability to differentiate between truth and lies". Child Abuse Review. 13 (1): 42–50. doi:10.1002/car.832.
  16. ↑ Kaplan, J.M. (1990). "Children don't always tell the truth". Journal of Forensic Sciences. 35 (3): 661–667. PMID   2348183.
  17. 1 2 3 Nysse-Carris, K. L.; Bottoms, B. L.; Salerno, J. M. (2011). "Experts' and novices abilities to detect children's high-stakes lies of omission". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 17 (1): 76–98. doi:10.1037/a0022136.
  18. ↑ "Stephen Ceci". Cornell College of Human Ecology. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  19. ↑ "Expert Witness Testimony: Factors Affecting Accuracy of Children as Witnesses | Human Factors Consultants". www.humanfactorsconsultants.com. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
  20. ↑ www.apa.org https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4318351?tab=2 . Retrieved 2022-03-05.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  21. ↑ Crimes, Chilling. "Samantha Runnion". Chilling Crimes. Retrieved 2022-03-05.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.