April 8, 2021

Have specifically examined eyewitness testimony in this

Using the GCU library, search for two peer-reviewed journal articles on eyewitness testimony using the search term “memory and eyewitness testimony.” Read the articles, then in 750-1,000 words, do the following:

Briefly summarize the findings from each article.

Based upon the information read, discuss if eyewitness testimony is reliable or unreliable.

Connect your research to a memory theory discussed in Chapter 7 of your textbook. See below…

FILTER THEORY In 1958, the psychologist Donald Broadbent developed filter theory to explain how we selectively attend to the most important information. In this model, attention is like a filter.

When writing in APA style, it is important that your analysis is written in third person. Writing in third person, using support from the article to support your position, helps with clarity and conciseness throughout your paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE #1:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=109016263&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Introduction to this Issue: Children’s Eyewitness

Memory and Testimony in Context

Rakel P. Larson, Ph.D.*, Deborah Goldfarb, JD and

Gail S. Goodman, Ph.D.

Increasingly, children are being called upon to participate in a variety of forensic and

courtroom contexts that affect their welfare (Cashmore, 2014; Head, 2011; U.N. General

Assembly, 1989). Alongside this movement, research on child witnesses and victims has

burgeoned. For this special issue of Behavioral Sciences and the Law, we invited researchers

to share their expertise and contribute current studies about the role of contextual factors

on children’s eyewitness memory and testimony, and related matters. Topics cover a wide

variety of issues pertaining to child witnesses and victims, including the reliability of children’s

testimony, forensic interview techniques, participation in court proceedings, prospective

juror-decision making, delays in prosecution, and religion-related abuse.

To begin this special issue, the first five papers address topics related to children’s

involvement in forensic interviews. Given the rising dependence on children’s reports

in a variety of forensic and legal contexts, the need for evidence-based methods to elicit

sensitive and reliable information from children is clear. Building rapport with children

is one procedure that is recommended by virtually all forensic interview protocols and

best-practice guidelines, including the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD) Protocol (Lamb, La Rooy, Malloy, & Katz, 2011), the

StepWise Interview (Yuille, Hunter, Joffe, & Zaparniuk, 1993), the Memorandum of

Good Practice (Davies & Westcott, 1999), the child-adapted version of the Cognitive

Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992), and

the Narrative Elaboration Technique (NET; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013), as part of a

successful interview strategy to reduce children’s anxiety and increase the quality,

quantity, and accuracy of their reports. In our first paper, Saywitz, Larson, Hobbs,

and Wells (pp. 372–389) report on a systematic review of the research literature to

evaluate whether there is a core body of experimental studies with randomized

controlled trials that test the effects of rapport on the reliability of children’s reports.

The paper provides insights into and identifies gaps in the current knowledge base

regarding the effects of rapport-building on children’s memory accuracy and offers

strategies for redefining future research agendas.

Children may be exposed to postevent misinformation before an interview

commences and this inaccurate information may become incorporated into their later

memory reports (see, e.g., Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman & Bruck, 1994). Schaaf,

*Correspondence to: Rakel P. Larson, Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue,

Davis, California, 95616 USA.

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Behav. Sci. Law 33: 367–371 (2015)

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2196

Bederian-Gardner, and Goodman (pp. 390–406) examine whether explicitly instructing

children to ignore misleading postevent information can help bolster their memory

accuracy. Four- and 6-year-old children engaged in an interactive play event with a researcher

and were then interviewed about the play event after a 2-week delay. As part of

the experimental manipulation, children were exposed to no postevent misinformation between

the two sessions, exposed to misinformation, or exposed to misinformation and

given a logic-of-opposition instruction (i.e., an explicit instruction to ignore information

that they were exposed to after the original play event) before the start of the memory interview.

The results suggest that the accuracy of even very young children’smemory reports can

be improved by providing children with an explicit instruction to ignore misleading

postevent information. The study also provides insights into the sources of malleability in

children’s memory reports and, specifically, the underlying causes of the postevent misinformation

effect.

During the course of a forensic interview, investigators may ask children to disclose

sensitive, embarrassing, or potentially uncomfortable information. Thus, these kinds of

interviews require a level of openness and honesty from children that is not typical in

their everyday interactions with adults. Such requirements may make some witnesses

reluctant to participate in the criminal justice process. For instance, children may

choose not to disclose maltreatment to a forensic interviewer for a variety of reasons

(e.g., fear of retaliation, confusion about what occurred). Indeed, delayed disclosures

are common among child sexual abuse victims (Goodman et al., 2003). Omission of

abuse details during forensic interviews may lead to later memory impairment given

the lack of opportunity for rehearsal. Altering an abuse narrative by self-generating false

details about the event may also influence later recall. Newton and Hobbs (pp. 407–428)

addressed these topics in the third paper in this special issue by using a simulated memory

impairment paradigm with adults to evaluate how rehearsal and altering narrative

details about a child sexual abuse scenario can affect later memory recall. Participants

read a first-person narrative about child sexual abuse, role-played as the child victim,

and were then asked to recall the abuse scenario by either omitting details, confabulating

details, or not changing any details, or they were not asked to recall the story at all.

Approximately 1 week later, participants’ memories for the story were tested. The results

have implications for research regarding the effects of delayed disclosure and false

confabulations on memory impairment.

Children are commonly questioned by forensic investigators and attorneys about

abuse-related conversations, such as what the alleged perpetrator instructed the victim

to do (Lyon & Stolzenberg, 2014; Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2014). In our fourth paper,

Lawson and London (pp. 429–445) assess 8-year-old children’s ability to provide

conversational testimony about a novel event after either a 1-week or 3-week delay.

This paper fills an important gap in extant literature by being one of the first studies

to evaluate children’s memory for dyadic conversations and, specifically, their ability

to recall utterances generated by adults.

Ground rules – that is, instructions provided to children before substantive

questioning – are commonly adopted in forensic interview protocols and best-practice

guidelines (Lamb et al., 2011; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013). These rules are intended

to help children navigate the unique expectations that are present in the forensic interview

context compared with those in children’s typical interactions with adults. For

instance, in a typical adult–child interaction, children are not expected to correct an

adult if the adult makes a mistake, yet this expectation is present in the forensic

368 R. P. Larson et al.

DOI: 10.1002/bsl

interview context. In our fifth paper, Danby, Brubacher, Sharman, and Powell

(pp. 446–458) investigate whether providing 5- to 9-year-old children with practice

using three ground rules (i.e., “don’t know,” “don’t understand,” and “correct me”

instructions) led to more spontaneous use of the rules during free recall and

application of the rules at the end of the interview in response to challenge questions.

The results of this study contribute to our understanding of developmental differences

in the ability to apply different kinds of ground rules and the extent to

which practice improves children’s use of rules throughout the course of forensic

interviews.

Our next set of papers follows the logical course of an investigation after forensic

interviewing, namely children’s participation in court proceedings. Research suggests

that facing the accused and being cross-examined are two of the most anxiety-provoking

experiences for children (Goodman et al., 1992; Hobbs et al., 2014; Sas, Austin,

Wolfe, & Hurley, 1991). These specific and other general fears about participating in

the criminal justice process may influence children’s ability to provide sensitive, complete,

and accurate information (Block et al., 2010; Nathanson & Saywitz, 2003) and

may affect their long-term psychological and emotional welfare (Goodman et al.,

1992; Quas et al., 2005). As a response to these concerns, pretrial court preparation

programs have begun to be developed across the world (e.g., Kid’s Court School in

the United States). In our sixth paper, Nathanson and Saywitz (pp. 459–475) evaluate

the effectiveness of one such pretrial preparation program, which includes legal knowledge

education, stress inoculation training, and a mock trial that offers opportunities

for practice using stress reduction strategies and answering questions, on reducing anticipatory

court-related anxiety of 4- to 17-year-olds. This study provides preliminary

evidence that children’s participation in Nathanson and Saywitz’s preparation program

before testifying in court is associated with anxiety reduction.

As previously mentioned, ground rule instructions and the use of rapport are

recommended procedures in most forensic interview protocols and best-practice

guidelines. The extent to which attorneys actually incorporate these recommendations

into practice during direct questioning with children is addressed in the seventh paper.

Ahern, Stolzenberg, and Lyon (pp. 476–492) reviewed transcripts of felony child sexual

abuse cases in Los Angeles county to evaluate the quality and frequency with which

prosecutors deliver key ground rule instructions, build rapport, and rely on open-ended

prompts before the topic of abuse is introduced. The results of the study are important

in illuminating discrepancies between best-practice guidelines and actual implementation

of recommendations in real-world contexts.

The next two papers examine whether innovative techniques and changes in the

courtroom context can bolster witness credibility and potentially influence juror

decision-making. In the study described by Golding, Wasarhaley, Lynch, Lippert,

and Magyarics (pp. 493–507), participants read a trial summary in which a 6- or

15-year-old child accused her stepfather of rape. The trial summary included testimony

from a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), a registered nurse who was not a

SANE, or no nurse. Mock jurors’ ratings (e.g., sympathy toward the victim, defendant

guilt) were then obtained. McAuliff, Lapin, and Michel (pp. 508–527) assessed whether

the use of support persons (i.e., adults who accompany children testifying or attending

legal proceedings to provide emotional comfort) influence judgments about the credibility

of child witnesses and verdicts. In this study, adults viewed simulated testimony

from an 11-year-old female victim of sexual assault either with a support person sitting

Children’s eyewitness memory 369

DOI: 10.1002/bsl

next to her or without. Participants then made judgments regarding the child’s accuracy

and trustworthiness as well as the defendant’s guilt. The results of both of these

studies suggest that factors associated with the courtroom context, such as the presence

or absence of a SANE or support person, may influence jurors’ verdicts and evaluations

of child witness credibility.

Delays in prosecution may result in the decay or distortion of memories.

Additionally, the lack of resolution and continued anticipatory anxiety about testifying

may take a toll on the emotional and psychological well-being of child witnesses

(Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 1995). The next two papers in this special issue address delays

in prosecution. Walsh, Lippert, Goldberg Edelson, and Jones (pp. 528–545) used a

mixed methods approach (i.e., retrospective case file analysis on charges filed between

January 1, 2007 and December, 31, 2008 that were decided by December 31, 2012;

and in-depth interviews) to assess the court culture of three Oregon counties, the length

of time with which it took to resolve felony child sexual abuse cases compared with

other felony cases, and the effect of “churning” (i.e., rescheduling of court cases) on

case resolution time. Connolly, Chong, Coburn, and Lutgens (pp. 546–560) conducted

an archival analysis of child sexual abuse complaints that were heard in criminal courts

in Canada between 1986 and 2012. The researchers compared delayed and timely

complaints and evaluated whether systemic factors (e.g., legal barriers) or intrinsic

factors (e.g., nature of the offense) were associated with delayed prosecutions. Both

of these studies provide important insights into the factors that increase the probability

of delayed prosecution.

To conclude this special issue, the final two papers address contextual factors

concerning child maltreatment through discussion of religion-related abuse cases.

Bottoms, Goodman, Toulou-Shams, Diviak, and Shaver (pp. 561–579) identified 249

cases of religion-related abuse from 86 district attorney offices, social service departments,

and law enforcement agencies. The researchers evaluated characteristics of

the abuse cases (e.g., types of maltreatment, settings in which the abuse or neglect took

place), the characteristics of victims and perpetrators in these cases (e.g., perpetrator

and victim gender, victim age, relationship to the perpetrator, religious affiliation of

the victims and perpetrators), the credibility of the allegations, and case outcomes.

Calkins, Fargo, Jeglic, and Terry (pp. 580–594) investigated the case files of 1,121 North

American Catholic clergy accused of child maltreatment. Guided by a social–ecological

model of violence, researchers evaluated individual-level (e.g., dating history), relationship-

level (e.g., quality of interaction with youth), and community-level (e.g., sought

opportunities to work with youth) risk factors associated with a higher probability of

abuse among clergy. Both the Bottoms et al. and Calkins et al. studies contribute to

our knowledge base of the contexts and circumstances in which religion-related abuse

occurs and provide potential avenues for intervention.

In summary, this special issue offers important insights into the various contexts

in which child maltreatment occurs, is disclosed, and is evaluated and processed

by the legal system. Specifically, the reader will be guided through issues concerning

children’s eyewitness memory and testimony as it related to contexts in which

abuse occurs, to disclosure and early stages of a forensic interview, all the way to

child witnesses’ participation in court proceedings. Taken together, the research

presented here will hopefully further your understanding of the many complex issues

that pertain to child witnesses and victims and inform future research, practice, and

policy.

370 R. P. Larson et al.

DOI: 10.1002/bsl

REFERENCES

Block, S. D., Oran, H. S., Oran, D., Baumrind, N., & Goodman, G. S. (2010). Abused and neglected

children in court: Knowledge and attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 659–670. doi:10.1016/j.

chiabu.2010.02.003.

Cashmore, J. (2014). Children living away from home. In G. Melton, A. Ben-Arieh, J. Cashmore, G. S.

Goodman, & N. K. Worley (Eds.), The Sage handbook of child research (pp. 197–207). London: Sage.

Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. D., & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions

in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental

Hypnosis, 42, 304–320.

Davies, G. M., & Westcott, H. L. (1999). Interviewing child witnesses under the Memorandum of Good Practice:

A research review. London: Home Office Police and Reducing Crime Unit.

Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The

cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Quas, J. A., Edelstein, R. S., Alexander, K. W., Redlich, A. D., … Jones, D. P.

H. (2003). A prospective study of memory for child sexual abuse: New findings relevant to the repressedmemory

controversy. Psychological Science, 14, 113–118. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01428

Goodman, G. S., Taub, E. P., Jones, D. P. H., England, P., Port, L. K., Rudy, L., & Prado, L. (1992).

Testifying in criminal court. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(5, Serial No.

229), 1–142. DOI: 10.2307/1166127

Head, B. W. (2011). Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation. Children and Youth

Services Review, 33, 541–547. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.015.

Hobbs, S. D., Goodman, G. S., Block, S. D., Oran, D., Quas, J. A., Park, A, Widaman, K. F., Baumrind, N.

(2014). Child maltreatment victims’ attitudes about appearing in dependency and criminal courts. Children

and Youth Services Review, 44, 407–416. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.001

Lamb, M. E., La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Katz, C. (2011). Children’s testimony: A handbook of

psychological research and forensic practice. Chichester,UK: JohnWiley&Sons. doi: 10.1002/9781119998495

Lyon, T. D., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2014). Children’s memory for conversations about sexual abuse: Legal

and psychological implications. Roger Williams University Law Review, 19, 411–450. http://docs.rwu.edu/

rwu_LR/vol19/iss2/5

Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J. (2003). The effects of the courtroom context on children’s memory and

anxiety. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 31, 67–98.

Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (1995). Prosecuting child abuse: An evaluation of the government’s speedy progress

policy. London: Blackstone.

Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Alexander, K. W., Edelstein, R., Redlich, A. D., Cordon, I. M., &

Jones, D. P. H. (2005). Childhood sexual assault victims: Long-term outcomes after testifying in criminal

court. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70(2, Serial No. 280), 1–128. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-5834.2005.00337.x

Sas, L., Austin, G., Wolfe, D. A., & Hurley, P. (1991). Reducing the system-induced trauma for child sexual abuse

victims through court preparation, assessment and follow-up (Final Report, Project No. 4555-1-125, National

Welfare Grants Division, Health and Welfare Canada). London, Ontario: London Family Court Clinic.

Saywitz, K. J., & Camparo, L. B. (2013). Evidence-based child forensic interviewing: The Developmental Narrative

Elaboration Interview. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saywitz, K. J., Geiselman, R., & Bornstein, G. (1992). Effects of cognitive interviewing and practice on

children’s recall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 744–756.

Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual

abuse and disclosure in criminal trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 19–30. doi:10.1037/

a0035000.

U.N. General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989 (UnitedNations Treaty

Series, 1577). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm on July 20, 2015.

Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In

G. S. Goodman, & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony

(pp. 95–115). New York: Guilford.

Children’s eyewitness memory 371

DOI: 10.1002/bsl

***PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE #2:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=98836478&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Eyewitness Testimony in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review

Katie L. Maras • Dermot M. Bowler

Published online: 10 March 2012

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is estimated

to affect around 1% of the population, and is characterised

by impairments in social interaction, communication, and

behavioural flexibility. A number of risk factors indicate

that individuals with ASD may become victims or witnesses

of crimes. In addition to their social and communication

deficits, people with ASD also have very specific

memory problems, which impacts on their abilities to recall

eyewitnessed events. We begin this review with an overview

of the memory difficulties that are experienced by

individuals with ASD, before discussing the studies that

have specifically examined eyewitness testimony in this

group and the implications for investigative practice.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.

Have specifically examined eyewitness testimony in this

Related Posts

Consider how the results relate to your leadership traits.

Explain your therapeutic approach with the client

Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve