Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 122
words with a long and noble history, but they can be used with a different signification for
different people. What might seem harmless to the outsider may have a different weight to
the initiate. If we depend upon words to share truth, then it is an apt description of Satan
to call him ―the father of lies.‖
**********
Rev. Walter Debold has been a priest of the Archdiocese of Newark for fifty-seven years
and a professor of World Religions at Seton Hall University for twenty-six years. He has
been active in cult educational work for twenty years.
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 2000, Volume 17,
page 188. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the bound volume.
This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 123
Book Reviews
The Suggestibility of Children's Recollections: Implications for Eyewitness
Testimony. John Doris. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
This book, published by the American Psychological Association, is a compilation of essays,
commentaries, and empirical research studies presented at the 1991 Cornell Conference on
the Suggestibility of Children‘s Recollections. The conference was an attempt to wade
through the seemingly contradictory findings of various memory researchers and arrive at
some consensus on important questions. These included (1) how accurate are the
testimonies of child witnesses in terms of events (2) do children misinterpret neutral events
(3) under what conditions are inaccuracy and misperception more likely to occur? The editor
admits, however, that this goal was only partially accomplished in that confusion and
contradiction still remain. Unfortunately, the book lacks a final summarizing chapter that
would identify the points of consensus versus disagreement.
Readers of this volume of almost 200 pages are treated to a variety of empirical research
vignettes of primarily staged events under laboratory conditions to which children of various
ages (pre-adolescents) are exposed. Findings aside, the creativity of the research designs
alone make for interesting reading.
Perhaps the major asset of the book is the identification of the many methodological
obstacles inherent in research of this kind. Just trying to control for the numerous ecological
and demographic variables that influence memory encoding, recall, and interpretation is,
indeed, a daunting task. These variables might loosely be categorized as child witness
variables (e.g. developmental level, participant vs. observer, level of arousal) and interview
context variables (e.g. interviewer skills and qualities, time and place of interview).
Reliability of findings is easily compromised in that replicating similar studies that control for
the same variables is difficult to achieve.
The authors admit, too, that there is the major question of ―ecological validity‖ (closely akin
to the concept of external validity), that is, how generalizable are the findings of a
laboratory experiment to an actual target population? Ceci highlights this issue in his
discussion of child sexual abuse cases, reminding us that these traumatic conditions, which
may include bodily injury, threats, and sexual arousal, cannot be duplicated artificially.
In their discussion, Goodman and Clarke-Stewart attempt to explore the issue of children‘s
suggestibility in relation to sexual abuse. Since they could not design a real life abuse
situation, they report on a simulated situation (children undergoing a physical examination
by a pediatrician) and then built in features of child abuse investigations. Their research
highlights the complex task of assisting child witnesses to disclose their information. In
follow-up interviews with the children the majority failed to reveal that genital/anal touching
had been part of the medical experience. More of the subjects were able to disclose upon
specific questioning. However, even with the additional prompting ―the children failed to
disclose it 64% of the time, whereas the chance of obtaining a false report of genital/anal
touching was only 1%, even when leading questions were asked.‖ (P. 99).
This, of course, highlights the dilemma that investigators face in questioning children. On
the one hand it appeared that ―leading questions were often necessary to elicit essential
information‖ and that children were more likely to disclose this information when the
interviewer made ―strong and persistent‖ suggestions.
On the disadvantaged side, of course, is the possibility that leading questions might elicit
inaccurate information and/or misinterpretation of the events. However, the research
suggests that susceptibility to manipulation is more likely in non-sexual abuse versus sexual