Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 124
abuse scenarios In addition, Goodman and Clarke-Stewart‘s review suggests that children
are more likely to be swayed by interviewer suggestions when they are younger, when they
are questioned after a long delay, when they feel intimidated by the interviewer, when the
interviewer makes strong and repeated suggestions, and when another interviewer makes
similar suggestions. It appears that scenarios in which children are most likely to disclose
accurate information is in the presence of a non-threatening interviewer who asks questions
that the child can easily comprehend.
Perhaps one of the most important discussion for readers of the CSJ is Douglas Peters‘
chapter on the influence of stress and arousal. His research concludes with the statement
that ―heightened arousal never increased the recognition of recall accuracy of subjects. ….
{the belief, widely held by judges and jurors}….that high arousal facilitates the eyewitness
accuracy of children does not appear to rest on solid empirical ground.‖ (P. 75) This
statement is supports statements made by trauma researchers such as van der Kolk that
high stress levels flood the body and brain with cortisol, thereby inhibiting important brain
structures that store and later retrieve memory components of traumatic events. This
argues against the claims made by false memory proponents that high arousal events
(specifically child sexual abuse) would be more likely (rather than less likely) to be
remembered.
An overall conclusion of the book is that the experimental conditions, and most particularly
interviewer skills and qualities, affect children‘s testimony. For instance, as one might
imagine, there appears to be an inverse relationship between accuracy of recall and delay of
questioning. The potential for intervening variables to influence a child‘s memory and
perception are increased when there is a long delay before interviewing a child witness. The
place where the child is interviewed is also important. While contexts resembling the
original event may elicit more accurate information, this accuracy may be compromised if
the context elicits negative feelings (e.g. a police station). The nature of questions asked is
also critical. While many researchers found that specific and often closed-ended questions
elicited more information, accuracy did not necessarily improve. Choice of language and
repetition of questions were also found to affect children‘s reports.
In an effort to provide a more empirical way of assessing validity, Raskin and Esplin
designed an instrument known as the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), to assess the
child‘s motivation in providing the sought-after information. They propose that this variable,
too, i.e. motivation, may color the child‘s interpretation or accuracy of events. The validity
and reliability of this instrument was challenged in subsequent commentaries.
One of the areas I found lacking in the book was a discussion of the types of memory that
are currently being examined and discussed in the professional literature --working
memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. There is also no discussion of how
right brain versus left brain information processing might influence childhood recollections,
e.g. how traumatic memories may continue to ―reside‖ in the body and get ―reenacted‖
nonverbally. Granted, under laboratory conditions these children could not be traumatically
exposed however, a theoretical discussion of relevant findings from the field of
neuroscience would have rounded out this volume. In this vein, I was hopeful as I read the
chapter by Brainard and Ornstein on ―Children‘s memory for witnessed events: the
developmental backdrop‖ as it seemed to promise more elaboration of the contribution of
neurophysiological aspects. In this I was disappointed. Although they began with the
promising statement, ―Children cannot provide information about events that cannot be
remembered,‖ (P. 10) they did not follow-through with what that might mean. Trauma
researchers have demonstrated how memories unconsciously experienced and encoded are
―remembered‖ by the body and how they push for expression through the clinical
phenomenon known as ―the return of the repressed.‖
abuse scenarios In addition, Goodman and Clarke-Stewart‘s review suggests that children
are more likely to be swayed by interviewer suggestions when they are younger, when they
are questioned after a long delay, when they feel intimidated by the interviewer, when the
interviewer makes strong and repeated suggestions, and when another interviewer makes
similar suggestions. It appears that scenarios in which children are most likely to disclose
accurate information is in the presence of a non-threatening interviewer who asks questions
that the child can easily comprehend.
Perhaps one of the most important discussion for readers of the CSJ is Douglas Peters‘
chapter on the influence of stress and arousal. His research concludes with the statement
that ―heightened arousal never increased the recognition of recall accuracy of subjects. ….
{the belief, widely held by judges and jurors}….that high arousal facilitates the eyewitness
accuracy of children does not appear to rest on solid empirical ground.‖ (P. 75) This
statement is supports statements made by trauma researchers such as van der Kolk that
high stress levels flood the body and brain with cortisol, thereby inhibiting important brain
structures that store and later retrieve memory components of traumatic events. This
argues against the claims made by false memory proponents that high arousal events
(specifically child sexual abuse) would be more likely (rather than less likely) to be
remembered.
An overall conclusion of the book is that the experimental conditions, and most particularly
interviewer skills and qualities, affect children‘s testimony. For instance, as one might
imagine, there appears to be an inverse relationship between accuracy of recall and delay of
questioning. The potential for intervening variables to influence a child‘s memory and
perception are increased when there is a long delay before interviewing a child witness. The
place where the child is interviewed is also important. While contexts resembling the
original event may elicit more accurate information, this accuracy may be compromised if
the context elicits negative feelings (e.g. a police station). The nature of questions asked is
also critical. While many researchers found that specific and often closed-ended questions
elicited more information, accuracy did not necessarily improve. Choice of language and
repetition of questions were also found to affect children‘s reports.
In an effort to provide a more empirical way of assessing validity, Raskin and Esplin
designed an instrument known as the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), to assess the
child‘s motivation in providing the sought-after information. They propose that this variable,
too, i.e. motivation, may color the child‘s interpretation or accuracy of events. The validity
and reliability of this instrument was challenged in subsequent commentaries.
One of the areas I found lacking in the book was a discussion of the types of memory that
are currently being examined and discussed in the professional literature --working
memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. There is also no discussion of how
right brain versus left brain information processing might influence childhood recollections,
e.g. how traumatic memories may continue to ―reside‖ in the body and get ―reenacted‖
nonverbally. Granted, under laboratory conditions these children could not be traumatically
exposed however, a theoretical discussion of relevant findings from the field of
neuroscience would have rounded out this volume. In this vein, I was hopeful as I read the
chapter by Brainard and Ornstein on ―Children‘s memory for witnessed events: the
developmental backdrop‖ as it seemed to promise more elaboration of the contribution of
neurophysiological aspects. In this I was disappointed. Although they began with the
promising statement, ―Children cannot provide information about events that cannot be
remembered,‖ (P. 10) they did not follow-through with what that might mean. Trauma
researchers have demonstrated how memories unconsciously experienced and encoded are
―remembered‖ by the body and how they push for expression through the clinical
phenomenon known as ―the return of the repressed.‖
