Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of the eyewitness abilities of children King, Mary Ann 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A1 K55.pdf [ 6.33MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096576.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096576-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096576-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096576-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096576-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096576-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096576-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096576-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096576.ris

Full Text

AN  INVESTIGATION  OF  ABILITIES  OF  THE  EYEWITNESS  CHILDREN  By MARY ANN  KING  B.A.,  University  of Prince  M.A.,  University  of British  A THESIS THE  SUBMITTED  Island  Columbia  IN PARTIAL  REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCTOR  Edward  THE  1979  FULFILLMENT DEGREE  OF  OF P H I L O S O P H Y  in  THE  FACULTY  OF  (Department  We  accept this to  The  GRADUATE  the required  University  Mary Ann K i n g ,  as c o n f o r m i n g standard  of B r i t i s h  March 19 8'4 ©  STUDIES  of Psychology)  thesis  1984  1976  Columbia  OF  In  presenting  requirements of  British  it  freely  agree for  this f o r an  in partial  advanced  degree  Columbia, I agree available  that  scholarly  understood  that  financial  f o r extensive  p u r p o s e s may  o r by  be  h i s or her copying  gain  that  f o r reference  permission  department  for  thesis  of  shall  10 /"7Q A  University shall  and  I  study.  copying by  allowed  fSYft/Old 6 Y Columbia  make  further  of this  t h e head  representatives.  n o t be  the  the Library  or publication  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  ^_ C  at the  granted  permission.  Department  fulfilment of  of this  thesis  of  my  I t i s thesis  w i t h o u t my  written  ABSTRACT This  study  was  children.  Children  individually The  live  care  eyewitness the  naire  and  to  a  a  arily)  meta-eyewitness  provided  less  the  ence  of  cues.  physical  suggestible  and  less  an  evident  were* n o  able  likely  temporal  witnesses. children  (nine  witnessing  Responses majority  to of  to  year  young  in  event.  enacting of  for  individual;  a  a  free  a  and  recognition  not  trends the  also  also of  primthan  reports  an  of  the  c h i l d r e n under  the  age  have  or  Some s i g n i f i c a n t  to  con-  of  4  expectations fourteen.  showed  some  were children  Grade  legal  also  1  and  older  the  questions  pres-  event  Grade  than  older  more  i n performance  study.  given  i n the  than  witnesses.  1  tasks  improve  task;  verbal  (Grade  aspects  queries  memory  and  report  an  question-  questions  children  to  wallet.  report  performance  c h i l d r e n appeared  a  plant  request  did  free  a  to  free  better  meta-eyewitness  l i m i t a t i o n s as  slide  incorrect information  memory was  Highschool  theft  c h i l d r e n were  in their  olds)  abilities the  in  from  include  the  the  of  c h i l d r e n responded  recognize  findings  sequence  Moreover  to  a  reflectivity  young  Age-related  i n other  more  of  Younger  and  P a r t i c i p a n t s were  performance  individual's face.  a  awareness;  information  6,  and  misleading  results revealed  abilities  confederate  included  d i f f e r e n c e s measures The  4,  depicted  event,  and  1,  event  a male  d e s c r i p t i o n of  Their  their  live  event  which  witnesses.  of  of  each  aged  fuse  a  eyewitness  p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n task.  fluency.  less  grades:  i n v o l v i n g nonleading  individual  an  four  slide  interview  event  assessing and  The  exposure  the  both  consisted  sequence.  with  from  witnessed  event  Following  of  concerned  the  awareness  of  correlations  between t h e i n d i v i d u a l study  and e y e w i t n e s s  event  and s l i d e  included i n the  found. event  Finally, results  P o s s i b l e explanations f o r developmental  memory p e r f o r m a n c e discussed. study's  measures  performance were  ences between the l i v e evident.  difference  The  findings  and s u g g e s t i b i l i t y  legal  i n child  and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  are also elaborated.  differ  were  trends i n  witnesses  implications  are  of the  iv  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS Page  Abstract Table  i  of Contents  i i v  List  of Text Tables  v i i  List  of Appendices  v i i i  List  of Appendix  ix  G Tables  Acknowledgements  x  Introduction  1  The  Legal Status of the Child  Empirical Child  E v i d e n c e on  Witness  the C a p a b i l i t i e s  Free  of  1 the  Witness  4  Summary o f E y e w i t n e s s L i t e r a t u r e Issues  . .  of Concern  Report  on C h i l d r e n  14  to the Present Study  17  Performance  18  Cued R e c a l l  21  Event  22  and  Temporal  Person Recall Sequence  i n Children's  Responses t o S p e c i f i c Suggestibility Face  Testimony  23  Questions  24  i n Children  25  Recognition,  Individual  Differences  Meta-eyewitness Comparison Overall  27 i n Eyewitness Performance  . . .  Abilities  of Findings  from D i f f e r e n t  Design of the Present Study  28 30  Event  Types  . . .  31 32  V  Page Method  "  38  Subjects  38  Design  38  Procedure  f o rLive  Event  38  Procedure  forLive  Event  Procedure  f o r S l i d e Event  with  Cues  Present  42 43  Results  47  Free  Report  Measures  Questionnaire Recognition  47  Results  Memory  Performance  Photo-identification Suggestibility Meta-eyewitness  60 76  Performance  79  Measures  79  Findings  86  R e l a t i o n s h i p between I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s Measures and Eyewitness Performance  89  Summary  94  of Results  Discussion Evidence  96 f o r Encoding  Suggestibility Retrieval  Issue  i n Young  Difficulties  Theoretical The  i n Eyewitness  100 Recall  105  of Findings  106  o f ..Individual Differences  108  Implications  Photo-identification Implications  Concluding  96  Children  Implications  Methodological  Legal  Deficits  Remark  of Findings  Performance  of Findings  110 112 114 115  vi Page  References  117  Appendices  122  vii  LIST  OF T E X T T A B L E S Page  Table Table  Table  Table Table Table  Table Table Table Table  Table  Table  Table  1: 2:  3:  4: 5: 6:  7: 8: 9: 10:  11:  12:  13:  Summary o f R e c e n t D e v e l o p m e n t a l Literature on E y e w i t n e s s A b i l i t i e s o f C h i l d r e n  15  Main Live  50  Event D e s c r i p t i o n and S l i d e Event  Scores f o r  Mean C o r r e c t a n d I n c o r r e c t P h y s i c a l D e s c r i p t i o n Scores f o r L i v e and S l i d e Mean A p p a r e l D e s c r i p t i o n f o r L i v e and S l i d e Event  Event  . . 56  Scores  Mean U n p r o m p t e d a n d P r o m p t e d V e r b a l Scores f o r Four Grades  62 Recall 65  Mean Age a n d H e i g h t E s t i m a t i o n s f o r L i v e and S l i d e Event T a r g e t s f o r Four Grades . . . .  67  Percentage o f C o r r e c t Responses t o F a c i a l H a i r Query  72  Percentage o f Witnesses Making V a r i o u s Responses t o Eyecolour Questions „  74  Percentage o f Witnesses Making C o r r e c t Response t oFour R e c o g n i t i o n Tasks  78  Percentage o f Witnesses Making C o r r e c t P h o t o - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Choice by Grade and Event Type  80  Percentage o f Witnesses Accepting Misleading Suggestion i n Eyewitness Interview f o r Live Event and R e c o g n i t i o n Task o f S l i d e Event . . .  82  C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n MFF S c o r e s a n d Eyewitness Performance and S u g g e s t i b i l i t y Measures  91  C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Classroom D e s c r i p t i o n Scores and Eyewitness Performance  93  v i i i  LIST  OF A P P E N D I C E S Page  Appendix  A:  Live  Event Questionnaire  Appendix  B:  Slide  Appendix  C:  Recognition  Appendix  D:  Live  Appendix  E:  Slide  Appendix  F:  Physical Description  C o d i n g Scheme  12 7  Appendix  G:  Analysis  Results  12 8  Event  Questionnaire Memory  122  . . . . . . . . . .  123  Items  Event Description Event  . . . . . . . . . . .  Description  of Variance  . . .  C o d i n g Scheme C o d i n g Scheme  124 125  . . . .  126  ix  L I S T OF A P P E N D I X G T A B L E S Page  Table  1:  Analysis of Variance Description Scores  f o r Event 129  Table  2:  Analysis of Variance f o r Live Event D e s c r i p t i o n S c o r e s f o r C u e P r e s e n t ( C P ) a n d C u e A b s e n t (CA) Condition 130  Table  3:  A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Live Event Subset D e s c r i p t i o n S c o r e s f o r CP a n d CA C o n d i t i o n s .  Table  Table  4:  5:  Analysis of Variance Description Scores Analysis  Table  6:  Analysis  Table  7:  Table  8:  Analysis of Description Analysis of Description  Table Table Table Table Table Table  9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15:  131  Physical 132  of Variance f o r Incorrect  Description  Table  f o r Correct  .  Physical  Scores  133  of Variance f o r Ratio  Scores  . . . .  Variance f o rCorrect Apparel Scores Variance f o r Incorrect Apparel Scores  134  135 136  One-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Tray Object R e c a l l Scores  137  One-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Unprompted V e r b a l R e c a l l Scores  13 8  One-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Prompted Verbal R e c a l l Scores ,  139  One-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r R e c o g n i t i o n Memory S c o r e s  140  One-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Live Event P h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n Choices One-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e Photo-identification Results  forSlide  One-way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Combined S u g g e s t i b i l i t y Scores  . . .  141  Event 142 143  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would Yuille this Ray  like  f o r h i s enthusiasm  project. Corteen  Many more Chris  t o thank  I would  f o rtheir  individuals  King,  also  to help with  Lee  and Dylan  f o rthe live  from  Charles Dickens  Kent  Elementary,  participated gratitude  Shelagh  husband,  Chris  input  Tom M o r a n ,  both  C.  f o rtheir  members.  assistance:  and Janet Werker of the slide  kindly  sequence;  as confeder-  t e a c h e r s and c h i l d r e n  S p r i n g Park  Elementary,  Highschool  Finally,  and Benjamin  B u l l o c k and  as committee  the principals,  family  Merry  served capably  and C o l o n e l Grey  King,  o f humour.  t o thank  Elementary,  extended  children  sense  event;  i n the study.  t o my  like  the creation  Smith  John  and a d v i c e d u r i n g a l l stages o f  a r e t o be thanked  L o u i s e LeMyre,  ates  research supervisor,  invaluable  volunteered Porritt  my  I must  f o rtheir  f o rbeing  express  support;  my my  t h e r e , a n d my  f o rh i s encouragement  and m a r v e l l o u s  West  I INTRODUCTION  The  present research i s concerned  abilities  of children.  importance the c h i l d standing they  The  i n terms  o f how c h i l d r e n  have both  practical  given t o the testimony of  significance  f o r our  under-  a t t e n d t o a n d remember t h e e v e n t s  observe.  Legal Status of the Child  assessing  t h e Canadian  Witness legal  system  t h e competency o f c h i l d r e n  following  19 7 0 , ing  of the credence  w i t n e s s and t h e o r e t i c a l  Currently,  The  These a b i l t i e s  with the eyewitness  citation  i s from  about  to testify  the -guidelines  a potential  terms f o r  as w i t n e s s e s .  t h e Canada E v i d e n c e  c.E-10, s. 16. and o u t l i n e s  a competency d e c i s i o n  has s p e c i a l  Act,  used  child  R.S.C.  i n reach-  witness.  (1) I n any l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g where a c h i l d o f t e n d e r years i s o f f e r e d as a w i t n e s s , and such c h i l d does n o t , i n the opinion of the judge, j u s t i c e o r other p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r , understand t h e nature o f an oath, t h e evidence o f s u c h c h i l d may b e r e c e i v e d , t h o u g h n o t g i v e n u p o n oath, i f ,i n the o p i n i o n o f t h e judge, j u s t i c e o r other p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r , a s t h e c a s e may b e , t h e c h i l d i s possessed o f s u f f i c i e n t i n t e l l i g e n c e t o j u s t i f y the r e c e p t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e and understands t h e duty o f speaking the truth. ( 2 ) No c a s e s h a l l b e d e c i d e d u p o n such e v i d e n c e a l o n e and such e v i d e n c e must be c o r r o b o r a t e d b y some o t h e r m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e . Occasionally,  i t may b e d e t e r m i n e d  years"*" d o e s u n d e r s t a n d  to convict  when s w o r n , caution  a  of practice wherein  on t h e u n c o r r o b o r a t e d evidence  except  (Wilson,  a child  t h e n a t u r e o f an o a t h .  however, t h e r e i s a r u l e not  that  after  weighing  of tender  I n such juries  cases,  a r e warned  of the child,  the evidence  with  even  extreme  1978).  In Canada a c h i l d o f " t e n d e r y e a r s " c h i l d under t h e age o f f o u r t e e n .  i s typically  viewed  as  2 The ing  basis  of this  legal  ruling  stems  t h e young c h i l d ' s understanding  obligations  implied  i n taking  of the legal  an oath  (Bigelow,  reflects  a basic  observe,  remember and communicate t h e i r  ately  as a d u l t s .  related  Prevalent  about t h e a b i l i t y  beliefs  are less able  they witness;  malleable,  to accurately  that  i.e., easily  1967).  I t also  of children to as  there  of events observe  regard-  and moral  experiences  are that  differences i n the recording  children events  skepticism  from concern  accur-  are age-  such t h a t  young  and understand  t h e memory o f c h i l d r e n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y  i n f l u e n c e d by i n f o r m a t i o n  they are  2 exposed fact  t o following a witnessed  with  narrate  19 8 2 ) . legal  their  and e x p o s i t o r y  context  skills  memories o f an event  These m i s g i v i n g s since  mental workings  processing" Despite  do  ability & Wulkan,  significance i n a  (1977) n o t e s ,  of the entire judicial  \children's  system are  obtained  "the fundasquarely  through  perceptual  (p.226). the incorporation. . of these  a l t e r n a t i v e views  communications  by  Bulkey,  suppositions  assessment o f t h e competency o f t h e c h i l d  exist  sonal  and t h a t  (Melton,  a s A.G. G o l d s t e i n  t o blend  hamper t h e i r  have c o n s i d e r a b l e  based on t h e t r a n s f e r o f i n f o r m a t i o n  legal  and l i k e l y  f a n t a s i z e d or imagined happenings;  immature v o c a b u l a r y to  event  from  communication,  lawyers  1982) s u g g e s t t h a t  some a s p o t e n t i a l l y  witness,  about t h e c h i l d witness. and p o l i c e o f f i c e r s  into the there  Informal  (Yuille,  per-  c h i l d r e n are viewed  more c a p a b l e e y e w i t n e s s e s  than  adults,  W h i l e t h e r e d o e s e x i s t some a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e f a c t t h a t a d u l t s a r e a l s o s u s c e p t i b l e t o memory d i s t o r t i o n s ( h e n c e t h e c a u t i o n a g a i n s t m i s l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s ) , c h i l d r e n a r e assumed t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s u g g e s t i b l e t h a n a d u l t s ( S t a f f o r d , 1 9 6 2 ) .  3  because they  lack  the biases,  stereotypes,  deception  through which  adults  existence  o f t h e s e two d i f f e r i n g  s t u d y b y Goodman a n d M i c h e l l i with  t h e impact  of child  making processes fell had  filter  their  views  (1981).  and adult  and motives f o r accounts.  i s corroborated This  s t u d y was  testimony  of subject-jurors.  i n a concerned  upon t h e d e c i s i o n  The s t u d y  i n t o t w o g r o u p s ; t h o s e who f e l t  The  participants  c h i l d r e n were honest and  n o r e a s o n t o l i e a n d t h o s e who b e l i e v e d  children's  percep3  tion  and r e c a l l  accurate  o f e v e n t s was l i k e l y  assessment o f t h e v a l i d i t y  about t h e c h i l d which  directly  witness examines  of  children.  Given  on  children's  competency  information  differences  the  extent  on s e v e r a l  of adults,  in  children's  abilities  to report  ask about  abilities. is  t o these  individual  A reading  seldom t h e sole  general  i n the legal  i t would  issues,  basis  appear  including  i s more  and age-related witnessed  possible events,  susceptible differences  c o n c e r n s , one  i n eyewitness  literature  I . Goldstein,  that  events.  developmental  f o r a competency  C l a m a n , H a r r i s & ..Samson, 1 9 8 2 ;  evidence  rulings  of witnessed  differences  of the legal  empirical  p o t e n t i a l and l i m i t a t i o n s  t h e memory o f c h i l d r e n  than that  may a l s o  without  recording  distortion  addition  biases  implied  to  In  of these d i f f e r i n g  as witnesses,  i n the i n i t i a l  t o which  An  the witnessing  the concerns  i s required  age  i s difficult  t o be i n a c c u r a t e .  suggests  ruling  that  age  (Bernstein,  1959; S t a f f o r d ,  1962).  D e s p i t e these d i f f e r i n g views, however, t h e g u i l t and s e n t e n c i n g j u d g m e n t s made b y t h e s e t w o g r o u p s w e r e e q u a l l y i n f l u e n c e d by c h i l d r e n ' s t e s t i m o n y , ( i . e . , subjects, regardless o f b i a s , u n w i t t i n g l y w e i g h e d a c h i l d ' s e v i d e n c e when m a k i n g their juror decision.)  4  Instead,  individual  competency of presumably  v a r i a t i o n i n the  c h i l d r e n i s understood  j u d g e d on  an  though, what i n d i v i d u a l poor witnesses. may  be  viewed  Empirical  The  individual  current  the  on  to  exist  basis.  and  the  literature  to  each of  on  the  above  C a p a b i l i t i e s of  most s e r i o u s  the  shortcoming of  perspective  is their  presumed  bility.  Empirical support  for this  contention  study  (cited  Varendonck. case  i n which  arrest  of  witness, of  the  two  of  existed,  17  him of  their  Loftus,  sensitivity forms,  22  to  (e.g.,  school  corroborated  the "Did  X?")  Thirty-two  After  each  tions  referred to  film  (1978).  4 and  see  the  identity  5 year  olds  c h i l d r e n were asked entities  no  a man  sup-  individual describ-  susceptible  work by  Dale,  children's  "Did  short  questions:  t h a t were present  a  who  such  different  four  the  children  of  opposed to  eight  to  expert  c h i l d r e n are  viewed  a  unreliability  a l . assessed  as  to  murder  r e s p o n d e d by  e n t a i l e d by X?"  a  an  more r e c e n t  Dale et  expectations you  by  credi-  leading  the  Although  that  witnesses  psychologist,  school  children interviewed idea  Witness  dates back  of  demonstrate  yard.  concerns.  surrounding  capacity  about the  four  lack of  made s t a t e m e n t s  i n the  witness  a Belgian  asked elementary  Varendonck's  Rathbun  by  from issues  about to He  i n the  m e m o r y was and  set  questions  the  a person.  arose  Acting  witness.  leading  met  1979)  c h i l d r e n had  Varendonck  posedly  in  study  a suspect.  child  series  ing  His  i n Loftus,  versus  child  child  legal  is  clear,  good  Child  from the  1911  to  the  and  each case  I t i s not  differences contribute  in relation  Evidence  Perhaps  "mental maturity"  i n the  question you  see  an  films. Four films  quesand  5 four  questions  referred  to nonexistent  objects.  reported  t h a t when c h i l d r e n were q u e s t i o n e d  objects,  the probability  form o f the question.  of a yes response  I f the query  about  important.  yes  Aside  children tic  are sensitive  forms,  that  " D i d y o u see an X?" to the i m p l i c i t  the results,  children  according  short  i n children. colour  techniques: large with  (19 79)  believed corroborated  bility  film  (a) f r e e r e p o r t ,  a particular  detail,  t h e most a c c u r a t e  linguis-  which  10 a n d 1 1 y e a r their  memory  o l d children  by d i f f e r e n t  (b) g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s  (e.g.,  finding  of t h e study  but least  "covering  questions  "What c o l o u r h a i r  recall  tioning  different  techniques.  f o r the nonsuggestive formats.  evidence  serious  using  recall  dealing  report  and t h a t  C h i l d r e n were  and t h e s p e c i f i c  Dent and Stephenson i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s  that suggestive  effect  general  questioning  upon t h e a c c u r a c y  "will  evidence  of children's recall".  on t h e developmental  upon  less quesfinding  have an even  c o n c l u s i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n more c o m p e l l i n g h a d t h e s t u d y direct  a  d i d t h e man  was t h a t f r e e  complete  a  recall  r e p o r t d i d n o t appear t o have any d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t  accurate  vided  that  demonstrated  evidence  p o r t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n " , and (c) s p e c i f i c  produced  as  to the authors,  a  the notion of increased suggesti-  and e v a l u a t e d  The g e n e r a l  later  showing  i n certain  also presented  They showed  have?")  free  to elicit  are i n fact suggestible.  Dent and Stephenson they  from  meaning  object,  For example,  more l i k e l y  than  existing  t o an absent  " D i d y o u s e e t h e X ? " was s i g n i f i c a n t l y response  authors  d i d not vary with the  referred  h o w e v e r , t h e f o r m o f t h e q u e s t i o n was  The  more  This pro-  i s s u e , however.  6 A and  serious limitation  Dale  among  demonstrate  that  led  since  older  Loftus, Zanni,  19 75)  incorporate  film  pared led  have  a misleading  of a nonexistent 17%  paradigms estimate  some  used  to  1975)  question  Research  feel  suggesting  such  with  the  adult  existed  as these  a com-  have  testimony i s  the particular  studies  may  & Loftus,  present  an  memory  1982; Y u i l l e ,  of suggestibility comparison  when  inflated (Dodd  &  Brad-  1980), t h e  i n adults  group  suggestibility-  necessitates  assessing  the  of children. that  d i d examine  c h i l d r e n and i n c l u d e d by Cohen  presented  a barn  Findings that  were  When q u e s t i o n e d  that  o f the m a l l e a b i l i t y of eyewitness  i n c l u s i o n o f an o l d e r  into  distortion.  i n t h e above  o f any degree  &  adults  misinformation  adults  agreed  group.  researchers  1980; G r e e n , F l y n n  1978;  Loftus  which  mis-  crucial  1977,  1974;  with  i n the film.  of the subjects  susceptible  1976,  & Palmer,  (1979) t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n  suggestibility  out  barn  of the control  may  events.  asked  Whereas  in  of witnessed  the findings  a r e more e a s i l y  1975,  of post-event  t o compare  i s especially  the frequency  and l a t e r  t o 3%  finding  1974,  (Loftus,  alarmingly  the  types  failure  (19 79)  c h i l d r e n are sugges-  they  This  study  Loftus  shaw,  (Loftus,  documented  various  later,  school  t o say whether  one such  presence week  o r grade  & Burns,1978; L o f t u s  accounts In  a  preschool  studies  Miller  and Stephenson  age groups. A l t h o u g h  children or adults.  numerous  their  different  i t i s impossible  than  t h e Dent  (1978) s t u d i e s c o n c e r n s t h e i r  et al.  performance  tible,  of both  and Harnick  the question  an extended  (1980) .  of  age range  This  study  suggestibility has been  also  carried  addressed  7  the  g e n e r a l i s s u e o f t h e competency o f c h i l d r e n  events.  This i s important  suggestibility tion  i n children  on t h e c h i l d ' s  Cohen a n d H a r n i c k ' s viewed a twelve sodes:  t h e i r memory  were  asked  wasn't s h e ? " ) . A second  bus?  film  In  students  c o n t a i n i n g two e p i -  Following  this,  t o 22 questions  t o respond  testing  E l e v e n o f t h e 2 2 q u e s t i o n s were  e l e v e n were s u g g e s t i v e ,  the experimental  ( e . g . , "The  a newspaper when s h e e n t e r e d  the bus,  s e s s i o n o c c u r r e d a week l a t e r . witnesses  At this  were t e s t e d o n a s e r i e s o f  twenty-two m u l t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s .  the  accurately.  ( e . g . , "What was t h e y o u n g woman c a r r y i n g when  young woman was c a r r y i n g  alternatives,  informa-  Grade 3 , Grade 6 , a n d c o l l e g e  and a s h o p l i f t i n g .  entered the bus?");  time,  value without  t o remember e v e n t s  f o r the events.  nonsuggestive, she  i s of l i t t l e  minute b l a c k and white  a petty theft  participants  s i n c e assessment o f t h e degree o f  ability study,  as w i t n e s s e s o f  Each q u e s t i o n had f o u r  one o f w h i c h was c o r r e c t .  F o r example,  "Which o f  f o l l o w i n g was t h e young woman c a r r y i n g when s h e g o t on t h e (a) an u m b r e l l a ,  (b) a s h o p p i n g  b a g , (c) a n e w s p a p e r ,  (d) a h a t box." T h e s u b j e c t was r e q u i r e d t o c h o o s e one r e s p o n s e . H a l f o f t h e m u l t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s had been asked leading  fashion during the previous  responses one  incorrect The  The p o s s i b l e  f o r t h e s e q u e s t i o n s c o n s i s t e d o f one c o r r e c t  response  question  session.  i n a mis-  t h a t h a d been s u g g e s t e d  i n an e a r l i e r  response,  misleading  ( e . g . , t h e newspaper o f t h e above example) a n d two responses. evidence  from  s e s s i o n r e v e a l e d Grade Grade 6 and t h e c o l l e g e  the nonsuggestive  questions of the f i r s t  3 c h i l d r e n were i n f e r i o r sample i n t h e i r  ability  t o both t h e to correctly  8  report did  the events of the f i l m .  not differ  leading  significantly.  questions  given the  of t h e responses  3 c h i l d r e n again  t h e Grade  three  found that  the f i r s t  In  initial  memory  children.  session,  performance  that  the  that  the misleading (e.g.,  children  to the i t was  given  that the  t o the importance of  from s u g g e s t i b i l i t y  due t o t h e i r  greater  distin-  i n younger  t h e d e l a y e d memory  (1980) b e l i e v e  information  inferior  suggestibility.  i s n o t more s u s c e p t i b l e  these researchers, detailed.  response  information  the suggestion  dealt with failed  The p o o r e r p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e Grade  to their  with  o f age, i n v a r i a b l y chose the  the participant witnesses  i s mainly  a correct  When r e s p o n s e s  Cohen and H a r n i c k  when t h e m i s l e a d i n g  argue,  persisted,  c h i l d r e n , i t i s t r u e , d i d n o t remember  occurred  forgot.  questions  c h i l d r e n a t a l l ages were s u s c e p t i b l e  information.  film  sugges-  d i d not exist.)  choice  pattern  to give  much a n d d i d a p p e a r more s u g g e s t i b l e ,  leading  that  a false  3  newspaper).  While younger  demonstrated  not  likely  summary, t h e r e s u l t s p o i n t  guishing  this  participants, regardless  woman c a r r i e d a  as  a detail  samples.  agreed with  students  t h e Grade  i n c o r r e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s were analyzed,  a l t e r n a t i v e which at  t o accept  to the multiple  less  6 or college  remaining  found that  more l i k e l y  a f t e r one week i n d i c a t e d t h a t  Grade  than  i t was  t o agree they witnessed  Analysis  6 and c o l l e g e  When t h e r e s p o n s e s t o t h e m i s -  were analyzed,  c h i l d r e n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y tion, (i.e.,  The Grade  but their  this  aspects of  to notice or  encoding The memory  representation  t o mis-  3 children,  to distortion,  test  they  o f events and o f younger according  o f events i s  to less  9 A study  criticism as w e l l  research, in  the  in  both  a p p l i c a b l e to both  as  concerns  eyewitness  the  interview.  are  witness  issue,  misleading  and  procedure  problem  into  fourth  place  graders,  shortly  after  to a testing  the  use  the  Memory  a thirty  Witness'  of  memory was  report task  seventh  information  as  they  each  event  event  interval assessed  was  and  tion  " D i d t h e man  task.  inclusion  The of  one  for a live  after  requiring  wear a moustache?")  suggestibility  i s s u e was  and  argument a  cona  ten  weeks.  session through as  a subsequent a yes a  o r no  a  much series response,  photo-identifica-  addressed  m i s l e a d i n g question at the  been  either  to recall  event,  a which  had  and  a t two  first  they were asked  could about the  and  event  experimenter  In  graders,  c o n s i s t e d o f an  the  since i t event.  first  second  again  of  avoided  interesting  tested after  then  eye-  number  (1979)  experimental witness  The  interviewed  eighth graders  to a fifteen  objective interview questions  (e.g.,  and  an  manipu-  legal  the  in  assessment.  Kovac  performance  room between t h e  i n which  being  ( k i n d e r g a r t e n e r s and  room.  f o r the  minute  t h e memory  is particularly  groups  items  resulting  relevant to the  Guth, Holmes, and and  included  questionnaire  to limit  (1980)  (19 78)  that suggestibility  seem i m p o r t a n t  built  Marin,  f o u r age  federate.  free  the  confusion i n children  sample) were exposed  brought over  i t would  ensure  c h i l d r e n ' s eyewitness  study  college took  Half of  To  empirical  by  potential  third  of  creating  questions  study  examined  or  not  t o make t h e  this  e t 'al.  studies contained misleading suggestions  lations  this  Dale  Harnick  number o f m i s l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s  i n t e r v i e w format.  A  Cohen and  the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned  unusual  and  the  end  of  through  the  the o b j e c t i v e  10 questions. cal  Two  query  question false  weeks  i n a nonleading was  assessed  p o s i t i v e or  Finally,  later,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  form.  through  The  examination of  "yes"' r e s p o n s e s  a possible  e f f e c t of  covariate  of  at  p e r f o r m a n c e was  a  dependence-independence measure t o  Analysis grade  of  the  effect with  increasing  free  the  linearly  information  likely  give  to  results,  the  significant vealed 7  and  age.  than  through  data items  findings age  for the  effects.  students  age  effect  the  number  two  of  week  session. in  administration  Unlike  children  they were the  questions  free  .06)  performing better  with  than  less  recall  showed  photo-identification task <  of  significant  younger  older witnesses  (p.  eye-  a l l subjects.  the  objective  The  leading  correctly recalled  Although  the  the  indicated a  incorrect information.  a marginal 8)  number o f  with  gave l e s s  recall  the  identi-  individual differences  witness field  explored  given  the  the  no re-  adolescent  older  or  (Grade :  younger  children. Although tial  responses  Cohen and the to  two  the  to  the  misleading  (19 80)  week s e s s i o n  respond  session.  d a t a were r e p o r t e d  Harnick  study),  the This  identical  suggestible t i o n s h i p was  the query  e f f e c t d i d not  authors than  concluded that  on  the  question  participants ( a s was  a n a l y s i s of  the  of  that  nonleading in a appear child  adults.  question  leading to  results  with  testimony  Finally,  no  age,  measure.  had  first however,  more  significant  f o u n d b e t w e e n e y e w i t n e s s p e r f o r m a n c e and  dependence-independence  likely  the  i s no  the from  i f they  form at  vary  ini-  1  done i n  i n d i c a t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e more  i n c o r r e c t l y to  been asked  and  no  the  .:. relafield  11 In  general, the  indicated of  the  that the c h i l d  amount o f  t a s k w i t h no strained  findings  witness  age  differences  Goetze  performance  (19 80)  nor  i n the  who  also  event.  a purse  s n a t c h i n g was  staged  f o r Grade  matched  f o r sex  in  groups of  bicycle posed  the  gathered  assessed  immediately  concerned  s e x was a  free  task  the person report.  first,  items.  The  either  statements flict  the  children the  for a  confederate  exit  from  the event.  of  of  theft  demon-  straggle the  Half of  twenty-nine  room. the ques-  the  crime,  and  then were asked  r e c e i v e d the  to respond  free  "What for  report  to the questionnaire  for a l lparticipants o f s i x head  e.g.,  and  with a  photo-  shoulder  pictures  confederate. r e p o r t e d no  accuracy  of nor  given i n the  with those  after  half  task consisting  research,  the male c o n f e d e r a t e  something?"  remaining  8  with  the beginning of the  facts  then were asked  authors  the  took  s e s s i o n ended  depicting The  The  and  identification one  who  and  con  eyewitness  witnessed  and  report  susceptibility  compared  female  given a series  with the v i t a l  free  doctoral  6,  i n terms  together ostensibly  s h o u l d e r bag,  e x p e r i m e n t a l w i t n e s s e s were tions  3,  children  after  children witnessed her  be  In this  A male and  Shortly  t h e woman, s e i z e  Memory was  The  demonstration.  bystanders.  stration, with  twenty-four,  safety  as  level.  can  study  t o t h e more  examined c h i l d r e n ' s  a live  IQ  in a  degree of  These f i n d i n g s  following  and  recalled  evident i n response  questionnaire items  of  e t a l . (19 79)  i s only disadvantaged  information correctly  to misleading questions. those  of the Marin  the  free  of Marin  significant amount o f  age  differences  factual  report task.  e t a l . ( 1 9 7 9 ) who  These found  or  in  erroneous  findings  con-  significant  12  age  differences  tion  volunteered  found with  age d i f f e r e n c e s  When t h e s p e c i f i c  6 and 8 c h i l d r e n were  younger Grade  thief.  Finally  differences  older  counterparts:  fied the  the thief, eighth  graders did.  a possible  ability, and  basis  a n d more  memory  the  Goetze  and weight  This  e t a l . f o u n d no  sample)  interviewer child  than the estimations  significant  Although,  there  graders  There  was  was a t r e n d f o r  t o perform better  25% o f t h e s i x t h  than  correctly  graders  IQ was e x a m i n e d  their  identi-  and 17% o f i n the study  i n eyewitness  r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o u n d b e t w e e n  f o rthe difference  (19 80)  i n free  a n d M a r i n e t a l . (1979) interview.  In the Marin  latter  examined,  t o judgments about t h e age o f t h e  Marin  q u e s t i o n e d by an i n t e r v i e w e r  questioned  erroneous  IQ  level  performance.  the eyewitness  theft.  results  items were  f o rindividual differences  no s i g n i f i c a n t  One r e a s o n  ing  height  42% o f t h e t h i r d  but only  also  i n the questionnaire  i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e s u l t s , however, t h a t (theyoungest  informa-  (19 80)  i n p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n performance.  graders  of  Goetze  f o u n d t o be more a c c u r a t e  respect  Goetze with  third  as  task.  questionnaire  3 children i n their  not different with  age  report  and i n c o r r e c t  younger c h i l d r e n g i v i n g fewer c o r r e c t  Grade  an  i n a free  significant  responses.  but  i n t h e amount o f c o r r e c t  the child  study  r e s u l t s between  i s the staging  I n t h e Goetze study,  children  e t a l . study, however, t h e i n t e r v i e w e r was a l s o  i s probably  present  viewed  at the witnessed f o r a young  as a knowledgeable  about t h e i n t e r v i e w e r ' s  t h e memory s e s s i o n .  were  who was n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e a c t u a l  s i t u a t i o n may b e c o n f u s i n g  i s unclear  report  To t h e e x t e n t  who  event.  child. adult  The  and t h e  intentions i n conduct-  that  such task  variables  13 influence younger  performance,  c h i l d r e n i n the  information their  i t i s not  during  increased  have been  the  sensitive  to  exposure  to  by  the  under s e v e r a l mirrored  the  the  children  not  the  a  procedure.  then,  In  i n the  because of  possible  the  i s the  contrast Marin et  explanation  performance use  the  of  recall  of  showed  f o r the  found  better  providing lack  i n the  the  children's  remember i s for  in  that  of  age  Goetze  a plausible interviewing  a l . (1979)  artificiality  that  legitimate reason  absent),  ignorant  information  f i n d i n g suggests  the  initial  (adult  results clearly  a  (adult where  f o r the  presumably  w h a t t h e y know o r  description  situation  amount o f  can three  conditions  The  in free report  study,  the  a  was  This  may  are  aged  and  perceive One  Children  present  greatest  when t h e y  of  with  information  second c o n d i t i o n  the  differences  children  In  volunteered  condition.  children  i s also present  seen.  information.  (1980)  One  had  competence i n r e p e a t i n g assessed  (1982).  child  adult-absent  that  experimental  child  event.  children  p e r f o r m a memory and  typical  the  i n t e r v i e w e r was  about what the  Bullock  conditions.  questions of  by  no  interview.  when a s k e d t o v o l u n t e e r  seven years were asked t o  the  experimental suggestion  the  testing situations  context  to  presentation  and  Older  f o r the  i n research  a d u l t who  task.  volunteered  support  found  present)  a l . study  school  be  task  et  free report  less puzzled  Empirical  Marin  s u r p r i s i n g t h a t many o f  the  performance of study  may  interview  the  young  have been situation.  depressed  14 Summary o f In is  E y e w i t n e s s L i t e r a t u r e on  general,  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  where and  when age  summary o f  the  respond  event  a  few  t o an  7-8  ences w i t h logical  reported  Marin  among a  c h i l d r e n but  f o r these  Marin  et  no  amount o f significant  a l . (1979)  witness to  1 for  a  (1980)  3,  6,  and  versus  gradual  incorrect information  1,  f o u n d no 8.  A  linear  age  differ-  f i n d i n g s was  recalled  methodo-  noted  absent).  increase  while  groups  3-4,  possible  age-related  an  Grade  interviewer  d i f f e r e n c e s among h i s age  ability  about  found  K-Grade  discrepant  ( i . e . interviewer present a  for information  et  Goetze  a l . also reported  Table  for children's  sample of  c h i l d r e n from Grades  explanation  child  c o n s e n s u s as  e v i d e n t . (See  open-ended request  age  little  the  reviewed).  above  the  and  d i f f e r e n c e s are  (i.e. free report).  Grade  concerned with  studies  f i n d i n g s are  improvements w i t h and  literature  findings just  Conflicting to  the  Children  in  Goetze  for  found  erroneous  statements. Three when a The  s t u d i e s h a v e e x a m i n e d c h i l d r e n ' s memory  s t r u c t u r e d s e r i e s of  closed  or  open nature  somewhat, h o w e v e r , and structured very  the  respond  study  types  specific  results  questions  suggest that  employed. has  the  varied  more  un-  format,  the  more d i s a d v a n t a g e d  (nine years  and  younger)Tin  t o d a t e has  looked  of questionnaire  significant to  the  are  terms  the of  information.  specific  ported  the  witness  O n l y one to  of  questionnaire  young  providing  interview questions  performance  requests  age  at children's  items.  Goetze  responses  (1980)  differences in children's ability  for height  and  weight  estimations  rer-v . to  with  Table 1 Summary of Recent Developmental Literature an Eyewitness A b i l i t i e s of Children  AUTHORS  PARTICIPANTS  TYPE OF EVENT OBSERVED  MEMDRY MEASURES FREE REPORT  QUESTIONNAIRE YES/NO RESPONSE  Cohen and Hamick (1980)  Grades 3,6, and college students  Goetze (1980)  Grades 3,6 and 8 students  PHOTOIDEOTIFICATION  Film event  MULTIPLE CHOICE  OPEN-ENDED  Sig. age differences  Sig. age differences  SUGGESTIVE RESPONSES TO MISLEADING QUESTIONING  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE MEASURES  Sig. age differences Ln  Marin, Holmes, Grades Guth and Kovac K-l, 3-4, 7-8, and University (1979) students  Live event  No sig. age differences  Live event  Sig. age effects  Sig. age differences  No sig. age differences  No s i g . age differences  No s i g . age differences  IQ unrelated to eyewitness performance No sig. age differences  Field dependence independence unrelated to eyewitness performance  16 older  (Grade  6 a n d 8) c h i l d r e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Grade  3 children. Photo-identification  et a  a l . (1979) a n d G o e t z e  of  which  age  developmental Several  studies  suggestibility  used across It  were found  trends  these  studies.  Both  s i xphotos o f f e r e d  showed t h e p r e v i o u s l y  differences  the  r e s u l t s were r e p o r t e d (1980)  s i m i l a r procedure with  more a c c u r a t e  were  studies  seen confederate.  i n either case,  No  although  increased  followed one  significant unusual  noted.  but the very  studies  have  considered  d i f f e r e n t methodologies  makes summary s t a t e m e n t s  difficult.  does n o t appear, however, as Dent and Stephenson  that  the Marin  to witnesses,  have been reviewed which  issue  i n both  than  suggestibility  (1979)  i n children i s a "well  state  documented  i ;  4 fact". is  To b e g i n w i t h ,  not a problem  that witnesses were e q u a l l y  to  they  ranging  that  to a misleading found  events  should  issue  e t a l . (19 79) to  question.  found  adults  Although  c h i l d r e n more s u g g e s t i b l e  than  i n d i v i d u a l s o f a l l ages a r e s u s c e p t i b l e  effects of false information  suggestibility  Harnick,  cite 1911  Marin  t o r e m e m b e r o r t o e n c o d e some a s p e c t  creased  of  (19 80)  argued  the suggestibility  i n age from k i n d e r g a r t e n e r s  susceptible  the misleading  failed  that  limited to children.  Cohen and H a r n i c k adults,  i tappears  when t h e y  have  o f an event.  In-  i n children, according  be i n t e r p r e t e d as due t o t h e i r  and n o t t o t h e i r  intrinsic  t o Cohen and inferior  encoding  suggestibility.  To s u p p o r t t h i s s t a t e m e n t , Dent a n d S t e p h e n s o n (1979) t h e w r i t i n g s o f a member o f t h e l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n a n d t h e Vaerenconck study.  17  Finally, have  been  related  considered  field  performance eyewitness was  individual differences i n two s t u d i e s .  Marin  dependence-independence  and Goetze memory.  (19 80)  In both  cases,  et al.  scores  examined  performance  with  (19 79)  cor-  eyewitness  the influence  no s i g n i f i c a n t  o f IQ o n  relationship  found.  Issues  of Concern  Additional conclusions drawn. a  i n eyewitness  to the Present  research  about  The above  i s obviously  the eyewitness studies  research  eyewitness  (e.g.,  interview  sponses) , as w e l l needed.  abilities  problems  a s some  should  c a n be  i n suggesting  be a v o i d e d i n a  plausible  f o r the child's r e -  i n which  information  definite  of children  of creating  and context  areas  before  however,  that  the importance  format  Specifically,  needed  are important,  number o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  future  Study  further  i s required  research  on t h e  i s  following  issues: 1,  The p o s s i b l e b a s i s young c h i l d r e n .  2,  The types o f o b j e c t i v e q u e s t i o n s t o which v a r y i n g ages a r e c a p a b l e o f r e s p o n d i n g .  3,  F u r t h e r " i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f why susceptible to suggestion.  4,  The developmental abilities.  5,  Possible correlates of individual differences i n children's eyewitness a b i l i t i e s .  The  present  In  addition,  ness  into  f o r free  course  i n v e s t i g a t i o n was the study  report  extended  a n d when  o f face  designed  difficulties  children at  children are  recognition  t o study  o u t knowledge  a number o f l a r g e l y u n e x p l o r e d  i n  t h e above  of the c h i l d  areas,  including:  issues. wit-  18  6.  The r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y o f e v e n t r e c a l l v e r s u s of the p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s of i n d i v i d u a l s .  7.  Children's a b i l i t y to accurately r e c a l l sequence of a witnessed event.  8.  The p o s s i b l e a m e l i o r a t i v e e f f e c t of witnessed m a t e r i a l .  9.  Children's a b i l i t y t o r e f l e c t upon t h e i r c a p a c i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s as w i t n e s s e s o f e v e n t s ( i . e . , t h e i r meta-eyewitness a b i l i t i e s ) .  10.  similar  the  issues  developmental  Free  and  research  literature  -to h a v e a n questioning  free  recall  ences. findings context perceive  One  eyewitness or  required  to  Discussion  performance  suggested  child  important  as  is  of  of  various  presented  Goetze  As  first.  noted  little  perform poorly age  is  et a l . on  differ-  differences in  especially sensitive to  so.  putative that  a i d someone a t t e m p t i n g  as  above Marin  no  in  a d u l t s , (reviewed  i n t e r v i e w method  f o r these  for doing  understands  technique  report with  3)  to volunteer  i s the  with  (1980) r e p o r t e d  young c h i l d r e n are  who  optimal  (Grade  explanation  more l i k e l y  recall  research  possible.  young c h i l d r e n  tasks, while  are  an  f i r s t .provide' a - f r e e  issue i n free report A  in light  the  Laboratory  a p l a u s i b l e reason  viewer.  elaborated  children.  shown'that the  prompting  i s that and  be  cognitive  free report  interviewing.  found that  report  on  now  eyeeye-  which have a r i s e n i n the  i s considered  L o f t u s (1979)) has  (19 79)  cues upon  Performance  report  eyewitness  cal  above p o i n t s w i l l  pertaining to  Free Report  in  temporal  The e f f e c t o f t h e medium o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e w i t n e s s e v e n t upon t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l p a t t e r n o f witness performance.  Each of  issues  of  the  recall  to  i n f o r m a t i o n when A  they  r e l a t e d methodologi-  interest  of  the  inter-  a physical description i s l o c a t e a p e r s o n may  give  19  a very as  d i f f e r e n t answer t h a n a c h i l d who i s c o n f u s e d o r u n c l e a r  t o the reasons  f o r the p a r t i c u l a r query.  P a r i s (.19 78b) h a s  s u g g e s t e d t h a t young c h i l d r e n may p e r f o r m p o o r l y  relative to  older  c h i l d r e n o r adults because o f t h e i r misperception  goals  o f most memory t a s k s .  Research evidence e x i s t s  of the (Paris,  1 9 7 8 b ) t o i n d i c a t e , f o r example, t h a t young c h i l d r e n i n c o r r e c t l y assume t h a t most memory t a s k s ial.  This  assumption w i l l  s i t u a t i o n s which r e q u i r e The  two  rote  u n f a i r l y bias  reproduction  their  more c o n s t r u c t i v e  o f mater-  performance i n  operations.  p o t e n t i a l i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e above m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  siderations children  require  does n o t p r e c l u d e  poorer r e c a l l  due t o more p e r v a s i v e  a l t e r n a t i v e explanations  cognitive  con-  performance i n  deficits.^  f o r the impoverished  To d a t e ,  eyewitness  accounts o f c h i l d r e n have been proposed i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . explanation, hypothesis, their  w h i c h c a n be r e f e r r e d t o as t h e e n c o d i n g states  perceptual  less  favored  deficit  t h a t because o f developmental d i f f e r e n c e s i n  and e n c o d i n g p r o c e s s e s ,  encode e v e n t s as w e l l sis  One  as o l d e r  individuals.  b y Cohen and H a r n i c k  observant o f d e t a i l  y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n do n o t  (19 80)  than the o l d e r  This  i s the hypothe-  who v i e w t h e c h i l d as child  or adult.  In  A l a r g e d e v e l o p m e n t a l l i t e r a t u r e documents t h e d i f f i c u l t y p r e s c h o o l and young g r a d e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n e v i d e n c e i n f r e e r e c a l l s i t u a t i o n s , ' i . e . , a task i n which t h e t o - b e - r e c a l l e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t p r e s e n t d u r i n g t e s t i n g . Most o f t h i s r e s e a r c h h a s examined c h i l d r e n ' s f r e e r e c a l l o f r e l a t i v e l y d i s c r e t e u n i t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , e . g . l i s t s o f words o r s e r i e s o f p i c t u r e s i n f a i r l y w e l l d e f i n e d memory t a s k s . These paradigms a r e p o p u l a r i n t h a t t h e y a l l o w t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f s u c h q u e s t i o n as d e v e l o p m e n t a l c h a n g e s i n c l u s t e r i n g . Whether t h e s e f i n d i n g s a r e g e n e r a l i z a b l e to the eyewitness s i t u a t i o n i s uncertain. As e y e w i t n e s s e s , c h i l d r e n a r e t y p i c a l l y c a l l e d upon t o r e c a l l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a m u l t i - f a c e t e d e v e n t w i t n e s s e d w i t h o u t advance knowledge t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l n e e d t o be r e c a l l e d a t a l a t e r d a t e .  20  short, his  t h e younger  child's  or her registration  sketchy. the  The p o o r e r  open-ended  eyewitness  account  and subsequent  performance  and m u l t i p l e  memory  o f events  i n their  i s sketchy  memory  f o r an event i s  o f t h e Grade  3 children  c h o i c e q u e s t i o n n a i r e used study  i s seen  because  as support  i n both  t o assess  f o r this  conclusion. Another call al. in  explanation f o r the general  performance (19 79)  and suggests  retrieving  decoding are  i n young  deficits).  cited  that  with  the equal  age d i f f e r e n c e s performance  photo-identification  tasks  presumably  provide  sufficient  t o overcome  port  argument  memory  performance  which  i n performance".  aware  of contradictory  in  children's  Diamond,  Stigler  1981; T v e r s k y  Newcombe, The encoding the  Rogoff, issue  of faces  & Teiffer,  & Kagan,  o f whether  age  authors  that are  objects  and scenes  sup-  differ-  do n o t seem age  & Winograd,  1980; M a n d l e r  These  recognition  documented  1980);  et a l .  effects  1978;  (Sophian  (Dirk  &  & Neis-  & Robinson,  1978;  i s hampered  by  1977). children's  difficulties  testimony  Marin  To f u r t h e r  n o t shown  have  1976),  (i.e.,  and a d u l t s i n  r e s e a r c h on  (Blaney  1980; F l i n ,  1976; K i r a s i c  or decoding  eyewitness  which  l i e  difficulties  and prompts  Unfortunately, these findings  present  interview tasks.  o f cues  has " t y p i c a l l y  & Woods,  1977; Hoffman  of children  cite  difficulties  retrieval  difficulties.  authors  recognition  Carv.ey,  ser,  retrieval  cues  by M a r i n e t  i n encoding,  and o b j e c t i v e  the types  these  ences  that  of poorer r e -  offered  child's  external  To demonstrate  their  their  has been  t h e young  information without  not confounded  (19 79)  children  findings  testimony  has important  of children.  I f young  implications f o r children  do n o t  21 encode comes  events crucial  differences son  as w e l l  or like  to understand  a n d how  they  of the quality  and low r e t r i e v a l  this  issue.  Cued  Recall role  eyewitness  recall  cued  recall  have  suggested  report these of  affect  demands  of decoding  that  situations authors  As  Compari-  tasks  with  children's  through  Marin  children's  et a l .  (1979)  children  i n free  o f i n f o r m a t i o n from  memory.  cues  event  these  of investigating  directly  already noted,  i s retrieval  seen  memory  i n determining  f o r young  i t be-  testimony.  i s o n e means  the problem  are correct,  an o r i g i n a l l y  between  investigated  performance.  or adults,  and e x t e n t o f  eyewitness  deficits  c a n be  children  the nature  o f performance  high  The  older  which  should  r e p r e s e n t some  improve  If  aspect(s)  children's  eyewitness  testimony. The suggests the  group  of children  later  was  representing  a c t as a c u e . shown w i t h  recall  24  shown  from  from  So,  items  of a with  zoo.  differences cues.  6, 8  eight  categories. with  11  and  an  Each  of  subsequently  i n t h e number  year o l d  additional  three pictures When  i n  I n one  asked  the set of picture  were e v i d e n t b o t h  utilization  The c a t e g o r y p i c t u r e  f o r example,  and t h e spontaneous  external  to the children  the category.  cue  developmental  (1974)  pictures  a picture  the picture  differences  called  on r e t r i e v a l  to benefit  Kobasigawa  t o remember  of pictures  picture  literature  there are significant  f o r example,  children  age  that  ability  study,  were  developmental  cues  would animals  asked  to  present,  o f items r e -  use o f t h e cue p i c t u r e s  as  retrieval  22 cues.  Only  cues,  33% o f t h e s i x y e a r  to assist  recall  were e x p l i c i t l y  by the experimenter,  ance d i s a p p e a r e d .  These  e.g.  s i xyear  cues  when e x p l i c i t l y  spontaneously  olds,  findings  since  testimony  cues  legal  the presence  appear  of children's  eyewitness  children,  often  fail  to lack  an  to  prompts.  o f w h e t h e r a n d how c u e s  may b e a u s e f u l  perform-  of external  i s of considerable significance  the quality  and Person Although  single  affect  eye-  particularly  procedure f o r recall  i n certain  Recall  free  r e p o r t has been c o n s i d e r e d thus  aspect of eyewitness  ponents  of the task that  the event  itself  (i.e.,  perpetrator  o f a misdeed.)  importance  from both search  the participants  the child  of this  eyewitness  ( T i c h n e r a n d P o u l t o n , 1975)  actions  o r events  individuals.  Dent and Stephenson  i n 10 a n d 11 y e a r o l d s '  and r e c a l l  of  (e.g..the  literature. that  to recall  than  findings  Past r e -  adults  (1979) f o u n d  descriptions  about  descriptive  i s u n d e r l i n e d by  suggests  they witness easier  t w o com-  Information  i n the event  distinction  and a d u l t  f a r as a  there are i n fact,  what happened?)  about  The  recall,  s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d :  information  ences  t h a t young  u s e f u l n e s s a s memory  cues  t o employ  situations.  Event  of  from  because they  potential  t h e use o f p h y s i c a l  improving  indicate  children.  i n recall  p r o m p t e d t o do s o , b u t w i l l  I n summary, t h e i s s u e witness  prompted  age d i f f e r e n c e s  can b e n e f i t  use such  awareness o f t h e i r  used t h e  c o m p a r e d t o 92% o f t h e G r a d e 6  However, when t h e c h i l d r e n the cues  olds spontaneously  find the  descriptions  similar  of people  differ-  and e v e n t s .  23  These authors events of  conclude that  is likely  t o be  i n d i v i d u a l s are  recall  performance  events,  w o u l d be  the  the  information  quite accurate.  more p r o b l e m a t i c . f o r these of  competencies of  two  child  Although accuracy  and  witnesses to  the  the  child  i n free report  question  o f how  producing  the  Piagetian  account of  concepts years,  temporal  at  various  no  child's suggests great  event.  understanding that before  to  culty  they  recall  age  seven or  and  Brown  claim. are  to  i n these  immature e x p o s i t o r y  ordered  stories,  Piaget  haphazard n a r r a t i o n . (1975,  Her  1976)  findings  in fact  able  s i t u a t i o n s are skills  re-  eight  d i f f i c u l t y reproducing to reproduce  given  to  called  has suggest recognize  Any  diffi-  attributable, into  play  she  during  tasks.  The an  Piaget's  kindergarten  experience  been  temporal  r e c o n s t r u c t meaningful n a r r a t i v e sequences.  argues,  of  of  of  the  young  classic  an  -c-'o  and  by  The  s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d by  c h i l d r e n of  examined  sequence of  A  that  has  correctly  When r e q u i r e d  validity  ages.  attention.has  jumbled  the  detailing  information volunteered  argues, young c h i l d r e n produce a  examined  for  of  p e r s o n s and  at  c h i l d r e n experience  s e r i e s of  use  literature  situations,  the  events.  testimony,  competent c h i l d r e n are  ( P i a g e t , 1969)  sequences of  descriptions  Testimony  eyewitness  completeness of  about  Cross-age comparisons  practical  witnesses  Temporal Sequence i n C h i l d r e n ' s  Children's  facets of  considerable  c h i l d r e n supply  ability  e v e n t as  increasing  of  children to correctly  opposed to  a n a r r a t i v e or  a t t e n t i o n from researchers,  recall story  (e.g.  the  sequence  is receiving  Lichenstern  &  24  Brewer,  1980; Nelson  & Gruendel,  1981).  Much o f t h i s  ture  focuses on t h e development and subsequent  plan  o r event  (e.g.  eating  schemata i n r e c a l l i n g a restaurant meal).  c o u l d have p o t e n t i a l struction can  reproducing seen, of  would in  the correct  scripted type  event,  temporal  mentioned  difficulty  sequence o f a p a r t i c u l a r ,  coherence  an  once account  Questions  i n t h e p r e c e d i n g summary o f t h e c h i l d (Goetze,  the a b i l i t y  of children  t o questions  t o respond  i n an eyewitness  age,  and weight  tion  types which  Goetze  19 80)  typically  examined h e i g h t ,  b u t a number o f q u e s -  t o eyes,  and t h e o b j e c t s manipulated  hair,  research which  indicated  in  faces  ability  and f a c i a l  i s o f obvious  t o respond hair  by  comments  individuals.  t o questions  i s suggested  from  these three features are important  (Shepherd,  on c h i l d r e n ' s  interviews  Some e x a m p l e s a r e t h e v e r b a l  of children's  witness  has considered  a r e common f e a t u r e s o f e y e w i t n e s s  made d u r i n g a n e v e n t ,  recognizing  interview.  estimations i n children  have y e t t o be examined.  Investigation  age d i f f e r e n c e s  of the information given.  o n l y one s t u d y t o d a t e  requests  question  experience  literature,  information  the recon-  a more p r e l i m i n a r y  important t o examine p o s s i b l e  Responses t o S p e c i f i c  pertaining  of analysis  c a n be s u p p l i e d by a young w i t n e s s i s i m p o r t a n t , i t  the structural  included  routines,  I n s h o r t , w h i l e t h e q u e s t i o n o f how r i c h  seem e q u a l l y  As  this  - ~ namely, do young c h i l d r e n  event?  an event  While  influence of  usefulness f o ri n v e s t i g a t i n g  o f an eyewitness  be posed  familiar  litera-  Davies,  facility  & Ellis,  1981).  cues  Detailed  with various information  v a l u e f o r anyone i n t e r e s t e d  i n creating  25  an  a g e - s e n s i t i v e and o p t i m a l  for  example,  weight tive  young  estimations,  methods  In  o f how  interrogation. that  children  data  perhaps  possible of  Dale ren  a more  t h e same  I f , and  alterna-  suggested.  i t would  directly  appear  or  suggestive  difficult  compared  t o con-  a n d why  of additional  would  One  develop-  to  suggestion.  or decreased  ages.  a misleading  should  of  be t h e g e n e r a t i o n  increased  at varying  adults.  the credibility  of individuals  for predicting  b e i n v o l v e d when  there  be  What  of  levels  possible  suggestion i s developmental  processes?  were  have  linguistic  proposed  why  the preschool  questioned  of questions.  expectations  of  that  s u g g e s t i b l e when  to the wording  degree  straight  yielded inconsistent results.  i n children  study  to  can also raise the  to misleading  useful beginning  i t i s unclear  heightened  are strongly  questions,one  be t h e g a t h e r i n g  i n these  sensitive  adults, a  would  e t a l . (1978)  i n their  were  have  by c h i l d r e n  differences  or  a r e o r a r e n o t more s u g g e s t i b l e t h a n  that  suggestibility  accepted  height  questions  c h i l d r e n ' s answers  on t h e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y  could  i n their  o f such  information  respond  At present,  hypotheses  processes  to  children  and a d u l t s have  recommendation  But  this  seeking  children  few s t u d i e s  mental  ommission  for children.  i n Children  information  question  format  are inaccurate  a d d i t i o n t o examining  forward  The  then  of seeking  Suggestibility  clude  children  interview  one s h o u l d  has been expect  responsiveness.  Since  child-  because  they  sensitivity  demonstrated i n children  t o show  26  An not  alternative explanation  literature  processes absent  the  been  1981).  inclination  that  involved  to infer  object,  there  colour  logical  inferences,  Lindauer, stories  likely  was  o f an  play  to the  such  t o have  why  and .  inferential  researchers  reasons  that  existed  i t should  i n the context  19 7 7 ) .  In this  a r e examined  infer  various  n o t have  written  (197 7)  ones  material.  While  processes  an e x c e p t i o n  supply  inferential lead  connections  one t o h y p o t h e s i z e  be m i s l e d  than  older  has been  Wellman,  younger  children i n their  that  children  i s a  they  general  correspondacts  additions,  tremendous  i n t h e comprehension  see C o l l i n s ,  the finding that  work  The  o r "spontaneous  o f and subsequent  little  ability  instruments, e t c .  inferential  provide  understanding  1978),  might  These  propose,  tap their  age, there  constructions  studied  memories f o r  of the narratives.  increasing  expansion".  inferential  (for  with  which  has been  ( P a r i s 1978a; P a r i s &  children's  entailments,  context  i n inferential  information  increasing  that  f o r prose  questions  consequences,  has been  Lindauer  research,  (as opposed t o  reasoning)  o f memory  through  finding  increase  inferences  e.g. s y l l o g i s t i c  by t h e e x p l i c i t  to  on  the presence  the context was  of pragmatic  implied  of  etc.  a r e no o b v i o u s  development  extensively  and  that  i n the child  t o draw  By s u g g e s t i n g  Most i f  there. The  ing  attempts  o r an a l t e r n a t i v e o b j e c t ,  suggested  and/or  have  (Loftus,  object  witness'  of  be proposed.  a l l of the s u g g e s t i b i l i t y manipulations  adult  to  can also  Paris  benefits, memory f o r  done  on t h e r o l e  of ongoing  Keniston, are less  events  and Westby, likely  to  processing  of  material  would  be  less  or adults.  also That  i s , they  likely would  27 be more d a t a - b o u n d and  less  likely  t o go b e y o n d t h e  given  information. A p o s s i b l e problem Harnick be  (19 80)  w i t h t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s t h e Cohen  argument t h a t y o u n g c h i l d r e n h a v e l e s s d a t a  "bound" t o a f t e r w i t n e s s i n g an e v e n t ,  events ing  i s less  to t h i s  their  rich  and  detailed  actual  to  i . e . , t h e i r memory o f  than o l d e r witnesses.  Accord-  v i e w , young c h i l d r e n h a v e a g r e a t e r n e e d t o augment  s k e t c h y memories and  potential  and  are l e s s  capable of d e t e c t i n g a  c o n t r a d i c t i o n between a s u g g e s t e d  details  of a witnessed  i n f e r e n c e and  the  event, hence t h e i r i n c r e a s e d  suggestibility. I n summary, t h e n , is  an  important  issue  c h i l d witnesses. responses the r o l e  Two  t h e presumed s u g g e s t i b i l i t y f o r any  children  assessment of the c r e d i b i l i t y  processes  t h a t may  l i e behind  of post-event  adequate encodings  processes  i n children's  i n f o r m a t i o n and  of events  namely,  acceptance  the i m p l i c a t i o n  for susceptibility  of  children's  t o m i s l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n i n g have b e e n o u t l i n e d , of i n f e r e n t i a l  rejection  of  of  or less  to misleading  interrogation.  Face  Recognition One  important  facet  t o r e c a l l what p e o p l e for  adult  studies 1979;  eyewitness  devoted  t h a t have taken identification  look l i k e .  The  testimony importance  r e s e a r c h i s demonstrated  to this  Yarmey, 1 9 7 9 ) .  of eyewitness  topic  alone.  In l i g h t  a developmental  of t h i s  i s an  of t h i s  see L o f t u s ,  emphasis, the  are of c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t .  aspect  i n t h e volume o f  (For reviews  p e r s p e c t i v e on  ability  few  studies  eyewitness As d e s c r i b e d  28 above, both Marin e t a l . (1979) and Goetze  (1980) r e p o r t e d  unusual developmental changes i n eyewitness While the two f u n c t i o n s do not c o i n c i d e  identification.  (Goetze found Grade 3  c h i l d r e n performed b e t t e r than Grade 6 o r 8 c h i l d r e n and Marin et a l . (1979) r e p o r t e d Grade 7 and 8 c h i l d r e n outperforming both o l d e r a d u l t s and a younger  sample o f c h i l d r e n ) and none o f the  d i f f e r e n c e s reached s i g n i f i c a n c e , they are t a n t a l i z i n g when c o n s i d e r e d i n the context o f the developmental l i t e r a t u r e on face r e c o g n i t i o n . In a r e c e n t paper, Carey, Diamond and Woods, (19 80)  dis-  cussed a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s d e a l i n g with the encoding o f unfamiliar faces i n c h i l d r e n between the ages o f s i x and s i x t e e n . study, photographs  In one  o f 4 8 f a c e s were presented t o c h i l d r e n who  were asked t o judge the sex o r l i k a b i l i t y o f each model.  After-  wards , they were g i v e n a f o r c e d c h o i c e r e c o g n i t i o n task c o n t a i n i n g 48 p a i r s o f f a c e s , each p a i r c o n s i s t i n g o f one o l d and one n o v e l face.  For both judgment c o n d i t i o n s , accuracy i n c r e a s e d from s i x  to t e n y e a r s , d e c l i n e d o r l e v e l l e d around t e n t o twelve years and subsequently improved from a paradigm  up t o age s i x t e e n .  t h a t may have l i t t l e  T h i s f i n d i n g comes  . g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t o the  eyewitness s i t u a t i o n , but the r e s u l t s can a l e r t r e s e a r c h e r s t o the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the development  o f f a c i a l memory may f o l l o w  an unusual developmental p r o g r e s s i o n .  I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n Eyewitness  Performance  Another i n t r i g u i n g q u e s t i o n i s the i s s u e o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n eyewitness performance. e t a l . (19 79)  As noted e a r l i e r , Marin  found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between f i e l d  dependence-  29  independence  and  ance.  have been s e v e r a l  There  either  dependence measures (for a review  see  and  memory f o r an  intuitively eyewitness this  1979) (1980)  event  performance,  no  Deffenbacher,  performance  recognition  but  i n children.  on  Brown, and  a nonverbal  accuracy  and  also  introversion-extroversion scale  significance.  no  writings.  Two  might  issues  the cognitive  has  reflects  upon a p o s s i b l e i n the  more d e t a i l s about of t h i s  evidence  eyewitness  the degree solution  statement  task.  and  might superior  facial  of  among  of reached  findings, raised  variation.  the  i n legal  One  has  to which  an  individual  (Kagan,  1965).  reflective children  B a b i c h , K i r a s i c , 1974)  be  encode  impulsive children.  In present  i m p u l s i v e boys  r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d may  s u c h may  to  reflectivity-impulsivity,  also  the accuracy or extensiveness of as  in  correlated  correlations  t o a problem  Siegel,  The  (1975)  found  a vividness  r e f l e c t i v e boys outperform  self-monitoring accounts  and  eyewitness  v i s u a l s t i m u l i than  indicating  at  on  between  i n t h e same s t u d y ,  i s often  l i t e r a t u r e i s that  a visual recognition better  as  one  t o show  unpromising  s t y l e dimension  been d e f i n e d  Speculation  support  bear  have  significant relationship.  a g a i n none o f t h e  Despite these rather  psychological  which  results  Although  scale  o f w h a t makes a good e y e w i t n e s s  do w i t h  literature  Sturgil  were i n c l u d e d  but  field  intelligence test with  found  t h e m an  imagery  including  s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was  other correlates  topic  the  perform-  examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p  Several  visual  eyewitness  e x p e c t more i n t e l l i g e n t c h i l d r e n  study.  adult  Goetze  o r memory  investigations  i n the adult  Yarmey,  been e q u i v o c a l . IQ  photo-identification  a more competent  on  be his/her  eyewitness.  30  Impulsive terse  children, i n contrast,  i n t h e i r eyewitness A second  fluency  issue  givings legal  witness  performance.  issue  a b o v e , some b e l i e v e  and lack  abilities verbally  across  communicate  his  Meta-eyewitness The  issue  find  impression  i teasier  of this  question  of personally  witnessed  events.  i n a general  section.  c a n be r a i s e d a b o u t reflect  age t r e n d s  m e t a - a b i l i t i e s i n c h i l d r e n h a s shown t h a t  and communicative  material  developmental  and m o n i t o r i n g  abilities  (Flavell,  the clarity  communication, young c h i l d r e n o f t e n  young  eyeon  children  memory,  1977).  For  successfully  or ambiguity  perform poorly.  t o show a s i m i l a r l a c k  their  literature  their  t o i n d i c a t e when t h e y h a v e  or t o evaluate  i n children's  upon and t o a s s e s s  The c o g n i t i v e  poor a t e v a l u a t i n g  dis-  A r e l a t e d b u t somewhat  various  e x a m p l e , when a s k e d  cognitive  dimension o f r e f l e c t i v e n e s s has been  abilities.  may b e e x p e c t e d  concern,  a n d t h e more  witness  learned  type  i n verbal  to intelligently  learning  differ-  t o a r t i c u l a t e and t o  of individual differences  i n the preceding  quite  the child  expository  ability  are  mis-  Abilities  or personality  different  generality  individual variations  may  that  with  c h i l d r e n o f any age b r a c k e t ,  adept c h i l d  from  due t o l e s s  of familiarity  Despite t h e supposed  a r e c e r t a i n l y wide  stems  verbal  h a v e b e e n r a i s e d b y members o f t h e  As n o t e d  vocabulary  situations.  cussed  This  i s l i m i t e d i n h i s or her testimony  entiated  style  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  that  profession.  there  testimony.  i s that  and eyewitness  may b e m o r e c a v a l i e r a n d  of a  Children  o f a w a r e n e s s when  asked  31 to  assess To  their  date,  eyewitness  no  attention  abilities  in children.  important  for understanding  behavior. has  been g i v e n t o  Investigation the  of  meta-eyewitness  this  limitations  i s s u e may  of very  young  witnesses,  especially  since the  circumstances  eyewitness  events  less  optimal for accurate  and of  memory. such  are  than  I f young c h i l d r e n  variations  mony, t h e i r  and  their  fail  surrounding  e f f e c t i v e n e s s as w i t n e s s e s  existence  f o r eyewitness  may  be  many  observation  to appreciate the  significance  be  subtly  testi-  or  even  6 seriously  undermined.  Comparison of A  final  explicit aspect to  F i n d i n g s from  Different  methodological  task presented  of eyewitness  istic gained  are  to witnesses.  performance,  settings.  from  different  behavior 1978; Lind  the most p o p u l a r  field  has  The  media  & Walker,  1979;  In order  methodologies  Slide,  of  the  t o examine  any  for researchers  v i d e o , and  live  i n c o n t r a s t t o more closely  numerous r e s e a r c h e r s  & Devine,  Koneci 1980;  staged  natural-  the  mirror "real l i f e "  & G o l d s t e i n , 1977; Malpass  effect  i t i s necessary  q u e s t i o n o f how  b e e n d i s c u s s e d by  Egan, P i t t n e r  Types  c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the  "create" a witnessable event.  events  Event  findings eyewitness  (Clifford,  & Ebbeson,  1979;  Monahan & L o f t u s ,  I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y e x i s t s o v e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m e t a - a b i l i t i e s and a c t u a l p e r f o r m ance i n any a r e a . A case i n p o i n t i s the d i f f i c u l t y researchers have had d e m o n s t r a t i n g any s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d r e l a t i o n s h i p between meta-memory a w a r e n e s s and memory p e r f o r m a n c e , ( F l a v e l l & W e l l m a n , 1976) .  32  19 81)  and i s d i f f i c u l t  variation tation  i n eyewitness  media  In  i s seldom  Overall  Design  The  of  due t o d i f f e r e n t  present  children  .10--- 11'  w  a  from  event  thorough  section.  Study  s t u d y was d e s i g n e d section.  following  and a s l i d e  participant witnessed  to explore the issues  The e y e w i t n e s s  f o u r age groups:  measured  s  presen-  raised.  of the Present  i n the preceding  staged  performance  question of  These a r e d i s c u s s e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r e s e n t  i n the following  lined  The r e l a t e d  summary, numerous i s s u e s r e q u i r e more  investigation. study  t o assess.  out-  performance  G r a d e 1 , 4, 6, a n d ..  exposure  sequence.  t o two e v e n t s :  For the live  an a d u l t m a l e c o n f e d e r a t e  event,  a  live  each  carry out a  7  plant  care  sequence.  The s l i d e  to each  experimental witness  wallet.  Memory was e x a m i n e d  responses  to a series  event,  which  individually, through  free  was a l s o  presented  depicted theft report  of a  measures,  of questionnaire items, a recognition task  The c r e a t i o n o f a s c r i p t t h a t w o u l d i n v o l v e t h e c o n f e d e r a t e i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y ( e . g . , t h e f t ) was deemed inadvisable f o r e t h i c a l reasons. Since t h e c h i l d r e n were t o be a l o n e w i t h t h e c o n f e d e r a t e d u r i n g t h e e v e n t , any a c t i o n t h a t w o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y u p s e t a y o u n g c h i l d was avoided.  33  which  assessed  event,  the  necessity  recall  person  during  was  presentation  and  that  would  addressed 1-  Encoding  addition  recognition  memory  difficulties  would  indicated  recall  memory  indicated  tasks  be g i v e n  children  benefits  to utilize  investigated.  This  were  at  issue  that the  with  high  an  retrieval  Support  f o r both  explora-  present  the recognition  and  clearly  on t h e r e c o g n i t i o n report  difficulties upon  demands,  f o r encoding  i n the  of findings  f o r the free  measures,  cues  was  by comparing  memory  support  explanation.  recall.  external done  was  deficiencies i n children.  i fthe results  o f cues  report  study  employed.  t o the decoding  Possible  I t was  i n v e s t i g a t i o n were  i n free  o r no a g e d i f f e r e n c e s  would  2„  tasks  I f the pattern  and age d i f f e r e n c e s  i n how  information.  deficits  were  tasks  of  manner.  age d i f f e r e n c e s  little  interested  memories  t o the present  be e v i d e n t  tasks.  absent  extensiveness,  forbelieving  and decoding  report  and  that  the merit  of interest.  reason  the  by e n s u r i n g  Since  s h e was  aim o f the present  encoding  to free  that  for child-  t h e c h i l d r e n was  know t h e i r  or decoding  A major  study  event.  the event  a legitimate  of concern  of possible  study  remember  of the slide  context  on i t s a c c u r a c y  stated  i n the following  performance. tion  i s based  d i d not possess  issues  a plausible  i n the present  p a r t i c i p a n t s would  interviewer The  could  aspects  tasks.  f o r interviewing  directly  perceive  f o r four  of the eyewitness  testimony  children  hoped  In  addressed  experimenter  well  of providing  responsible  eyewitness the  memory  and p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  The ren's  witnesses'  to facilitate free  The a b i l i t y recall report  of  was performance  34  in  t h e presence  the  Grade  event  versus  1 and Grade  with certain  manipulated  t h e absence o f e x t e r n a l cues. 6 children  e x t e r n a l cues present,  by the confederate  o b j e c t s were s i m p l y p r e s e n t explicit  instruction  given  to the witnesses  determine  i ft h e presence  would  suggest  Grade 6 c h i l d r e n benefit  from  3*  of the present  person  by  separating the free  attempt  the  event  o f an i n d i v i d u a l  was  per-  as opposed addressed  event  and a  f o rchildren  i s  a  physical  I n f o r m a t i o n on w h e t h e r  difficult  performance  f o rboth  w a s made t o c o m m u n i c a t e t o c h i l d r e n F o r t h e event  recall  were asked  to provide  Recall  of temporal  types  one  these  concern  o f t a s k s , an  the interest  tasks, participants  of the  were  told  i n knowing what had happened  h e r absence and f o r t h e p h y s i c a l  i n t e r v i e w e r i n making an A\  show a n y m e m o r i a l  study.  optimize recall  witnesses  only the  Comparison o f r e c a l l  of the witnessed  i n t e r v i e w e r was i n t e r e s t e d  during  (Kobasigawa,  instruction  should  detailed  report portion of the interview into  are differentially  interviewer. the  study  of a target individual.  the present To  no  their  i n more  research  explicit  recall.  characteristics  fora description  description  of  regarding  f o r t h e "what h a p p e n e d " o f a w i t n e s s e d  the physical  aspects  interview with  t h e cues.  to  request  These  R e s u l t s were examined t o  Previous  that without  Event versus  formance  event.  o f t h e cues r e s u l t e d  o f the event.  the live  i . e . , the objects  a t the eyewitness  u s e a s memory p r o m p t s .  1974)  to recall  during the live  potential  reconstructions  were asked  Half of  description  tasks,  information that would  assist  identification. sequence.  Age d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e  35 ability of  of children to correctly  a particular  free  report  coded  scores  also  protocols  through  examined  5%  items.  o f times  witnesses' glasses, during  to specific  the height  6>  The s u g g e s t i b i l i t y  the e.g.  such  hair.  time.  the eyewitness question  inference  that  comments  made b y  included.  Exploration of  witnesses'  seeking  The impact o f t h e s e  questioning  was  to various of  inference, commented  was t h e n  on  examined  F o r example, a  proclivity  wore a watch.  explored  Three aspects  f o r an o b v i o u s  followed.  the child's  to mislead-  susceptibility  details  ques-  age-related  a c t o r who d i d n o t w e a r a w a t c h  the confederate  assess  In a d d i t i o n t o examining  a b o u t an e v e n t was e x a m i n e d .  assessed  to  manipulated  children's responses  interview that  Goetze  o r absence o f  an event were a l s o issue.  study  requesting  Questions  as t h e o b j e c t s  event were s c r i p t e d t o a l l o w  a specific  that  were i n c l u d e d  to misleading  First,  the confederate  leading  items  interrogation.  two means.  live  was  questionnaire  to straightforward information  i n susceptibility  inferences  The  and age e s t i m a t i o n s  also assessed  or suggestive  false  in  answers  t h e study  through  to specific  event and t h e v e r b a l  participants during  trends  were  and t h e r e s u l t i n g  memory f o r t h e c l o t h i n g , p r e s e n c e  certain  ing  events  of questions.  on eyes, h a i r and f a c i a l  the witnessed  tions,  types  children's responses  and c e r t a i n d e t a i l s  children's  and s l i d e  Witnesses'  t h e c o r r e c t sequence order  examined, q u e s t i o n n a i r e  information  the live  sequence  f o r p o s s i b l e age d i f f e r e n c e s .  Along with  (19 80)  f o rboth  i n v e r s i o n or misplacements  Responses  examined  the temporal  o n c e - s e e n e v e n t was a l s o c o n s i d e r e d .  f o r t h e number  violated  reproduce  mis-  t o make t h e  Of i n t e r e s t ,  was  36  the  percentage  of children  a t each  resisted  each  misleading  The  role  of inadequate  deficits  A post-event  object  embedded  was  Witnesses' their  responses  representations o f events of misleading  suggestion  who  of this  item  item  encoding  from  a  also  non-existent  f o r the slide  misinformation  t o a subsequent  or  i n f o r m a t i o n was  presupposing  i n a questionnaire  acceptance  age ranges  suggestion.  i n the acceptance  examined.  of the four  was  event.  assessed  through  t h e r e c o g n i t i o n memory  task. 7; ences  Photo-identification  i n memory  f o r f a c e s was  performance. examined  identification  tasks  In b o t h  a target individual,  cases,  participant, similar  present  looking  8;of  was  f o l l o w i n g both  perceptual was  eyewitness interview judgment witness. opinions event tion  These  their  witness  three  questions  were  event  of  seven  dealt ability  an event  To a s s e s s  retention  explored  meta-  included i nthe  dealing with  specifically to perceive  with  children's as an  eye-  children's  a l l aspects  a c c u r a t e l y and without  differences.  were  investigation  'eyewitness  e f f e c t i v e n e s s and l i m i t a t i o n s  an e x t e n d e d  testimony  limitations study.  their  Individual  A preliminary  of this  questions  and t o r e c a l l  9,-  with  by t h e  i n children's appreciation of the  followed the live  regarding  after  photo-  events.  witnessed  line-up along  concern  abilities,  about  the use of  and s l i d e  originally  awareness.  and memorial  another  that  the live  i n the photo  p o s s i b l e age d i f f e r e n c e s  behavior  through  differ-  individuals.  Meta-eyewitness  potential  P o s s i b l e age  o f an  deteriora-  interval. P o s s i b l e c o v a r i a t e s o f eyethrough  the administration of  37  both  a verbal description  (MFF)  task  included a  (Kagan, 1965,  to assess  significant  task,  were  The  The  asked  child's  units  also  equal  exposure.  given a subset  of  used measure of the versus  the  exploratory pains  and  formation 10}  i n nature,  may  be  the  advantage  of had  6 participants  dimension  selection  her  findings  were  a frequently  of  reflection  of t h i s child  measure  may  take  was  greater  memory f o r a l l r e m e m b e r e d d i s c e r n i n g about the i n -  two  via slides.  dissimilar  utilized  i n the  between event  patterns i n eyewitness  types To  photo-identification  types  style  possible within  cipants witnessed  or  the  a  volunteered.  t y p e s was  similar  the  admittedly  test,  t h e more r e f l e c t i v e  Comparison of  presented  and  t h e MFF  more c a u t i o u s and  of developmental  event  and  Although  4,  this their  i n terms of  Although  was  bear  In  appearance of  t a s k has  1,  from  to exhaustively search  details  son  items  task  each student would have  Grade  cognitive  impulsivity.  performance.  were coded  supplied.  dealing w i t h m a t e r i a l w i t h which  Figures  t h a t v e r b a l f l u e n c y may  to describe the  responses  Familiar  verbal description  to eyewitness  measure o f v e r b a l s k i l l ,  relatively  the Matching  the p o s s i b i l i t y  number o f d e s c r i p t i v e crude  1966).  relationship  children  classroom.  t a s k and  of  this  the  present  study  parti-  live,  end  trends  since the  study:  to  patterns across live  other  i n free  performance were a n a l y z e d  present  compariacross  one  developmental  A  performance  events, age  types.  versus  report detect  the  slide.  two  event  38  METHOD Subjects Eighty males, seven  individuals,  fifteen  males,  females)  were r e c r u i t e d school  twenty-eight  from  Grade  Grade  f e m a l e s ) ; and eleven  seven  e i g h t Grade 1 c h i l d r e n  females); thirteen  females);  fourteen  twenty  6 children  participated  (fouteen  i n the study. schools  i n C h a r l o t t e t o w n , P r i n c e Edward  years,  males,  and one s e n i o r h i g h -  Island,  s i x months; n i n e  (four  Participants  Canada.  Mean  y e a r s , nine months;  n i n e months; and s i x t e e n y e a r s , t e n months  grades,  ( s i x males,  Grade 10 a n d 11 s t u d e n t s  two e l e m e n t a r y  ages were s i xy e a r s ,  4 children  (thirteen  eleven  f o r the four  respectively.  Design The repeated twelve  design  of the study  measures  Grade  design.  6 children  students witnessed four  days  was a 4  A subset  (Grade)  o f f o u r t e e n Grade  a live  event  and a s l i d e  1 children  event  o n l y and r e c e i v e d an e y e w i t n e s s  the slide  described  below,  Procedure  forLive  the  their child  school.  event  only.  1 and  presented Fourteen  the live  interview with  Because o f scheduling d i f f i c u l t i e s  witnessed  in  order.  a n d 10 G r a d e 6 c h i l d r e n w i t n e s s e d  type)  Highschool  sequence  i n counterbalanced  Grade  Participants  (Event  and a l l o f t h e Grade 4 and  t o a week a p a r t  cues present.  X 2  certain  a few  children  The p r o c e d u r a l d e t a i l s a r e  Event were brought  individually  t o a separate  The i n t e r v i e w e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t s h e w o u l d  t o perform  a p i c t u r e matching  task.  room like  The i n t e r v i e w e r  39  then  noted  another for  a  room  few  viewer's then  be  a  event.  The  absence.  A  minute, a  to  then  down  upon  then  removed  a  the  table  the  plant  with  and  scissors pinched  cutting  actor He  placed  then  the  child's The  brown  the  view  the  i n the plant  to  the  confederate's  absence,  she  MFF  booklet  the  proceeded  left  actor  child  was  seated.  leaf  his  also  in  paper window  time).  I  into  on  bag  thanked  the the  and be  to  the  MFF  can He  placed of  the  the  basket,  the  i n the  remarked, going".  and  subject  activities  placed  sprayed  the  experimenter  confederate's administer  view the  tray  he  table.  and  tray. "It  A l l confed-  re-  for waiting.  during  test.  the  He  watering  carried  s i l l  the  and  the  full  should  departure, and  the  into  placed  actor  fingers  cutting  brown the  removed  only  mister,  The  The  this  room  bag.  ledge  door.  I ' l l  the  plant  them b o t h  with  p l a c e d back  After  can,  child.  and  t h a t was  room.  mentioning  the  placing  the  Without  of  cutting  basket  the  "Well,  entered  room's window  plant mister tray  said,  then  paper  at which  from  leaf  he  a watering  left  the  reply,  confederate  and  in  inter-  using  then  with  the  anyone  the  entered  during  "Is  (a s p e c i f i c  erate  place  waiting participant,  h i s hand  o b j e c t s were  took  the  the  is  i f she  opened  dropping  returned  mind  and  in full  After  would  task  knocked  plant  off a  f o r the  the m a t e r i a l s .  confederate  table  the  pictures  i f s/he  event  objects:  the  from  child  live  ".  i n a waste  witness.  the  the  of  forgotten the  retrieve  scissors,  tray  then  the  tray  fertilizer,  on  asked  Following  carrying  it  and  had  to  said  room?".  she  minutes  Live  He  that  her  40  MFF  task.  d e v e l o p e d by  The  original  Kagan  (1966) t o  reflection  and  child  a drawing of  to a  with  find  drawings, choices in  one  of  display  to  total  selected.  the  six test An  A  highschool  to  MFF  the  to  to  items ensure  interview  The  p r o m p t i n g was  any  included  interview  description  task  the  was of  a physical  "Can  child  example, alternate  the  the  five  differences six  alterna-  target.  response  and  the  alternative is due  present  MFF  has  to  time  study  also  t e s t was  and  been  given  i n procedure  1 and  6  event.  as  in  child.  proceeded  s u c h as  consisted  and  i n the  the  the  across was  con-  i n the tell  completion  actual  much t i m e  you  to  children. After  to  p a r t i c u l a r item  Each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s i n t e r v i e w The  live  c h i l d r e n were given to  For  subsequent a n a l y s i s  Grade  for  the  e.g.  i n a l l but  similarity  interviewer  respond  was  the  remaining  correct  each of  to  first  from t h i s  r e s u l t s from the  t e s t , the  interview. quired  of  p a r t i c i p a n t s , although  Eyewitness the  version  the  items  shown t o  The  examines  the  abbreviated  items were  students  study  fined  twelve test  t e s t was  subset  of  i t .  target,  is identical  made b e f o r e  adolescent/adult  developed.  target.  child  latency  requires  made f r o m s i x  from the  The  one  for  errors  There are  constraints only  etc.  test  test presents  matches  are  which matches the  scored  number o f  exactly  some d e v i a t i o n  The  f i g u r e and  Choices  determine which  Responses are  all  figure which  position, apparel,  tives  a target  in a chair.  Figures  measure i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  impulsivity in children.  another  teddy bear  Matching Familiar  me  as  of  eyewitness  they  re-  interview.  Some  more a b o u t  that?"  tape, r e c o r d e d . two  free  report  description  task  tasks  —  followed  an by  event a  41  structured The  /  questionnaire.  session  began with  the  interviewer  explaining  to  each  witness: T h e r e i s a n o t h e r r e a s o n why I am t a l k i n g t o y o u t o d a y . I am i n t e r e s t e d i n how w e l l p e o p l e r e m e m b e r t h i n g s t h a t t h e y see. W h i l e I was away g e t t i n g t h e p i c t u r e b o o k , I know t h a t a man came i n t o t h e room. Event  d e s c r i p t i o n task i n s t r u c t i o n s :  I was n o t h e r e a n d d i d n o t s e e w h a t t h e man did. Can you tell me now e v e r y t h i n g t h a t you remember? W h a t was the f i r s t thing t h a t t h e man d i d when he came i n t o t h e room? (This  particular  their  accounts  Physical  prompt  was  included  to  ensure  that  a l l began  similarly).  description task i n s t r u c t i o n s :  P r e t e n d now t h a t I am g o i n g t o go o u t i n t o t h e s c h o o l t o t r y a n d f i n d t h e man. Do y o u t h i n k y o u c o u l d h e l p me b y telling me e v e r y t h i n g y o u r e m e m b e r a b o u t w h a t t h e man looked l i k e and w h a t h e was wearing? Questionnaire. sixteen  , items  two  general  fic  detail  general  embedded  (see  live  Appendix  categories: of  the  aspect  comments,  The  event  of  etc.  the  In  event A).  requests and  The for  somewhat  witnessed  in  various  broader  the  e.g.  consisted  items  information  event,  addition, three points  questionnaire  fell  about  questions apparel,  misleading  various  questionnaire.  1,2-  On He  w h i c h a r m d i d t h e man w e a r h i s w a t c h ? used s c i s s o r s to cut o f f a l e a f , didn't  3  W h a t was  into  a  speci-  about  a  verbal  questions  at  of  were  These  questions  were:  {  4  Each  question  live  event:  specific of  the  the  was the  time,  witness,  size  of  developed comments  the and  to  thing  he  correspond  made b y  p l a c i n g of the  the  the  the  put to  p l a c i n g and  i n s i d e the  an  aspect  confederate  s c i s s o r s on removal  of  he?  the his  bag?  of  the  about  a  table  in  hands  : front  from  a  42  brown  paper  uniqueness remaining included  of  To  these  stating  minimize leading  interview  coloured,  items,  correct  dealt, to  aspects  apparel,  In  of  his the  addition  witnesses  awareness  in  relation  additional  information,  leading  "His  notice  actor  to  hair  and  to  to  the  the  of  the  to  the  question was  was  brown  after  "yes"  or  elaborate  a  the  upon  questionnaire.  to  assessment  did, to  notice  physical  month  "no"  the  witness'  actor  remember  accurately  asked  concluded  with  everything  responding  were  questions  respectively,  his/her a b i l i t y  of  questions an  meta-eyewitness  items  istics  witnesses'  wasn't i t ? "  Three These  bag.  a l l  character-  retention  each  of  interval.  question,  their  reasons  for  The  interview  their  reply. Photo-identification a  photo-identification  snaps  were  placed  in  performance.  task.  front  of  the  confederate  actor.  The  the  confederate  in  sex,  the  absence  of  age,  facial  Eight the  seven  head  and  child.  hair  polaroid  picture  depicted  One  were  length,  hair  similar colour  interview  the  ended  and  to and  hair.  Instructions: Here are e i g h t p i c t u r e s . I want you t o l o o k f u l l y a t a l l e i g h t p i c t u r e s a n d t e l l me i f y o u t h i n k o n e o f l o o k s l i k e t h e man who came i n t o t h e room. Following  with  shoulder  alternatives  race,  ended  photo-identification participants  were  task,  the  thanked  live for  carethem  event  their  cooperation.  Procedure A  for  subset  witnessed  the  Live of  Event  twelve  live  event  with Grade only.  Cues 1  Present  and  ten  The  tray  (CP  Grade of  condition) 6  children  plant  care  implements  43  was  left  child  by t h e confederate  during  t h e memory  to  the children  as  memory  event  session.  concerning  prompts.  procedure  and i t remained  additional  d e s c r i b e d was  from  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e which  care  implements  carried  specific  the potential  The o n l y  just  No  i n full  of the objects d e v i a t i o n from  children  i n on t h e t r a y  of the  r e f e r e n c e was  the omission  asked  view  serve  the live  o f two  to recall  to  made  items the plant  and were o b v i o u s l y  inappro-  priate.  Procedure The the  school the  event.  be watching  plained  that  the actual  Slide created  were  a short  sequence.  event.  used  frames  woman c a r r y i n g along  her. street  slide  to discuss  slide  she would  start  was  similar  and t o l d  with  The s l i d e  the slide  Several blank  The s t o r y  by L o f t u s presented a blue  a sidewalk.  sequence  each  (1979) . five  The slides  pre-  attention departure.  i n the study  was  similar  sequence  apart.  a female  a n d t h e woman  and e n t e r i n g a c a r park  slides  to a  c o n s i s t e d o f 22  I t began with  a  bag and a bag o f g r o c e r i e s walk-  She meets depart  was  ex-  p r o j e c t o r so  child's  The sequence  seconds  shoulder  used  line  they  one o f t h e  i n h e r absence.  so that  that  to  The experimenter  n o t d i s t u r b e d by t h e i n t e r v i e w e r ' s  T h e two f r i e n d s  building.  seated  carousel.  sequence  event  something  c o u l d be w a t c h e d  by t h e author.  slides  colour  was  f o r the slide  Participants  but that  sequence  the slides  ing  followed  d i s p l a y e d i n a Kodak  faced  of  Event  she needed  teachers  slide  were  to  procedure  live  would  f o rSlide  area  O f f i n the background,  friend  i s seen  adjacent  a man  and chats  crossing a  to a single  i s seen  with  story  approaching.  44  The  man e v e n t u a l l y  causes help  intercepts  her groceries  t h e woman  handbag  down  occupied,  to fall  retrieve  up,  t h e man a n d woman  down a s t r e e t the  the  into  door  a r e shown  T h e woman  Once  and points  Classroom  a startled  i n the direction  description  task.  r e - e n t e r e d t h e room  her, and  sets  While  her blue  she i s thus  her yellow  the groceries  departing.  She appears  into  T h e man s t o o p s t o  T h e man  a n d t h e woman c o n t i n u e s w a l k i n g  l o o k s up w i t h  interviewer  h e r hands.  h e r bag, takes  h i s jacket.  one-storey building.  something,  leans  up h e r g r o c e r i e s .  t h e man r e a c h e s  places i tinside  from  her groceries.  as she p i c k s  and  t h e woman,  wallet  are picked proceeds  up t o a d o o r o f  t o search  i n h e r purse f o r  e x p r e s s i o n , walks  away  from  o f t h e man.  Once  the slides  and said  t o each  h a d ended, t h e witness:  B e f o r e we t a l k a b o u t t h e s l i d e s y o u h a v e j u s t s e e n , I w o u l d f i r s t l i k e y o u t o d o s o m e t h i n g f o r me. I am i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g o u t what y o u c a n remember a b o u t y o u r c l a s s r o o m . Pret e n d I k n o w n o t h i n g a b o u t i t a n d w a n t y o u t o t e l l me w h a t y o u r classroom looks l i k e . C a n y o u t e l l me now e v e r y t h i n g y o u remember a b o u t t h e i n s i d e o f y o u r c l a s s r o o m ? After room  each  participant  details,  indicated  the interviewer  s/he c o u l d  proceeded  recall  no more  to the actual  class-  memory  interview. Eyewitness the  slide  live  event.  first  event.  The format o f  interview  was i d e n t i c a l  to that  outlined  were  description  g i v e n a s much  as p o s s i b l e .  session  and p h y s i c a l  followed by t h e administering time  q u e s t i o n p u t t o them, w i t h  detail The  f o rt h e s l i d e  An e v e n t  requested  Witnesses any  event  interview  The e n t i r e  began w i t h  as they  interview  description of a  required  encouragement  f o r the were  questionnaire. t o respond t o  t o p r o v i d e a s much  was t a p e  the following explanation:  recorded.  45 Now t h a t y o u ' v e t o l d me w h a t y o u r e m e m b e r a b o u t y o u r c l a s s r o o m , I w o n d e r i f y o u c a n t e l l me w h a t y o u r e m e m b e r a b o u t t h e s l i d e s you j u s t watched. I am s h o w i n g s l i d e s t o p e o p l e a t d i f f e r e n t a g e s b e c a u s e I w a n t t o s e e how w e l l p e o p l e c a n r e m e m b e r things that they see. Event  d e s c r i p t i o n task i n s t r u c t i o n s :  Let's pretend that i t i s very important f o r me t o k n o w everything that took place i n t h e s l i d e s . Do y o u t h i n k y o u c a n t e l l me w h a t h a p p e n e d i n t h e s l i d e s h o w ? What was t h e f i r s t t h i n g t h a t y o u saw? Physical  d e s c r i p t i o n task i n s t r u c t i o n s :  Now i f I w e r e the s l i d e s . Could a b o u t w h a t t h e man  a policeman you h e l p by looked l i k e  Questionnaire. description with the  the t h i e f ' s theft  tion  was  meets the  task  a  slides," The  quent  who  was  friend  item  asked,  i n fact  to this  test.  an a c c u r a t e  hair  coloured,  placed and  next.  head  the interviewer  depicted  t h e man  Recognition four  task.  forced  memory  choice  stated,  she only nothing was  surrounding  " T h e woman  meet  this  of  friend  i n h e r arms.  assessed  question  sugges-  at the beginning  done w i t h  from  A  was  in a  subse-  the live  event  included, "His  p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n task  and s h o u l d e r  i n front of the witness  to t e l l  tives  Eight  primarily  A misleading  a book  A s was  leading  dealing  the physical  wasn't i t ? "  Photo-identification presented  B).  first  carried  followed  and t h e event  »-  "Does  which items  misinformation  questionnaire, brown  which  carrying  r e c o g n i t i o n memory  was  eleven  (See A p p e n d i x  i n one  and then  Susceptibility  of  p h y s i c a l appearance  of the wallet  friend  questionnaire  consisted  embedded  once?"  The  I w o u l d n e e d t o f i n d t h e man i n t e l l i n g me e v e r y t h i n g y o u r e m e m b e r a n d w h a t h e was w e a r i n g ?  who  was  p o l a r o i d snaps  asked  i f s/he t h o u g h t the slide  task.  The  were  carefully  one o f t h e a l t e r n a -  sequence.  interview  r e c o g n i t i o n memory  to look  was  items  session  ended  with  (see Appendix C ) .  46  In one  e a c h c a s e , t h e w i t n e s s was p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h r e e o f which d e p i c t e d  slides. tives. the  the o r i g i n a l l y  photographs,  seen i n f o r m a t i o n  The r e m a i n i n g two were s i m i l a r b u t i n c o r r e c t A practice t r i a l  youngest  subjects  preceded the a c t u a l  task  from t h e alterna-  t o ensure  that  understood the task.  Instructions: I have one more t h i n g t o a s k y o u t o do. H e r e a r e three p i c t u r e s . One o f t h e s e p i c t u r e s shows t h e l a d y i n t h e s l i d e s who was c a r r y i n g t h e g r o c e r i e s . The o t h e r two p i c t u r e s show p e o p l e who were n o t i n t h e s l i d e s . Can y o u t e l l w h i c h o f t h e p i c t u r e s shows t h e l a d y f r o m t h e s l i d e s ... Good. These a r e t h e wrong p i c t u r e s , t h e n and t h i s i s t h e r i g h t o n e . OK, I am now g o i n g t o show y o u some p i c t u r e games l i k e t h i s . O n l y t h e y w i l l be a b i t h a r d e r t o do. One p i c t u r e w i l l be r i g h t each time. I t w i l l show s o m e t h i n g t h a t y o u saw i n t h e s l i d e s . The o t h e r two p i c t u r e s w i l l be i n c o r r e c t . I want y o u t o l o o k c a r e f u l l y a t a l l t h r e e p i c t u r e s and t h e n t e l l me t h e p i c t u r e y o u remember s e e i n g . The  recognition  task  p a r t i c i p a n t was t h a n k e d  concluded the interview  f o r his/her  cooperation.  and each  47  RESULTS The  results  order.  The  of  various  memory m e a s u r e s  are  the  study  free  are  report,  discussed  presented  i n the  questionnaire,  first,  followed  following  and by  recognition  the  results  the  s u g g e s t i b i l i t y manipulations  and  photo-identification  The  meta-eyewitness  the  correlational findings  the  two  to  variations  that  i n the  error  of  poor  or  witnesses'  free  report  Event Description Correct  sample  audibility  Free The  measures are  accompany d e s c r i p t i o n  instances  viewer  and  individual differences  Small tables  findings  and  failure  Report  sizes w i l l  of  of  the  the to  Incorrect  for both  Physical  be  results.  tape  tasks. from  last.  found  in  the  These are  due  transcripts, inter-  respond  t o an i n t e r v i e w  item.  Measures  measures gathered  scores  presented  of  the  from live  individuals and  Description  included  s l i d e event  scores  and  for both  events.  the  event  Coding Event d e s c r i p t i o n was  b r o k e n down i n t o  sequentially  measures.  a  series  described  the  resulting  coding  scheme  responses  to  request  the  point  one  each  experimental witness  remembered tion  score.  awarded  units, A  and  event  (see  with  of  The  descriptive  a  f o r each u n i t  statements  was  scheme  to  the  which  end.  used to of  live  The  analyze  live  event  correctly recalled.  this constituted  s i m i l a r coding  was  description  tally  of  from beginning  A p p e n d i x D)  for  a  scenario  made o f the. (see  the Live  For  number Event  A p p e n d i x E)  of Descrip-  was  48 developed  and  used  scores.  Both  stituted  a measure of  the  event  the  virtual  analysis tion  for  Slide  age  differences  the  two  targets:  male t h i e f  the  i n the  extensive  features  Children  received  two  Physical  correctly  Description  Each  and  number o f  was  the  event.  request  no informa-  actor  for a  of  the  Each c o d i n g  apparel scores  such,  (see  developed descrip-  live  scheme  concerning  Appendix  a Physical  on  the  the  F).  f o r each w i t n e s s e d  score based  event  number  Description  event: of  Incorrect  incorrect descriptive units  found  Analysis free  report  live  and  Appendix  slide  was  a n a l y z e d by  repeated measures a n a l y s i s f a c t o r and  event constituted  factor.  Results  of  witness' the  two  a  4x2  of  (Grade  variance.  performance scores  a l l analyses  are  on  for  the  reported  G.  Special analyses.  measures  between-subject  within-subject in  the  Event type)  G r a d e was the  Correct  study  schemes were  descriptive facts  and  of  protocols.  Method of  x  on  of  separate  recalled facts  score based their  list  feature  incorrect  Coding to  As  con-  possible.  confederate  slide  physical  amount o f  a c c o u n t s was  responses  target's  level  i n the  d e s c r i p t i o n measures.  the  important  information.  Physical  of  An  scores  participants in this  i n witnesses'  an  in  by  Description  Event Description  included  witnesses'  S l i d e Event  recall.  incorrect  provided  A  Live  given  absence of  of  and  correct  descriptions  analyzing  tion and  the  f o r d e r i v i n g the  In  note  should  general,  a  be  made c o n c e r n i n g  the  repeated  significant within-subject  measures  factor  was  49  found. than of  Memory  f o r the  the  than  fact  the  live that  event. the  levels  of  inappropriate,  performance i.e., the  the  tion,  Event  were then,  task  of  F  =  (3,44)  action.  reasons  are  trends  of  events in  revealing, address  developmental  following  Grade  clothing  live  findings  The  and  however,  factor  and  is  of  comparison  age  dissimilar  of  artifact  Event  the  will  be  presentaX  results  Grade of  overlooked.  Results  to  13.682  performed  tasks  These  outlined,  a  the  4 x  scores  f o r the  (Grade  level  2  There  9.859,p<.001.but  witnesses  events  event.  r e p e a t e d measures  variance.  13.00,  children  tion  the  Scheffe post-hoc  12.708,  or  results  submitted  analysis  school  similar  already indicated,  were  relative  live  will  Description As  and  the  significant  Event  slide  the  better  items  across the of  was  simple  Whereas  e v i d e n t between  For  is a  event.  interaction.  report  material  finding  live  slide  Grade  slide  c h a r a c t e r wore more  examination  X  a  performance  across the  interactions. any  Such  slide  q u e s t i o n of whether  trends  f o r the  confederate i n the  absolute is  performance  was no  analysis  Mean  i n Table  the  f o r four  significantly  found  of  2.  poorer scores  Description  x Event  significant  significant  i n order  (p<.05).  a  Event  Grade  Grade Grade  grades) than  X  effect,  Event  inter-  means  (8.692,  showed  Grade  Grade  f o r the  type)  two  6 and Event  1  HighDescrip-  50  Table Mean E v e n t  Grade  Desckip£ion  2  Scores f o rLive  n  Live  Event  Event  Slide  Event  10.769  i  13  4  12  11.00  14.42  6  12  11.25  1 4 . 75  11  1 2 . 82  14.55  10-11  Note.  Standard deviations  6.615  and S l i d e  ranged  f r o m 1.86 t o 3 . 6 4 .  51 Comparison of L i v e Event D e s c r i p t i o n a n d C u e A b s e n t (CA) C o n d i t i o n As  o u t l i n e d i n the  was  conducted  a f t e r the  ing  the  care  plant  effects care  of  cues  Grade 1 and present  (CP)  standard  previous A  variance  6.115  or  2  (Grade  Grade  the  detail  at  In  possible  the  Grade  (CP)  interview  the  performance,  room  the  termed  this  plant  the  of Cue-  manipulation  1 and  carry-  facilitory  a d d i t i o n a l sample  g r o u p was  were  Grade 6 c h i l d r e n  condition.  (Results  Recall condition) A  <  significant  .001  with  reported  there  in in  example,  the  recall  physical  care  four  no  of  6 children  1 and the  Recall  hands i n s i d e a brown bag  outper-  Condition  effect interaction  evidence  of  evident,  that  the  was  presence  i n more i n f o r m a t i o n  c u e s may the  CP  of  being  amount  that  the  children in a qualita-  have caused w i t n e s s e s  event and  i n the  i t i s possible  protocols  implements the  was  6 c h i l d r e n were  quantitative differences  upon t h o s e a s p e c t s plant  was  of  level.  r e c a l l e d were not  The  Neither  analysis  Grade e f f e c t  Grade  (Means f o r G r a d e  implements r e s u l t e d  significant  manner.  For  X  e i t h e r grade  tive  the  the  Recall Condition  short,  care  influenced  with  assess  r e s u l t s of  (CA)  31.514, p  Grade X  cues  focus  left  This  performed.  =  the  plant  While of  had  f o r an  10.864, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  nor  recalled  level  1 children  significant. of  The  Cue-absent  t e s t was  and  effect  6 children.  event  actor  recall  i n view  performance of  F(.l,44)  forming  To  live  Present  section.)  2 x  found,  left  condition.  compared w i t h the  confederate  upon w i t n e s s e s '  Grade  f o r Cue  Method s e c t i o n , the  implements.  implements were  Scores •  to  that  ignore  c h i l d r e n noted  compared w i t h  dealt  only  specifically  other  the one  to  man  details. had  witness  put  his  from  52 the  CA  condition.  To  pursue  d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e was Event coding various plant  scheme  plant  food  care  and  included  derived. was  objects:  omitted  i n the  possibility  A  subset of  selected which  paper bag.  o p e n e d d o o r " was  this  So,  "Man  Means f o r t h e  were  respectively.  the  1.33,  means w e r e  witnesses. ance  subsequent  analysis of  <  again  Qualitative  reports. cued  presence of report  for these  selected  CA  conditions  witnesses  and  2.5 83  f o r the  improvement  d i d not  in recall  quite reveal  small, a  CA  performand  a  significant  Recall Condition  significant  fact,  F  inter(1,44)  =  Descriptions the  developmental  (CA  the  and  Event Description differences  i n the  c h i l d r e n from the  CP)  conditions  d e c i s i o n was  considered  the  cues d i d not  have a  were  d a t a was  eyewitness  Grade  1 and  combined  appropriate  significant  done  6  and  since  the  e f f e c t upon  free  performance. of  ages i n c l u d e d  event.  was  6 children,  This  Analysis all  "Man  Grade  only  Event  r e s u l t s of  non-cued  reported.  of  a n a l y s i s of  general The  and  mister,  item,  and  the  .001.  Qualitative Analysis  detect  the  G r a d e 1 CP  a Grade X  the  can,  with  the  variance  e f f e c t nor  G r a d e was  1 5 . 5 5 8 , p.  to  CP  scores  c u e d c o n d i t i o n w i t n e s s e s was  Condition  action.  for the  directly  Live  For  A g a i n , however, the  f o r the  Recall  3.6  from the  removed s c i s s o r s "  Children's  items were t a l l i e d . 1.35 7 a n d  dealt  f o r example,  alternative  items  scissors, watering  while  subset.  an  the the  slide  event reports  h i g h l i g h t s or  Most commonly i n c l u d e d  indicated witnesses  s k e l e t a l o u t l i n e s of  items were the  woman  the  walking,  at  53 encountering stolen  b y a man.  inclusion example, lady the  also  seen  In contrast,  reported  that  falling,  sixty  given.  the groceries  grade  and then  i n the final  standing  fell.  Older  she has n o t i c e d  of the slide went beyond t h e frames o f t h e  gestures  i n terms o f witnesses'  the missing  looking and  the theft of her wallet.  woman n o t i c e d  wallet  for  h e r keys.  the  woman w a s i n f a c t s e a r c h i n g  73%  f o r the four  Age  inference  i n t h e course  of  the eventual  home a s o p p o s e d t o some o t h e r  that  f o r k e y s w a s 2 1 % , 3 3 % , 6 7%, a n d  Examination goal  that  searching  T h e p e r c e n t a g e o f p a r t i c i p a n t s who s t a t e d  grades.  into  levels).  near a door,  i n d i c a t i n g by f a c i a l  the  that  ofthe  1 , 4, 6, a n d  i n the reports  F o r example,  d i f f e r e n c e s were evident  (i.e.,  the  r e s p e c t i v e l y ) ; w h e n t h e man r e a c h e d  t h e woman i s s e e n  that  e.g.  percent  ( 1 3 % , 75%, 67%, 45% f o r Grade  difference evident  her purse,  pointing  Wit-  g r o u p s were a l s o more l i k e l y t o  (20%, 83%, 56%, 64% f o r t h e f o u r  event,  approaching the  respectively.  concerned t h e degree t o which witnesses  slide  For  t h e woman w a s d i s t r a c t e d l y c h e c k i n g h e r  witnesses,  information  into  that  groceries  A final event  i n the  gave more d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t s o f t h e t h e f t i n c l u d -  information  purse  groups,  f o r the groceries  i n t o t h e woman.  Highschool her  4 and o l d e r  1 c h i l d r e n simply  fallen  her wallet  w a s m e n t i o n e d b y 8%, 5 8 % , 7 2 % , a n d 7 3 % o f  some e x p l a n a t i o n  witnesses  a s t h e man b e i n g  1 , 4, 6, a n d H i g h s c h o o l  man b u m p e d  ing  such  a distance  i n t h e Grade  provide  having  Developmental d i f f e r e n c e s were e v i d e n t  information  Grade  nesses  and l a t e r  o f what might be seen as l e s s c e n t r a l d e t a i l s .  from  Grade  and l e a v i n g a f r i e n d ,  o f another  inference,  o f t h e woman's e x c u r s i o n destination)  was h e r  showed s i m i l a r b u t  54 less of  dramatic  the  Grade  students  age 4,  83%  f i n d i n g found  was  little  window s i l l ,  with  general  42%,  the  38%, 82%)  (20%,  clusion  of  example, tioned 10-11  42%, the  the  by  of  the  temporal  slide  out  verbal  question,  13%,  Analysis  (two  64%).  62%,  of  "Is  two  or  i n witnesses'  indicated  age  eyewitness  the  nesses' d e s c r i p t i o n s  While of  finer  the  on  a table of  the  of  the  and  from left  1,  a the  the  s/he  to  basket  (27%, the  46%, plants  found  4,  event.  was  for i n For  r o o m ? " was  Grade  or  differences  confederate.  this  there  outline  carried a  d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o  using  the  d e t a i l s of  l e a f f r o m one  anyone  Again  flowers  more l i k e l y  placed  age  Witnessed  trends  men-  6,  and  The  the  i n the  virtual  inverted  recall  reconstruction for both  absence of  order) or  more p o s i t i o n s ) of  some o r d e r live  Events  attempted  related differences  recall.  of  flowers,  upon e n t r y ,  e v e n t s was  quence order no  paralleled  order.  r e c a l l e d i n an  s e q u e n c e by  in recall  the  5 0 % . a n d 100%  of  event reports  c o m m e n t s made b y  event d e s c r i p t i o n s . items  man,  removed a  possible  order  live  witness,  Age  75%  Highschool  event d e s c r i p t i o n s .  Temporal Order of of  of the  came i n , t o o k  w h i c h was he  82%  1 children,  sequence, developmental  the  participants, in  Recall  the  that  the  A man  the  82%)  Grade  reports.  i n c l u s i o n of  fact that  the  6 and  them, r e p l a c e d  older  58%,  of  difference  slide  i n the  and  46%,  the  the  Grade  slide  event:  sprayed  were evident  (47%,  f o r the  the  69%  in their  developmental  main u n i t s of  room.'• A s  the  a n a l y s i s of  the  include  of  stating this  Qualitative  In  changes w i t h  the  of  any  live  the  correct  event  (items se-  strongly  for this  e r r o r s were found  e v e n t , t h e y were q u i t e  and  inversions  misplacements  slide  existed  the  of  aspect in  of  wit-  infrequent.  55 Only  18  inversions  and  3 instances  sequence order were noted cols  analyzed, with  decrease i n the Physical  level on  the  X Event  both  the  G r a d e was subject  Correct  factor for  resulted  Live  Slide  and  and  systematic  correct  about the  live  Scheffe Grades  1  of  factor  Event type,  The  r e s u l t s of  Similar students  three  better  the  of  the  y o u n g e r age  than  Grade  Grades  more d e t a i l e d  1 children.  s l i d e e v e n t ) was  Physical  descriptions  4, 6., a n d than  analysis  .05.  given  signif-  Simple  effects  for both  information  the  g r o u p means  the  reported  increased  significantly  with  age.  revealed  less  details  Highschool  more d e t a i l s t h a n w i t n e s s e s Grade The  6 children  e f f e c t of  analyzed of  Highschool  those  a  of  a significant  s l i d e event r e s u l t s indicated  groups.  within-  t h a n H i g h s c h o o l w i t n e s s e s (p < .05) .  recalled significantly  event versus groups.  provided  the  the the  and  out  scores.  finding indicates  s l i d e event characters  event character  analysis  .001  This  of  (Grade  revealed  s i g n i f i c a n t Grade e f f e c t  analysis  4 X 2  Description  and  description  incorrect  t e s t s were c a r r i e d  (F(3,44) =3.413, p<  (p. < .05).  and  Separate  Physical  analyses.  4 children  live  or  age.  correct  task.  variance  Incorrect  physical  post-hoc  and  about the  in a  and  proto-  increase  correctly recalled information  events,  amount o f  of  recall  occurrences with  analysis  interaction  analysis  by  a  Grade e f f e c t , F(3,44) =21.032, p<  Grade X Event  the  of  Description  for both  the  seventy-five  mean number o f  a between-subject  variance icant  the  Physical type)  of  displacements  Results  3 presents  for  evidence  incidence  Description  Table scores  no  i n the  of  for  the  performed  Event type  separately  for  (live the  four  s l i d e event character  c h i l d r e n were the  also  from  live  given  significantly  event target.  No  56  Table Mean C o r r e c t  a n d incoHr.ec't for Live  Live  3  PhysieatL D e s c r i p t i o n arid S l i d e E v e n t  Event  Slide  Scores  Event  n  Correct  Incorrect  Correct  Incorrect  1  14  2.286  1. 8 5 7  3.000  2.214  4  12  2.25  2.167  5.167  1.417  6  11  4.091  1. 364  6.545  1.273  11  5.364  1.455  9.636  1.00  Grade  10-11  Note.  S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r c o r r e c t s c o r e s r a n g e d f r o m 1.20 t o 3 . 0 7 5 , f o r i n c o r r e c t s c o r e s t h e r a n g e w a s 1.00 t o 2 . 2 1 4 .  57  difference  i n performance between the  tasks  was  sults  suggest that  in  found  witnesses'  witnesses for  the  f o r the  slide  4 and  or  height  of  the  no  evident  and  involved A  found  of  Physical  a n a l y s i s of  the  facial  w o u l d be  proportion  proportion  the  older  the  live  contained accurate  the  of  accurate  witness.  For  event confederate roughly  fifty  information.  of  description  reach  the  target's  hair,  some i n f o r m a t i o n the  and  on  accurate  to  more l i k e l y  Finally, the  the  to  by  the  accurate  majority  mistakes  The such  description  of  of  the  mistakes  clothing. t o be  noted  information  Table  information  3 indicate, increases,  physical descriptions Grade and  1 and fifty  f i n d i n g t h a t most o f  e r r o r s were c o l o u r  most  presence  examination  f i g u r e s of  example the  descrip-  information  inaccurate  inaccurate  given  trends  apparel.  p h y s i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n data  As  De-  significant.  the  a more e x h a u s t i v e  that  percent The  to  Age  groups were  i n children's reports.  the  Incorrect Physical Grade e f f e c t .  d e s c r i p t i o n s of  of  event.  age  confirmed  the  performance  from a l l four  clothing provided.  of  with  physical  mentioned  feature  age,  the  witness,  incorrect colour  included  to  h a i r and  information  live  re-  Descriptions  responses  colour  experimental  the  significant  with  recall  interaction failed  showed w i t n e s s e s  final  concerns  the  Analysis  target's  incorrect  f o r the  revealed  absence of  as  than  scores  to mention  the  showing b e t t e r  r e s u l t s f o r the  tasks  older  older  These  correct information  variance  Qualitative  likely  amount o f  of  Qualitative  tion  Grade 1 c h i l d r e n , however.  event m a t e r i a l  Analysis  were not  physical description  physical descriptions increased  Grade  scription  the  two  suggests  the  of  4 children percent  in-  physical  that  the  brief  58 physical clude  descriptions  correct  inaccurate  given  non-colour  colour  elaborate  d e s c r i p t i o n of  Comparison of  in  that  the  given  recall  relative To  ratio  physical  of  v a l u e was  possible two  ratio  description  resulting ratio  and  Event type  .01.  of  (live  indicated Scheffe  a  groups were  the  easier  The  tasks  lack  age-related aspects  the:\  correct  of  of  testimony,  score  live  Score.  A  slide  findings.  value over  the  event:  Event  second  similar  A. . 4 X  2  t e s t was  values with  Grade as  a between-subject  as  rate  con-  variance  slide)  the  two  of  versus  the  incorrect  relative  event d e s c r i p t i o n f o r the  witnesses  is recalled.  i n the  Description  analysis  conclu-  attests to  One  event  The  any  f o r each witness..  score  event  r e l a t i v e to  also  eyewitness  carried  information  information  trends  Results  tasks,  for  amount o f  description  event  two  descriptions.  greater  which  (Grade  performed  a within-subject  on factor  fact.  s i g n i f i c a n t Grade e f f e c t F(3,42) =4.214,  p o s t hoc  analysis  5 . 5 4 2 , 2.318, 2.360 i n o r d e r two  of  event descriptions  from the  the  f i n d i n g s were  description.  score/Physical  derived  report  physical  event  were d e r i v e d  X Event type)  Results  the  appearance.  Description  free  the  and  but  more  Physical  e v e n t s e q u e n c e was  ease with  these  the  Description  p<  the  i n witnesses'  assess  of  the  in-  give  i s embedded i n a  relative difficulty  physical  variables  sisted  level  of  greater  recall  of  to  apparel)  individuals also  this  and  1  likely  type of  i n d i v i d u a l ' s apparel  i s s u p p o r t e d by  for a  information  but  person or  i n response to  request  of  analysis  versus  study  an  (e.g.,  Older  descriptions  determine the  descriptions sion  information  Event Description  Additional to  young c h i l d r e n are  colour designations.  incorrect  out  by  significantly  of  f o r the  the four  Grade means grades)  d i f f e r e n t from each  (4.037,  indicated other.  no  These  59 findings in  suggest that  with  increasing  t h e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n  and  physical  this  study,  units  descriptions provided  of information  age, r e l a t i v e  r e c a l l e d i n t h e event  decreased.  The younger w i t n e s s i n four  about t h e event  as opposed t o t h e p h y s i c a l  With  age, t h i s  to five  ratio  Summary o f F r e e The  free  t o provide  Report  report  t o an  details  o f an e v e n t , w i t n e s s e s  recall  When a p h y s i c a l  accuracy. Grade  aged w i t n e s s e s were e q u a l l y  Despite t h i s ,  significantly individuals temporal The  When a s k e d  a positive to recall the  performed  d e s c r i p t i o n was r e q u e s t e d ,  amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n  criptions.  present  4 and o l d e r  c h i l d r e n d i d somewhat l e s s w e l l . Grade least  t o be t h e  interviewer.  r e s u l t s taken together  of children's  Highschool  more  Findings  picture  ilarly.  times  decreases, a l -  t h o u g h t h e "what h a p p e n e d " o f a n e v e n t c o n t i n u e s information  descriptions  on t h e average  appearance o f a t a r g e t .  easier  differences  for both  capable.  1 children provided the person  information  and were j u s t as capable  6 and  The Grade  4  the  and event  these young w i t n e s s e s  more i n c o r r e c t  Grade  sim-  des-  d i dnot report  about e i t h e r events o r  reconstructing  the correct  sequence o f an event. recall  for  t h e event  ing  information  description  findings  support  the distinction  between  a n d memory f o r a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s a p p e a r a n c e . a b o u t a n e v e n t was e a s i e r  than  giving  a  f o ra l l p a r t i c i p a n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y younger:  Finally, developmental  memory  the physical patterns  as  opposed t o t h e s l i d e  of  correct  physical  description  of recall show.  description  r e s u l t s suggest  are evident  Age-related information  physical witnesses. differing  f o rthe l i v e  increases given  Provid-  event  i n t h e amount  by witnesses  60  were more pronounced live  event.  Differences  were a l s o e v i d e n t sented  f o r the.slide  event m a t e r i a l than  between t h e l i v e and s l i d e  i n the questionnaire  T h r e e o f t h e more g e n e r a l  of the  with witnesses'  the slide  event  specific  event,  which are pre-  care  implements  questionnaire  Where  items  Apparel  6 cued  A question confederate e v e n t was  Results  actor of the live  be o u t l i n e d  i n the interviews.  look  thief  this  this  of the slide information question  t h e p a t t e r n o f memory  query would vary  from t h a t  found  G.  worn by t h e  implied i n the Physical Description task,  found w i t h  of  like?  this  t o a s c e r t a i n whether  from  conditions  i n Appendix  While  included  first,  o f any a n a l y s e s  apparel  and t h e .  The  specific  (CA a n d C P )  completely  the specific  of the l i v e event  included  will  What d i d h i s c l o t h e s  concerning  event,  from the l i v e event.  and non-cued  s t a t i s t i c s are reported  Description:  con-  the responses of c h i l d r e n  have been combined and r e p o r t e d . variance  were  o f f i n d i n g s from t h e more  appropriate,  Grade 1 and Grade  items  actor of the live  c o m m e n t s made b y t h e c o n f e d e r a t e  o f these  questions.  questionnaire  r e c a l l o f t h e c l o t h i n g worn by t h e t h i e f  f o l l o w e d by p r e s e n t a t i o n  is  results  Results  and t h e confederate  and t h e p l a n t  results  the  event  next. Questionnaire  cerned  results  f o rthe  was  performance  f o r t h e more  open-ended p h y s i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n t a s k s . A coding  scheme s i m i l a r  to that  D e s c r i p t i o n m e a s u r e s was d e v e l o p e d apparel  descriptions.  used  f o r the Physical  f o r analyzing  Participants received  witnesses'  a point  f o r each  61 correctly Apparel  r e c a l l e d item,  Description  S c o r e was  also  The scores type)  the  scores.  recorded  analysis  description  of  two  within-subject  variance  scores  factor.  Grade e f f e c t F(3,42) a c t i o n was  also  and  i n Table  scores with  participants  analysis  apparel  descriptions  Event r e s u l t s .  formance of  The  =  grade.  the  than that  slide  except  Grade  the  (p  live  <  and  the  .001.  slide  =  the  correct  factor  event  as  and  the  a significant  The  GradeXEvent  2.872, £  event but  analysis  <  of  not the  .05.  interSimple  f o r the slide  the  Live  event  aged w i t n e s s e s .  The  significantly  poorer  also  <<.05).  The  analyzed  separately  4,  6,  target's the  f o r the  was  event.  e f f e c t of  and  apparel  live  age-related  live  slide  Event  s i g n i f i c a n t Grade e f f e c t f o r  Grade  for  evident  on  X  4 children recalled significantly  descriptions  for  .  found  was  event than  task  event  level  c a r r i e d out  F(3,42)  in a  also  that  suggest that  apparel  Description  a between-subject  4 w i t n e s s e s was  found  better  between tasks  Correct  Description  (Grade  results revealed  from the  s l i d e ) was  of  the  first  S c h e f f e p o s t hoc  recall  of  4 X  d e t a i l s than Highschool  I t was  findings  2  A  9.533, p  resulted  Grade  versus  4.  f o r the  than Highschool witnesses (live  Apparel  Apparel  Grade as  means showed G r a d e . 1 and apparel  Incorrect  Incorrect  was  significant,  effects  fewer  An  c o n s t i t u t i n g the  computed.  average Correct  are  total  event  Grade  Event  for  witnesses'  No  difference  1 children.  These  improvements i n the  Also  type  significantly  tasks.  more a p p a r e n t  per-  each  Highschool was  ':  f o r the  a l l age  groups  1 c h i l d r e n performed better  oh.the  richness slide studied  slide  event  62  Table Mean A p p a r e l D e s c r i p t i o n  Live n  Correct  1  12  1. 3 3 3  4  11  6 10-11  Grade  Notey  4  Scores  f o rLive  Event Incorrect  and Slide'  Event  Slide.Event Correct  Incorrect  2.167  2.667  1.50  1. 8 1 8  1.727  3.545  1.091  12  2.33  2.00  5.583  .917  11  3.182  1.455  6.909  1.182  Standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r c o r r e c t scores ranged from t o 3.30. Standard deviations f o r i n c o r r e c t scores f r o m .6 47 t o 1 . 4 4 .  .888 ranged  63 Analysis not  yield  of  the  I n c o r r e c t P h y s i c a l D e s c r i p t i o n Scores  a significant  Grade e f f e c t  nor  a Grade X Event  did inter-  action. In  general, then,  the  Description  q u e s t i o n were  Description  task.  particularly the  slide  Recall  s t r o n g age  Tray  came i n t o  the  room?  by  number o f  the  mation  responses  correctly  scissors,  and  can,  was  of  recalled  recalled with  t h e man  carry anything  object.  considered  For  an  task  age,  with  dealing with  2.33,  2.85,  witnesses  carried  out  Grade  Recall  2.93,  example, a  on  the  substitute  3.0 9 f o r G r a d e  recall  for  f o r the 1,  4,  scores  failed  to  Did  the  D i d he  mention  man  say  anything  about the  time?  0  orange the ques-  and  show  anything  of  infor-  one-way a n a l y s i s o f  effect.  Measures:  from  tray 6,  the  in  a pair  enough  "brown and  items  into  ranged  provided  he  objects  items  of plant food,  i f they  A  tray  five  Possible scores  respectively.  when  were coded  There were  recalled  and  about the  event  acceptable  t i o n was  significant  live  a mister, a bottle  Mean number o f  Highschool  the  query  items.  can.  t o you?  Apparel  f o r the P h y s i c a l  f o r the  to the  watering  Verbal  found  evident  received a point  d e n o t e an  container"  variance  to that  a brown paper bag.  Witnesses to  Did  confederate  a:.watering  5.  trends  Items:  Participants'  to  t h e more s p e c i f i c  event.  the  all:  similar  of  M o r e i n f o r m a t i o n was  of  carried  results  a  64  For four  the  specific  using  this  specific scored  of  just  the be  question,  a  second  were  score  Table  of  verbal Scheffe ance  tests  f o r the  difference  on  scores hoc  from  the  1  anything  prompted of  with  the  age  and two  example,  for  two  to  The  results  both  recall  was  The  of  i n performance  measures, grade  the  higher levels  F(3,47) means  was  levels, found  from  There  are  4 with 4,  6,  way  found that  approxi-  analysis unprompted,  unprompted  5 . 2 8 4 , p_ <  showed mean poorer <  between  recall.  and  and  f o r the  (p  the  suggests  one  significantly  grade  recalled  scores  and  =  room?"  prompted  prompted  effect  group  was  and  Grade  separate  significant,  children  three  of  1  number  time?"  columns  Grade  recall  the  item  the  the  initial  correctly  about  f o r the  the  next  of  the  came i n t o  the  table  recall  verbal  unprompted  between  performance  analysis  Grade  So,  when he  to  recalled  represented  of  were  reproduced  i n response  number  (a  i f they  r e p r e s e n t i n g unprompted  the  of  the  It's  correctly  were  score  responses  conclusions.  recall post  given  anyone  then.  acceptable  There  first  mention  then,  levels  these  witnesses  he  students.  variance  support  "Did  correct  anything  witnesses'  improved  equal  Highschool  say  Examination  performance mately  man  f o r both  5.  units  of  statements.  The  "Is  recall  Witnesses' responses  considered  represented  scores,  Means in  the  a minute,  number  as  statement.  witness.  including  two  was  be  the  possible to  confederate.  going."  credited  minute"  recalled  questionnaire,  be  i t was  the  only  b a s i s of  actual  "Did  I ' l l  confederate's  f o r each  correctly  units  the  question,  made b y  should  Responses were  scores  The  I  4 on  confederate's  of  Well,  time).  gist  " I ' l l  statements  room?  0 to  items. the  v e r b a l memory  .01.  perform-  than  .05).  No  scores  for  65  Table  5  Mean U n p r o m p t e d a n d P r o m p t e d V e r b a l R e c a l l f o r Four Grades  a  ^  e  n  —  Note.'  Unprompted scores  Scores  Prompted scores  1  15  1.47  1.87  4  13  2.69  3.00  6  12  2.58  3.08  10-11  11  2.73  3.00  Standard d e v i a t i o n s ranged M a x i m u m s c o r e = 4.  from  .775 t o 1 . 1 0 9 .  66 the  Grade  4, 6, a n d H i g h s c h o o l  effect  was  5.52 3,  p. < .001 a n d S c h e f f e  effect  was a t t r i b u t a b l e  Grade  found  are  presented  the  most p a r t .  post-hoc  t o the poorer  responses  next.  t o the remaining  Age  Estimates: The  slide  events  federate thief  of zero  How  first  statistics  item  asked  Sixty  participants  estimate (thirty event  event  by  omitted  Two  answered by saying and  were unable  age.  response  1 children  esti-  The r e m a i n i n g  a  1  1 sample.  numerical children  f o r the slide  100 a n d 500 y e a r s  a numerical  Grade  Fewer  responded  Grade  t h a t t h e t a r g e t was e i t h e r  to provide  and  f o r t h e Grade  to provide  confederate's  t h a t t h e t a r g e t was  from the averaging.  the live  Witnesses'  of the total  were a b l e  gave a s i m i l a r Grade  1956).  t h e age o f t h e con-  that the figures  of the children event  i n expected  a n d means a r e r e p o r t e d i n  on a percentage  s i xpercent)  stating  chi-squares  was?  ( o b j e c t i v e age o f 2 7 ) .  are based  of the live  items  ( o b j e c t i v e a g e o f 22) a n d t h e m a l e  be n o t e d  character.  as  (Siegel,  to estimate  I t should  percent  such  i n the questionnaire f o rboth  from the s l i d e s  witnesses  of the  descriptively for  o l d d o y o u t h i n k t h e man  of the live  6.  performance  often resulted  o r close t o zero  mates were averaged w i t h i n grades Table  showed t h e  questionnaire  Results are presented  Non-parametric  frequencies  s c o r e s , F(3,47) =  analysis again memory  Grade  (p. < .05).  were seldom a p p r o p r i a t e as t h e data cell  A significant  f o r t h e prompted v e r b a l r e c a l l  1 children Witnesses'  witnesses.  to the question o l d and were 1  witnesses  "young"  estimate.  or "old"  67  Table  6  M e a n A g e and H e i g h t E s t i m a t i o n s -for" L i v e S l i d e , Event T a r g e t s for. Four Grades  Grade  Age E s t i m a t e s  (years)  a  n  Live  n  Slide  1  14  40.08  5  33.8  4  13  24.96  12  31.13  6  22  23.5  18  31.3  10  23.35  11  33.35  10-11.  A c t u a l age o f l i v e e v e n t t h i e f w a s 27 y e a r s o l d . 'Actual h e i g h t o f l i v e (six feet).  Height  Estimates  (inches)*  3  n  Live  n  Slide  4  72  5  72.2  19  71.36  6  70.9  10  71.8  10  69.5  c o n f e d e r a t e was  event  arifi  and s l i d e  22 y e a r s ; s l i d e  event  e v e n t t a r g e t s - w a s 72 i n c h e s  68 Results Grade  1 children  siderably found  mating older of  the  age  pattern  the  two  the  thief  Height  and  Highschool  event  by  (i.e.,  suggests  slide  Estimations:  Table  How  tall the  do  slide  height  was  s i x feet.  average, Despite  men  witnesses' this  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  the  question as  only  Most Grade the  was  as  tall  two  ability No  was  man as  "tall"  was  you  and  indifor  older target,  was?  estimations  event.  The  in their  o r by  of  participants are  to the  using  taller  those  given  than  blocks".  were  t o respond  questions of  Grade  to 1  estimates. by  stating  comparison,  t h e woman" o r This  the  estimations.  f o r the  some t y p e  for  actual  R e s u l t s show t h a t on  supplied numerical  responded  a little  three  f o r the  t h i n k t h e man  live  of  figures  children  1 witnesses  man  "The  itself.  the  overall  consistency i n performance, there  age  children  to  d i f f e r e n c e s i n ages  estimates  were q u i t e a c c u r a t e  relative  estimates  4 onward,  average height  the  e.g.,  to the  While  were c l o s e r the  average  overesti-  more a c c u r a t e  of  con-  sequence.  6 also presents  f o r both  gave  Interest-  s i x years.  t h a t from Grade  the male t a r g e t s of  that  four to  estimates  responsive  the  performance  witnesses.  confederate), examination  least  the  response  target with witnesses'  targets, providing higher of  that  d i f f e r e n c e i n the  appeared to provide  responses  v i d u a l s were a t  a numerical  developmental  t a r g e t ' s age of  of  the  6,  t a r g e t ' s a c t u a l age  live  actual  4,  slide  participants  the  target indicated  e s t i m a t i o n s w i t h more a c c u r a t e  little  for the  event  did provide  Grade  t h e r e was  given  live  who  inflated  f o r the  ingly, age  f o r the  "The  same i n a b i l i t y  man to  69  supply  a numerical  children  with  the figures  respondents. descriptive slide the  a  response  sample.  target estimates  all  response  the height  curly,  confederate  select  from:  of Table  different with  participants  What  kind  of hair  asked  from  witnesses  the live  Participants straight,  curly,  The t h r e e  c a t e g o r i e s may  frizzy, with not  the slide  wave.  responded  had h a i r event  In short,  respond  the best  response  the target  was  have?  Was i t  from  to the question  t h a t was  thief  overly  straight  the  and  somewhat  t h a t was  straight  category type.  of straight d i d A  However, most  categories.  i n some  hair,  small  c a t e g o r i e s i n an attempt  of the available  the  restrictive,  straight  had h a i r  man's h a i r  to the question.  of the  categories to  have been  the simple  o f s u b j e c t s combined  accurately  Finally,  The d e s c r i p t o r s were  had e s s e n t i a l l y  accurately describe either  portion  made  males  confederate  while  some  both  three  o r wavy.  manner.  event  a codeable  and t h e t h i e f  were g i v e n  witnesses  live  otherwise.  d i d t h e man  live  providing  to describe the hair  event  t o ensure  While  25% o f  f o r the  6 witnesses  provided  a  of the  on o n l y  i s found  10% r e s p o n d i n g  provided  however.  picture  gave  the height  6 are based  90% o f G r a d e  25% o f t h e  6 children  t o estimate  4  o r wavy?  question  event.  on o n l y  event.  Descriptions:  slide  6 based  or slide  Hair  male  75% o f G r a d e  r e g a r d l e s s o f whether  the l i v e  This  with  question  from  straight,  asked  and o n l y  of the highschool  found  75% o f t h e G r a d e  when  somewhat  was  of Table  The f i g u r e s A  numerical  to  Similarly,  target.  event  response  Across  pro-  t o more  witnesses a l l ages,  70 the  commonest r e s p o n s e t o t h e q u e s t i o n  92.5%,  72.7%,  witnesses  response  54%,  71%, and 88% f o r t h e l i v e  Hair  Length:  How  hair.  profile  children  aspect  was m o s t o f t e n  included  of whether  d i d not cover  descriptions will i n witnesses'  h i s ears.  The t h i e f  actor  from the l i v e  event had a longer  ears.  remembered t h i s  and 89% f o r t h e Grade  respectively. 62.5%  f o rthe live  f o rthe four  event,  covered,  event had a confederate that  who  completely  correctly  t a r g e t was 5 0 % , 5 5 % , subjects,  i t w a s 5 8%, 5 8%, 3 8 % , a n d  increasing grades.  some i m p r o v e m e n t i n a c c u r a c y target while  The  since  namely,  partially  1, 4, 6, a n d H i g h s c h o o l  For the slide  O n l y one  be d i s c u s s e d  hair style  event  to  pointing to their  of the slide  h i s ears.  I n general, w i t h age,  was e v i d e n t  1  easier  asked witnesses  The p e r c e n t a g e o f w i t n e s s e s  detail  An  answers —  the t a r g e t ' s h a i r covered,  d i d not cover  73%,  skills.  responses were q u i t e v a r i e d .  hair cut that  both  Pilot  t h e younger Grade  upon w h i c h  short  covered  respon-  head and  by the i n t e r v i e w e r .  t h e t a r g e t ' s h a i r length by simply The r e s u l t i n g  of the  t o have  on a simple  immature drawing  was d e c i d e d  of the hair length  recall or  planned  was n o t p o s s i b l e w i t h  because o f t h e i r  own h e a d s .  it  I t was o r i g i n a l l y  this  method o f responding describe  and 62.5%,  to indicate the length  drawing provided  showed t h a t  event  Highschool  event.  o u t l i n e t h e remembered h a i r s t y l e  shoulder work  f o rthe slide  with  l o n g was t h e man's h a i r ?  Witnesses were a l s o asked  dents  "straight hair"  7 3 % , a n d 6 6 % o f t h e G r a d e 1 , 4, 6, a n d  giving this  confederate's  was  f o rthe live  event  age r e l a t e d improvements appeared t o be l e s s  obvious  f o r the  Presence  r e c a l l of  o r A b s e n c e Of  the h a i r s t y l e  Facial  Hair:  of  the  slide  D i d t h e man  event  thief.  wear a beard  of  moustache? The  results  f o r the  found  i n Table  beard  or moustache.  stache.  The  event  the  percentage  for  the  the  confederate  The  thief  of  from  shows s i m i l a r  slide out  f o r the  1 and  statistic  A  separate  slide  4 scores  and and  revealed a  the  event  1 to  Grade  significant  results  6 and  no  had  a moufor  Highschool analysis by  was  grouping  Highschool  difference  the  increase i n  c h i square  event  are  had  event  a gradual Grade  2 X 2  live  live  hair  of performance  of  from  facial  slide  levels  of c o r r e c t answers event.  the  the  t y p e s w i t h some i n d i c a t i o n  Grade  This  The  table  two  carried  7.  question concerning  in  results.  performance  2 between the event  two  age  levels,  t a r g e t w i t h no  X  =  significant  3.87, age  p.  <  .05  f o r the  slide  differences f o r the  live  event. Presence  or Absence of  Responses t o the across nor  the  age  and  slide  event event  Glasses:.  D i d t h e man  question concerning type.  thief  Neither the  were v i r t u a l l y unanimous i n r e p o r t i n g t h i s one  Grade  the  confederate  sure  1 child  about the  thief.  and  one  Highschool  presence  or  absence of  event  fact  Grade  a t a l l ages  correctly.  said  they  1 children  g l a s s e s on  uniform  confederate  witnesses  student  w o r e g l a s s e s w h i l e two  glasses?  g l a s s e s were  live  wore g l a s s e s and  wear  the  Only  remembered were  slide  un-  event  72  Table  7  Percentage of C o r r e c t Responses F a c i a l H a i r Query  Grade  n  Live Event  n  to  Slide  Event  1  14  76%  25  64%  4  12  85%  13  75%  6  18  86%  22  83%  10-11  11  80%  10  91%  73 Eye  Colour;  D i d y o u n o t i c e t h e c o l o u r o f t h e man's  eyes?  (Live  event) The colour The  results  of the confederate  question  they  of the questionnaire  could  indicate not "witnessing"  haps an o b v i o u s  Grade part eye  and  of Table  given  response. witnesses  30% o f s u b j e c t s  indicating  that  eyes were b l u e ,  per-  hair.  that  Examination  of the  c h i l d r e n f o r t h e most  to notice the  confederate's  w a s made i t d i d t e n d  Alternatively, provided  8.  the greater  a correct a failure  "blue"  to the  percentage  response  t o witness  with  the detail,  no one i n c o r r e c t .  Wallet  Colour;  What was t h e c o l o u r  Witnesses were a l s o asked stolen  by t h e t h i e f .  detail  was q u i t e g o o d w i t h  children, and  i n Table  feature, i f unsure  8 are interesting.  H o w e v e r , when a c h o i c e  "blue"  this  his fair  preferred to indicate a failure  highschool  only  t h e eye  event a r e found  The c o n f e d e r a t e ' s  1 , 4, a n d 6 f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t s  correct of  inference  results  colour.  concerning  was i n t e n t i o n a l l y w o r d e d t o s u g g e s t t o s u b j e c t s  about t h e c o r r e c t answer.  The  of the live  item  Results  t o supply  the colour  71.9% c o r r e c t p e r f o r m a n c e  of performance  Memory f o r F o o t w e a r :  (Slide  i n d i c a t e d t h a t memory  83% and 88% f o r t h e Grade  100% l e v e l s  of the wallet?  event)  of the wallet for this f o r Grade  4 and 6 c h i l d r e n r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  f o rHighschool  D i d t h e lady wear boots  students.  or  shoes?  (Slide  event) This nesses'  question  recall  from t h e s l i d e  1  event  interview assessed  f o r a more p e r i p h e r a l d e t a i l  wit-  than the colour o f  74  Table  8  Percentage of Witnesses Making Various to Eyecolour Question  Responses  Responses Grade  n  Correct  Incorrect  Failed to notice  (%)  (%)  (%)  1  26  38  8  54  4  11  18  18  64  6  17  24  0  76  10  70  0  30  10-11  75 the  s t o l e n w a l l e t , namely, t h e general  the  victim.  boots for of  P a r t i c i p a n t s were g i v e n  o r shoes.  Grade  c l a s s o f footwear worn by  two c h o i c e s  Percentage of correct responses  (boots)  from,  was 66%  1 witnesses,  83% f o r Grade  4 c h i l d r e n and 100% l e v e l s  c o r r e c t performance  f o r t h e Grade  6 and Highschool  Summary o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e In  general,  paralleled The  ence,  from t h e questionnaire  Grade 1 c h i l d r e n performed poorest  at least  correctly hair  the results  witnesses  performing  60% o f these  the best.  presence  o r absence o f f a c i a l  footwear). were q u i t e  Levels  Definite  with  younger  descriptive  children.  answers were  analyzed,  ability  When  answer o p t i n g  Grade  however, there  such  as items  were  nume-  evident  targets.  event  precise numerical  was s u r p r i s i n g c o n s i s t e n c y  live  pattern  of stolen  t o provide  4, 6, a n d H i g h s c h o o l  the  i n performance between t h e l i v e  with  colour  f o ra less  t o t h e age and h e i g h t  were r e p o r t e d  (memory f o r  Many o f t h e G r a d e 1 a n d 4 c h i l d r e n w e r e  approximate accuracy  Variations  differ-  f o rcertain questionnaire  and  and s l i d e  age  responded  items  about age and h e i g h t  a numerical  response.  t h e High-  peripheral detail  i n witnesses'  t o queries  t o provide  measures.  e.g. presence o r absence o f g l a s s e s .  limitations  responses  unable  o f performance  impressive,  this  hair,  items  with  young Grade 1 w i t n e s s e s  o b j e c t ,, a n d m e m o r y f o r a s e e m i n g l y  rical  Despite  t o many o f t h e p r o b e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e  type,  students.  Findings  t h e f i n d i n g s f r o m t h e more g l o b a l r e c a l l  youngest  school  the  to select  estimations f o r  and s l i d e  event  t h e f r e e r e p o r t measures and d i f f e r e n c e s i n  of results  were  found  f o rthe certain  questionnaire  76 measures, e.g. r e q u e s t s and  facial  hair  o f age t r e n d s  carried  query to  to  finding  d i d so.  this  interviewer.  that they  could reply  found  (Items  by  uncertainty, only  30% o f t h e H i g h s c h o o l  study,  Highschool  next  of limited  i t does suggest  randomly  1 , 2, a n d 3) a r e o f p r e s e n t  f o r "hedges" may b e m o r e  uncertainty to  case,  i ti s hearten-  opting t o express  guessing  a  their  response.  Performance o f t h e r e c o g n i t i o n memory  event.  The r e s u l t s  generality  may b e m o r e a t t u n e d t o  In which  are the results  9.  to indicate  witnesses  1  t h a t t h e r e may b e  Younger w i t n e s s e s  information.  followed the slide  i n Table  indicating  t h e m a j o r i t y o f Grade  obviously a finding  r a t h e r than  A  While  who s e l e c t e d t h e c o r r e c t a l t e r n a t i v e are  improve-  worded  R e c o g n i t i o n Memory  task which  of significant  T h i s q u e s t i o n was d e l i b e r a t e l y  t o see t h e Grade 1 t o 6 c h i l d r e n  Presented  finding  to the  answers p r e f e r r i n g  of facial  uncertainty,  This  i s witnesses' responses  or uncertainty.",  about t h e i r  sort  event.  differences i n children's preference  expressions  timid  ing  While  the context of this  the  to the lack  m e r i t i n g emphasis  indicated  developmental or  of the live  implements  i n t h e c u e d memory c o n d i t i o n r e p o r t e d a b o v e .  t o respondents  6 children  are f i r s t , the  of the plant care  had n o t "noticed" t h e d e t a i l .  students in  highlighting  forrecall  about eye c o l o u r .  suggest  they  found  some r e l a t i o n s h i p  ments i n r e c a l l second  findings worth  i n by t h e confederate  may b e a r  age e s t i m a t e s  query.  Two a d d i t i o n a l lack  f o r apparel description,  The p e r c e n t a g e  of witnesses  f o r each o f t h e four  of the f i r s t interest.  three  items  columns  The f o u r t h  column  77 deals  with  later.  a  The  s u g g e s t i b i l i t y manipulation-, table  shows t h a t  chance  l e v e l s of  (first  column) w h i c h d e a l t  slides  and  who  a  passed  with The  chi  and  perfect  a n c e was  failed  the  the  three  are  1.9 3 3 , An  recognition F(3,52)  =  To  of  was  Grade 6 or  (p.  <  Highschool  this  trend  with  c e n t r a l or  varied  Table  9)  dealt  slides. students  perform-  correct  answers  four  increasing  c a r r i e d out  G:  on  Table  poorer  than  for  performance grade  these effect  12.)  A  g r o u p means i n d i c a t e d  to  recognize  f o r Grade  subjects. depending  which  3  the  that  Grade  6  .05).  age  previously  1 witnesses  T h e r e was  also  of  the  trends  dealt with  than  task  witnessed  f o r the  witnessed for  the  some i n d i c a t i o n  upon w h e t h e r t h e  aspects  r e l a t i v e absence of  (Column 1 of  the  Analysis  Appendix  the  ability  peripheral  Highschool  1  witnesses  i n the  s i g n i f i c a n t Grade  significantly  somewhat p o o r e r  that  Note the  (See  a  from  2 and  Mean l e v e l s o f  tests  the  for item  However, p o o r e r  number o f  yielded  p r o c e d u r e on  grades  Items  1 children.  variance  above  detail  theft depicted  for the  discussed  percentage of  G r a d e 6 and  2.72  .< . 0 0 1 .  summarize, the  material  the  and  1 p e r f o r m a n c e was  Highschool  the  memory i t e m s .  2.72,  4.315, p  the  total  memory s c o r e s  Scheffe" post-hoc Grade  of  upon the  analysis  of  Grade  recognition 2.33,  of  be  evident  a background  recognition.  for the  c a r r i e d out  with  will well  non-significant.  aspects  ease of  was  t r e n d s were not  was  performance  found  levels.  Age  p e r f o r m a n c e was  square a n a l y s i s  more c e n t r a l  indicates  or  33%.  and  event.  first  a background  dealt  item, detail.  78  Table 9 P e r c e n t a g e o f W i t n e s s e s Making: C o r r e c t t o Four. R e c o g n i t i o n T a s k s  Recognition 1. B a c k g r o u n d Detail Grade  Task  2. M e e t i n g o f M a n & Woman  Response  Items  ^_  3. C o n c e a l m e n t of Wallet .  4. Woman & Friend*  n  (%)  (%)  (%)  (%)  1  15  60  60  73  33  4  12  50  100  83  25  6  18  72  100  100  39  10-11  11  73  100  100  64  * Suggestibility  item  79 Photo-identification Incorrect coded  as  0 or  performed there" the  1,  correct  evident  respectively  arid s l i d e  event.)  Grade e f f e c t  was  than both  Grades  the  one  fact  In  In the  found  f o r both was  by  at  .05.  showed no  contrast,  was  Grade  6 and  The  found  Event  carried  "not  i n Table  was A  signif-  10.  two  Some  c a n be  grade  poorer  of the  indica-  determined  selected  and  the remaining  least  one  event  line-ups, seven  witness. of the t h i e f  trend  and  a low  o f w i t n e s s e s who event  f o r the Grade  from  level  of  slide  accuracy.  correctly  from the photo  1 children  the  selected  line-up  t o 82%  and  100%  for  Highschool witnesses, respectively. Measures  Suggestibility Manipulation  Embedded i n one e v e n t was  results  line-ups  Sugggestlbi1ity Slide  significantly  never  live  a  of the  slide  confederate of the  test  identification  and  developmental  46%  event  live  the percentage  from  target.  Scheffe*a n a l y s i s  of the  the  gave  Grade e f f e c t  event  f o r the l i v e  Highschool.  size  of variance  ( W i t n e s s e s who  slide  summary, t h e n , r e c o g n i t i o n  improved the  that  selected  event  of the  tasks are  functional  alternative  were  analysis  significant  1 performance  6 and  photo-identification of the  an  c h o i c e s were  This occurred only twice f o r both  No  F(3,69) = 5.1980, p<  means r e v e a l e d G r a d e  by  and  these binomial scores.  for identification  trends,  tion  photo-identification  r e s p o n s e w e r e uncommon.  live  icant  on  and  Performance  the  suggestion that  a book.  s u g g e s t i o n was  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items  No  book  the victim  i n fact  a s s e s s e d i n one  existed.  from  the  meets a f r i e n d The  effect  of the recognition  task  slide who  of  this  items  80  Table Percentage  o:f W i t n e s s e s M a k i n g C o r r e c t P h o t o - I d e r i t i f i c a t i o r i C h o i c e by Grade'arid Event Type  Grade  Live  1 n 4  a  n 6  a  n 11  10  a *o  n  Event  Slide  Sequence  46 (28)  20 (15)  77 (13)  25 (12)  82 (22)  33 (18)  100 (10)  27 (11)  81 which  presented  participants  m e e t i n g : .The o r i g i n a l either  arm  friend  with  found cate  and  number  of  The  f o r the  The  column  of  Grade  4,  6  i n resistance evident  Examination  of  was  relative  poorest  Examination were  specifically  vided  by  the  witnesses native, the  who  while  who  that  they  what  i t  15%  a  knew  first  three  incorrect  selected  briefcase. select the  choices  the  person  carried  items  misleading  vary-  sample.  this  from  task.  respondents  the  which  during but  pro-  of  book  alter-  showed  several of  remarked  item  the  percent  selected  something,  "book"  information  alternative  briefcase  on  indicated  Interestingly,  are  indi-  d i d not  Highschool  eighty-five  the  the  considerable  performance  choice  and  suggested  with  remaining  Overall  incorrect  the  the  in  manipulation  performance  with  the  a book  The'percentages  groups  correct  i n f l u e n c e d by  only  the the  were  wittask  not  sure  was.  Manipulations  results  to  column  f o r two  into  i n Table  tibility  the  the  an  did  incorporated found  to  made  Suggestibility The  shows  interviewer.  lady with  nesses  the  of  9  11.  this  nothing  with  this  selected  improvement  Table  of  correct  and  carried  friend  results  shows  1,  the  who  depictions of  friend  Table  witnesses table  three  the  alternatives,  third  alternative. greatly  i n which  a briefcase.  i n the the  two  with  two  11.  the  false  the  memory  These  indicates  misleading  of  for Live three  suggestion  suggestibility  interview of  questions  percentage that  the  the  assessed  i n f e r e n c e s about the  Event  the of  live  questions  event  witnesses'  live  event.  witnesses  confederate  used  who  are suscepThe accepted  scissors  to  82  Table  11  Percentage of Witnesses Accepting Misleading Suggestion i n Eyewitness Interview f o r L i v e Event arid R e c o g n i t i o n T a s k o f S l i d e E v e n t  He u s e d s c i s s o r s to cut o f f a l e a f , d i d n ' t he? % responding  Grade  1  Q.  n 4  a "o  n 6  Q. O  n 11  Q.  n  "Yes"  W h i c h arm d i d he wear h i s watch on? indicating  an  arm  S l i d e Event Recognition Task %  selecting "Book" alternative  69 (26)  88 (25)  58 (15)  54 (13)  62 (13)  73 (12)  46 (22)  86 (21)  61 (18)  27 (11)  36 (11)  27 (11)  f  83 cut  off a leaf,  scissors  had  when he  merely The  witnesses  indicated  did  not.  during  (The  the  The  results  resistant evident  tween columns  of  Grade  resistance  to the  Grades  likely  a watch  to exist they  those  wore  care of  a w a t c h , when a specific  and  participants  6 children.  4,  and  manipulation  are  most  performance  was  6 witnesses.  pulled  scissors  the  scissors  the on  were not  given  from the  entire  for witnesses  had  specifically who  a more  The  bepowerful  higher  is likely  on  the  due  to  "watch"  t a b l e and  Similar  the  scissors  saying that the  that the  of  suggestion,  confederate  and/or  u s i n g them.  was  detail.  t h a t he  Similar  q u e s t i o n w i t h o n l y one  sample i n d i c a t i n g  the  absence  noticed this the  con-  information  regarding the  off with his fingers  table without  to the  the  resisted  i n t e r v i e w e r by leaf  he time  Comparisons  "watch" m a n i p u l a t i o n  witnesses  c o r r e c t e d the  worn a  plant  percentage  with poorer  leaf with his fingers.  unless  Indeed, of  the  the  of  s a l i e n c e of c o n t r a d i c t o r y information, i . e . , the  the  either  4,  scissors  removal of  85%  suggestions  1,  placement of  as  tray  (The  event).  1,  federate's  not  confederate  show h i g h s c h o o l  shows t h e  with  from the  commented, h o w e v e r , on  the  again  suggestion  greater  the  to misleading  f o r the  used h i s hands.  second column p r e s e n t s  a c t o r had  course  i n fact  been removed  implements). who  had  placed  responses  witness  confederate  had  not  watch.  While suggestion viewer's converse,  the  above a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s w i t n e s s e s  h a v e a memory t h a t d i r e c t l y  suggestion,  i t does not  i . e . , the witnesses  who  who  resist  c o n t r a d i c t s the  explicitly accept  demonstrate  suggestion  do  interthe not  have  84 this  i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o them as w e l l .  data  were examined then  spontaneous mention ports  concerning  1 witness  event  This witness  suggestion,  the  removal.  detail,  Grade  four accepted  and only  While  scissors  appears  small  who  memory.  they  a c t upon.  witnesses  two  Grade  However, o f those  1 witnesses that  scissors  statement during  from t h e l i v e  witnesses  this  In short, i t  accepted  agreed  interview which put inside  which they d i d that  to the interviewer's  demands i n d e t e r m i n i n g far, are the results  with  suggestion,  i s the observation  This  t h i n g t h a t t h e man  even  had a c o n t r a d i c -  t o h a v e a memory  with first  who  the interview session.  event  each  l e d into  older witnesses  later  thus  from  i s tantaliz-  a r e more e a s i l y  had been used,  issue of task Omitted,  who  five  mentioned the  the suggestion  u s u a l l y d i d so because they  Consistent  mentioned  whether young o r o l d d i s a g r e e d  young c h i l d r e n were more l i k e l y not  f o rthe  In contrast,  have r e t a i n e d t h e c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n .  suggestion,  the  4 witnesses  than  i n his  the interviewer's  samples, the trend  younger witnesses  t h a t when w i t n e s s e s ,  suggestion  removal  had been used  the suggestion.  t o an i n c o r r e c t statement  when t h e y  the  accepted  one a c c e p t e d  admittedly  i n suggesting  agreeing  tory  later  the leaf  Of t h e s e v e n Grade  removal  sample.  a  mentioned  that  question  The f i n d i n g s were as f o l l o w s .  6 c h i l d r e n and seven Highschool  leaf's  ing  i.e., agreed  between  i n witnesses * free r e -  resistance f o r the misleading  O n l y one Grade  leaf's  removal  t h e use o f s c i s s o r s .  recall.  suggestibility  t o determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p  of the leaf  and subsequent  The  retracted  observation  suggestibility of the leading  asked,  their raises  effects. question  "What w a s t h e s i z e o f  t h e paper bag?"  This  question  85 assessed  witnesses'  susceptibility  t o t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t an  o b j e c t was i n v o l v e d when t h e c o n f e d e r a t e his  hand  from  witnesses ever, of  a brown paper bag.  indicated  accepted  who  d i d respond,  1 , 4, 6, a n d H i g h s c h o o l  57%, 62.5%,  students,  t h e suggestion by p r o v i d i n g a s i z e  supposed o b j e c t . suggestibility to  Unfortunately, half  These f i n d i n g s  manipulations  the misleading  of the  no remembrance o f t h e brown p a p e r b a g .  of the witnesses  t h e Grade  p l a c e d and withdrew  suggestion  parallel  How-  28%, and 12%  respectively,  estimate  of the  the results  from t h e  d i s c u s s e d above, w i t h r e s i s t a n c e increasing  w i t h t h e age o f t h e  witness.  Analysis To  o f t h e combined gather  suggestibility  additional  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l  tern  of suggestible responses,  tive  data  done. event  from  Responses  event  analysis and s l i d e  event  each  time  o f t h e combined event  f o r t h e r e c o g n i t i o n memory  i n t e r v i e w and t h e s c i s s o r s  live  by  the live  manipulations  w e r e summed a witness  manipulations  item  from  t h e combined  Grade e f f e c t , analysis  respectively.  suggestibility  F(3,42)  possible score of three.  An a n a l y s i s scores  = 11.276, p. < .001.  more s u g g e s t i b l e t h a n  a  test  significant  Scheffe  1 children  Highschool  The  1 t o High-  of variance  indicated  o f t h e f o u r means r e v e a l e d G r a d e  significantly  the slide  One p o i n t was g i v e n f o r  m e a n s w e r e 2 . 6 7 , 1 . 8 3 , 1 . 8 3 , a n d .80 f o r t h e G r a d e  on  was  the misleading suggestion supplied  t h e i n t e r v i e w e r w i t h a maximum  school witnesses,  sugges-  and watch m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e  f o r each witness.  accepted  pat-  post-hoc were  students  (p < .05).  86 Summary o f The with  suggestibility  results  increasing  effects cantly  individuals  p a t t e r n was  i n v e r b a l responses  tempered  the  highschool-aged  found  to  somewhat by  of  findings  study  highschool  the  interview  f o r the  Grade  that the  the  were e f f e c t i v e  live  event.  Two  concluded  of  the  details  o f an  The  i n terms of  event the  and  a final  quality  children  their  even w i t h  the  the  eyewitness  limits  assessed  of t h e i r  eye-  p e r c e i v i n g the  question dealt with their  of t h e i r  long-term  memory f o r  prethe  event.  1: you  Do  you  t h i n k t h e man  c o u l d have done  n u m b e r o f p a r t i c i p a n t s who  Grade and  something  seeing i t ?  have done something  the  to  manipulations  questions  a t t e n d i n g t o and  without  are  Findings  abilities  Question  paradigm  students.  witness  eyewitness  for  t o some e x t e n t  potential  about  This  1 children  reasons  p a r t i c i p a n t s ' awareness of the  dictions  signifi-  Conclusions  the misleading  Three meta-eyewitness questions  for  to  that  witnesses.  interview questions.  Meta-eyewitness  could  indicate  i n a r e c o g n i t i o n memory  a r e c o m p l e x and^that  present  oldest  measures  a r e more r e s i s t a n t  greater suggestibility  ^suggestibility of  age,  suggestibility  more s u g g e s t i b l e t h a n  about the be  the  of m i s l e a d i n g s u g g e s t i o n w i t h Grade 1 c h i l d r e n  developmental and  of  findings  1 children 100%  without to  77%  felt  that the  them s e e i n g  and  f o r the Highschool  73%  i t rose  f o r the  students.  confederate  Grade The  from 4 and  37% 6  percentage  87 of  these individuals  inability  who  attributed  their  responses  to attend to everything or the potential  to  the  for  an  o b s c u r e d v i e w was  24%  f o r the Grade  1 children,  67%  f o r the  Grade  68%  f o r t h e Grade  6 children,  and  100%  the  4 children,  Highschool samples.  there  i s an  perceptual of  increased and  the Grade  60%  of  attentional  for their  reflects  cognitive  suggest  that with  of the f a l l i b i l i t y  processes.  The  poorer  of  t o p r o v i d e any  response.  As  the lower performance  developmental  type of  such,  differences  processes or confusion over  coherent way  o f t h e Grade  the  one's  since  t h e r e i s no  in their  age  performance  i s somewhat e n i g m a t i c h o w e v e r ,  s u b j e c t s were unable  a s c e r t a i n i n g whether  of  appreciation  1 children  justification  dren  These f i n d i n g s  for  1  of chil-  understanding  intent  of  the  interviewer's question.  Question  2:  been wearing Unlike smaller  age  question.  Do  you  think  a  ring? of the  differences  were  The  percentage  they could  65%,  75%,  89%,  90%  f o r the  26%,  67%,  63%,  and  40%  all  that tions  any  Fifty reason  the a b i l i t y improves  found  four  i n the responses  or the  such  as  increasing  justified  their  thought  grades.  responses  impossibility  age  response. reasons  p a s t Grade  1.  by  had  question, to  this  i t likely  t h e man's r i n g Of  were  these,  noting  the  of attending to  p e r c e n t of Grade 1 c h i l d r e n for their  i f t h e man  meta-eyewitness  o f w i t n e s s e s who  to articulate  with  have n o t i c e d  first  overlook a detail  of the object  details.  elaborate  would  the r e s u l t s  that  smallness  you  were unable  Again, i t would  f o r eyewitness  to  appear  limita-  88 Question  3:  I f I w e r e t o come b a c k i n a m o n t h , d o y o u t h i n k y o u  could  s t i l l  would  remember a s w e l l The  r e m e m b e r w h a t t h e man  percentage  some d e t e r i o r a t i o n  dropping  i n their  upon t h e i r  gories. fail  Grade a  they would  responses  respectively).  fell  would  follow  their  memories were poor  their  long-term memories:  children It  proposed  quite well  of cate-  memories  (4 8% o f t h e G r a d e  would 1  4, 6, a n d H i g h s c h o o l response  event:  such  was t o a r t i c u -  responded  i n general, thus  interfere  8%, 3 8 % , 2 3 % o f t h e  an e x p l a n a t i o n .  Finally,  by s t a t i n g  their  8%, 0%, 1 4 % o f G r a d e  t o focus  that  s k e p t i c i s m about 1, 4, a n d 6  (64%) s u g g e s t e d i n a month.  on t h e H i g h s c h o o l  t h a t they would  Thirty  percent  i t was a n o t e a b l e  witnesses  remember t h e e v e n t  stated  g o o d m e m o r i e s i n g e n e r a l , a n d 2 0% t h o u g h t because  a variety  this explanation.  i s interesting  most  to elabor-  i n t h e coming month w o u l d  gave  64% o f  explanation, i . e . , the information  t h e memory f o r t h e w i t n e s s e d 1 , 4, a n d 6 c h i l d r e n  at a  children,  In fact,  that their  An a l t e r n a t i v e  be  remember t h e e v e n t  into  simply noted  some t y p e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e which  event  When s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d  smaller proportion of witnesses  since  students.  23%, 18%, and 20% o f t h e Grade  events  with  1, 4, a n d 6  b e c a u s e o f t h e l o n g memory i n t e r v a l  children late  a month.  answers,  that there would  memory f o r t h e w i t n e s s e d  felt  Some p a r t i c i p a n t s  children,  or  after  felt  86%, f o r t h e Grade  the Highschool witnesses  ate  who  t o 36% f o r t h e H i g h s c h o o l  equally well  Do y o u t h i n k y o u  a s y o u do now?  o f respondents  m o n t h w e r e 6 0 % , 7 7%,  looked l i k e .  t h a t they had  they would  remember  e v e n t , (e.g., t h e c o n f e d e r a t e was  "cute".)  89 Summary o f M e t a - e y e w i t n e s s In  general,  intuition the  about  ferences these  the f a l l i b i l i t y  over  time.  assessments. a t both  found  Highschool part  findings  these  that  tions) manner. only  tasks  positive  A final  assessment  relative  to their  First,  comment t o be among t h e Cer-  i s warranted by t h e  younger  Differences  superior  peers.  Measures and  between t h e two  individual  was c a r r i e d  out i n the following  a d e c i s i o n w a s made t o f o c u s u p o n t h e r e s u l t s  sample s i z e s  as these groups  once cue-absent  would  correlational  analysis  conditions  and t h e o r e t i c a l  partial  inadvis-  out the effect  was n o t c o n d u c t e d  1 and 6 sample b u t f o r each  grade  of  yielded the  and cue-present  Due t o t h e - s t a t i s t i c a l  o f techniques which  ( W o l h w i l l , 1 9 73)  that  ( t h e MFF t a s k m e a s u r e s a n d C l a s s r o o m D e s c r i p -  eyewitness performance  combined Grade  reasons f o r  l o n g - t e r m memory a b i l i t i e s .  of the relationship  were combined. ability  3.  i s t h e confidence found  t h e Grade 1 and 6 c h i l d r e n  largest  their  dif-  suggestive are the budding  R e l a t i o n s h i p between I n d i v i d u a l Eyewitness Performance  differences  t o be developmental  h i g h s c h o o l w i t n e s s e s g e n e r a l l y .show  memory p e r f o r m a n c e  Analysis  t o remember e v e n t s  to articulate  to Question  students i n their  early during  a n d i n t e r f e r e n c e m o d e l s o f memory  findings  of this  of eyewitness a b i l i t i e s  do a p p e a r  Especially  decay  t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an  and t h e a b i l i t y  There  i n responses  about  tainly  suggest  i n witnesses' a b i l i t y  attempts  made  the results  o c c u r r e n c e o f an event  accurately  are  Findings  o f age f o r the  separately.  90 The  MFF  Task  As was  and  straints.  uals  Measures  i n d i c a t e d above, only  administered  first  Memory  The  to  the  study  intended  response  and  into four  number o f  of  items  from the  p a r t i c i p a n t s because of  scoring of  categories:  slow-inaccurate.  a subset  the  errors  MFF  scores  reflective,  Classification  uses both  of  to  MFF  time  respondents  con-  latency  categorize  impulsive;,  test  to  individ-  fast-accurate,  into  these  o  diagnostic tests'  categories  abbreviations  istered) . and  the  Instead,  total  was  not  (i.e., latency  number o f  possible  only  in this  a subset  Grade  46.82,  5.4 8 a n d various  1.36.  12.  and  In  Latency the tion  The  eyewitness  Description scores  42.25 and  error scores  f o r the  memory m e a s u r e s Correct  only  to  r e s p o n s e was  first  number o f scores  errors  a  few  the  that  this  this  intuition  number o f  errors <  .01.  grade  and  was the  scores  Grade  were then  from the  Results  for  are  order,  correlated  live  the  6 children.  event:  with Event  Description  reported  in  correlated with  6 correct physical and given  latter  reports.  the  six  l e v e l s were, i n  the by  Table  amount o f  both  descripincorrect  Grade 1 c h i l d r e n  finding i s consistent  more c a r e f u l c h i l d  prone i n his/her eyewitness  .5210, p  Grade  descriptions information  suggestion  f o r the  negatively  r ( 2 1 ) = - . 3 7 3 9 , p . < .05  the  seconds)  c o r r e l a t i o n s reached s i g n i f i c a n c e .  f o r the  Only  latency  the  admin-  in  Incorrect Physical  S u g g e s t i b i l i t y scores.  = - . 5 2 3 4 , p. < .01.  with  and  general,  physical  two  r e s u l t i n g scores  scores,  to  e r r o r s made w e r e summed f o r t h e Mean t o t a l  Mean t o t a l  due  i t e m s was  t o fir.s±.-.response ( t i m e  items t h a t were administered. 1 c h i l d r e n was  of  study  Another  significant  w o u l d be finding  less  r(27) with  error-  consistent  c o r r e l a t i o n between  Grade 1 s u g g e s t i b i l i t y  scores,  r(24)  the =  91  Table  12  C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n MFF S c o r e s a n d E y e w i t n e s s P e r f o r m a n c e a r i d S'ug'g'e's-tib'ility M e a s u r e s  Grade  Total Latency t o First Responses (S)  Measures  Grade  1 Total Number o f Errors  6  Total Latency t o First Responses (S)  Total Number o f Errors  Event Description Score  r n  -.1543 (26)  0.1867 (26)  Correct Physical Description Score  r n  0.1678 (27)  -.1067 (27)  Incorrect Physical Description Score  r n  -.5234** (27)  0.0417 (27)  0.2856 (21)  0.2105 (21)  Suggestibility Score  r n  0.1400 (24)  0.5210** (24)  0.0121 (21)  0.0295 (21)  *  S  ** p  <  .05 <.01  -0.1737 (22)  -.3739* (21)  0.2256 (22)  -.2045 (21)  92 Classroom Descriptions An to  a  additional  request  ticipants in  to  provide a  total  number o f  for  So,  c o d e d as  stituted  levels  event.  assigned event. icant of  and  to  correlations  correlations Curiously  prediction would  protocols tion  a  i s found  tions,  r ( l l ) =  Summary o f In witness  score. and  i n Table no  amount o f  on  the  =  .5380 and  .6747, p  Correlational  <  for  the  live  and  the  'slide  some s i g n i f i n the  pattern  grades.  and  the  classroom  found  classroom  i n witness  to  live  slide  descrip-  event  event physical  descrip-  .01. Results  MFF  results  and  the  the  recall  Classroom the  be-  descriptions  s u m m a r y , some s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s performance  witnesses  witness  Again  6 results.  the  as  and  More congruence w i t h  significantly related  r(18)  The  event  c o r r e l a t i o n was  information  Grade  scores  the  consistency  - . 4 8 1 5 , p. < .05.  con-  with  not  13.  this  respectively.  results  did  our The  mean  decreased considerably  scores  h a n g up point.  The  18.9  event descriptions  i n the  to  Par-  contained  f o r e a c h c h i l d and  description  reported  =  unit  one  e v i d e n t b e t w e e n ' t h e two  the  s c o r e s were  as  s c o r e s were c o r r e l a t e d  higher  to  place  scored  10.4  responses  t h e i r classroom.  "a  s i g n i f i c a n t negative  r(13)  descriptions,  and  6 were  1 live  that  relate  example,  were found but  was  Grade  descriptions  of  cue-present condition are  from witnesses'  descriptive  description  Sample s i z e s the  each  tallied  physical  Findings  tween the  for  was  1 and  classroom description descriptions  derived  "cloakroom"  points  Measures  description  for  the-... c l a s s r o o m  grades  slide  a  point  their protocols. was  Memory  m e a s u r e was  received  coat"  and  between  classroom  eye-  93  Table 13 CoarteiaEiOlis Between Classroom D e s c r i p t i o n and Eyewitness Performance  "Classroom Grade 1  Scores  Descriptions Grade 6  L i v e Event Descriptions  r n  .4815* (13)  4176 (12)'.  L i v e Event Physical Descriptions  r n  3984 (15)  6747** (ID  S l i d e Event Descriptions  r n  -.3127 (15)  5380** (18)  S l i d e Event Physical Descriptions  r n  3180 (14)  * .p. < .05 ** p < .01  0110 (18)  d e s c r i p t i o n s were e v i d e n t .  While  these  results  are interesting,  c o r r e l a t i o n s between most o f t h e measures were n o n ^ s i g n i f i c a n t and  a consistent pattern  between t h e two grades  o f s i g n i f i c a n t ' f i n d i n g s was n o t e v i d e n t  included  i n the analysis.  Summary o f  Summarized, report  testimony  extent  Grade  and  nesses the  easier  aged c h i l d r e n .  and a r e able  the  different  questionnaire  found c e r t a i n questions height  formance on o t h e r of  glasses).  Age-related  difficult  (e.g.,  with  memory  increases  of  Age t r e n d s  the slide  children  wit-  sequence o f of the event  The r e s u l t s f o r  virtually  Children  t o i n any errorless  per-  f o r t h e presence o r absence found  i n t h e degree t o  i n f o r m a t i o n and  f o rrecognition of  aspects  event and p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n performance.  Responses t o t h e meta-eyewitness questions witness  older  1 c h i l d r e n respond-  t o respond  were  were a l s o e v i d e n t  6  were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e  which c h i l d r e n are suggestible t o misleading queries.  than  items were v a r i a b l e however.  estimations)  items  Grade  individuals.  than older witnesses.  very  free  however, do n o t  found t h e d e t a i l s  t h e youngest Grade  less often  than  the correct temporal  questionnaire  correctly  (e.g.,  less information  than p h y s i c a l descriptions of  findings with  suggest  Grade 1 and t o a l e s s e r  Young w i t n e s s e s ,  a t a l l ages  ing  manner  study  more i n c o r r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n  t o the study's  report  age w i t h  to maintain  Witnesses  to recall  Responses free  improves w i t h  significantly  event.  of the present  4 children providing  Highschool  provide  the results  Results  i n t e r v i e w we.re>Lnteresting  included  i n suggesting  h a v e some a w a r e n e s s o f t h e i r  even  limitations  as  i n t h e eyeyoung witnesses.  95 No  c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e was  performance Figures  and e i t h e r  (MFF) t e s t  descriptions.  the  results,  responses  to exist  types  differences (live  between  to the Matching  nor the richness  Finally,  f r o m t h e two e v e n t  found  Familiar  of witnesses' classroom i n the results  and s l i d e s )  t r e n d s f o r t h e two e v e n t s .  obtained  were e v i d e n t  t h e most d r a m a t i c i n s t a n c e b e i n g t h e  identification  eyewitness  photo-  from  96  DISCUSSION  Evidence  f o rEncoding  The  fundamental  age  differences  the  study  witness  the  initial  deficits  impact  recall  The r e s u l t s o f  have been c o n s i d e r e d f o r such hypothesis reflects o f the event  but i n recognition,  i n the present study  decoding  shortcomings.  individual.  that  Since en-  i n i t i a l observations,  s h o u l d be r e f l e c t e d  as w e l l .  and  i s somehow d e f i c i e n t o r  originate with the child's deficits  i n eye-  the assumption  t h a t made b y a n o l d e r  of these  measures taken  exist.  whether  there are age-related deficits  encoding  than  abilities  Two e x p l a n a t i o n s , t h e e n c o d i n g  deficit  detailed  coding  that  hypotheses  children's  o f t h e p r e s e n t t h e s i s was  i n eyewitness  indicate  encoding  less  concern  performance.  deficits The  Deficits  not only i n  The v a r i o u s memory support  the encoding  deficit  hypothesis. Grade  1 w i t n e s s e s gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y  older  c h i l d r e n when a s k e d  slide  events  poorer  on p h y s i c a l  specific  questions clothing  description  More Grade  1 children  attributed  t o decoding  suggest  recognition  Although  that  memory  with the  had d i f f i c u l t i e s  during the live  these  recall  or retrieval  this  did relatively  Performance  and about  problems,  f o r v a r i o u s scenes  event,  differences  from  deficits  answering about t h e  f e a t u r e s such  i s not the case.  than  and t h e  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h an encoding  worn by i n d i v i d u a l s , hair.  tasks.  details  the live  1 and 4 c h i l d r e n  a b o u t w h a t was s a i d  facial  results  Grade  q u e s t i o n s was a l s o  explanation.  and  and both  t o describe both  fewer  as  hair  c o u l d be  the recognition  In a test of the live  event,  Grade  1 witnesses  older  highschool  found  i n the photo-identification of the live  with  correct In  tent a  performed  individuals.  recognition  short,  with  again  that  Also,  performance  considerable  the claim  significantly  evidence  poorer  than  age r e l a t e d t r e n d s event  confederate  increasing with from t h e study  the capacity  o f s i xyear  were  age. i s consis-  olds  and t o  lesser extent  nine  year olds  t o code a complex event  i snot  comparable with  that  of eleven  year o l d and highschool  aged  witnesses. Marin  These  findings  e t a l . (19 79)  ( 1 9 8 0 ) who  a r e i n agreement w i t h  but apparently  f o u n d no s i g n i f i c a n t  results  inconsistent with  age d i f f e r e n c e s  from  Goetze  i n free  report  performance. Both viewer  the present  absent during  study  the event.  procedural  detail  minimizing  age d i f f e r e n c e s .  the  present  study this  comparisons study,  Marin  about  three  included. witness  from  eight  among y o u n g e r  are d i f f i c u l t  studies  found i n  during the  Although  1 children  i n contrast,  study  refused  found  to talk  The i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s  cross-  volunteered some o f t h e  to the inter-  i n findings  across  due t o v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e age  ranges  Both Marin e t a l . and t h i s  study  examined t h e eye-  o f i n d i v i d u a l s from s i x years  Goetze,  children  t o make, a l l o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n  e t a l . (19 79)  i s likely  this  age e f f e c t s were  t o have a p o s i t i v e impact.  the event.  abilities  adulthood.  Although  that  t h e absence o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r  youngest c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r  the  I t was t h o u g h t  i n c l u d i n g t h e youngest Grade  testimony.  viewer  (1980) h a d t h e i n t e r -  would enhance r e c a l l  study,  event d i d appear  and Goetze  i n contrast,  t o t h i r t e e n years.  tested  o f age t o  the recall  I t i s possible  of children  and indeed t h e  98  present  results  individuals  support  within  significantly  the  this  narrower  encoding  deficits  completeness  of witness',  affect  aspects  details struct the to  were these  lack  of  of  recalled, details detail  confusion or  positive  their  i n the  i n a younger  in this  of  a  were  as  witnesses.  almost  never  found  picture f a r as  trustworthy  fewer This  details, lack  of  information,  that  free as  does  the  c o n c l u s i o n s do  There demand  be  an  asked  not  lead of  same a s  not  hold  specific  i n a c c u r a t e than evidence  characteristics  may  more  study's  from  infor-  statements  of  the  findings  event.  suggests  children  are  encode detail.  confabulate missing  information included and  in  adults.  structured  q u e s t i o n s young older  asked  young  incorrect  children  children  f o r a more  of  When  is restricted  incorrect  lead  Another  amount  younger  to  Thus  d i d not  inaccurate  children  fewer  recon-  events. the  young  to  sequence.  descriptions  the  older  to  individual,  over,  from  appear  reports.  i s concerned,  amount  i s the  i s some  More  consequence  detail  When  of  major  the  and  of  free  Although  These  t o be  not  able  memory  concerns  adults.  testimony  likely  of  Although  were  order  i n the  emerges  don't  temporal  i n children's  recall  their  however.  would  reports.  volunteer significantly  older  as  the  description  than  The that  physical  they  child's  regard  to  d i d not  free  correct  i n f o r m a t i o n found  mation  abilities  obviously circumscribe the  young w i t n e s s e s  inaccurate  children  range  testimony,  distortion  finding  provide  age  the  different.  Although  other  notion that  interview,  children  are  more  questionnaire results  that  witnesses.  the  encourage  this  tendency  to  inaccuracy  99  when p r o b e d . typical was  the  ledge,  One  of  "Did  G r a d e 1,  indicate two  their  you 4,  of  the  answer by  the  inability three  The  to  questions  a p e r s o n and  to  their  recall  fication could  to  a  small  children ciation  answered of  the  These data able  w o u l d be  inconceivable,  tual  and  cognitive children Kreutzer, are  limitations  to elaborate  children,  i n a way  questions  to notice  abilities, on  more c o m p e l l i n g  however, t h a t  memorial processes.  yes  or  then,  dealt  with de-  in their had no  the  Although  had  i n suggesting  one  some  memorial  1 appre-  processes.  young c h i l d r e n been It is  literature  age  percepon  meta-  trends, e a r l y age  meta-eyewitness  that children's  not  school  about t h e i r  c e r t a i n i n s i g h t s from a very The  quali-  Grade  responses.  the  after  would  children, particularly  Leonard &Flavell,1975).  important,  evaluate  the. most  o r more o f  k n o w l e d g e shows c o n s i s t e n t d e v e l o p m e n t a l evidence  responses  that  and  suggested they  inherent  upon t h e i r  i.e..,  a person  S i x t y percent that  may  a small  assumed t h a t  w o u l d h a v e some e a r l y i n t u i t i o n s  do  unsure  i n d i c a t e some s k e p t i c i s m o r  detail  show some memory l o s s .  were  i n d i v i d u a l ' s appearance  I t was  about one's eyewitness  overlook  they  majority  asked c h i l d r e n to  ability an  The  know-  t h a t young c h i l d r e n  T h e s e two  a month's r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l . r e s p o n s e was  that  implied  lack of  i s r e i n f o r c e d by  which  abilities.  a  in  response  however,  h i s eyes?"  fact  recall  items,  indicating  colour of  detail.  were phrased  a knowledgeable  questionnaire  assessment of  appropriate  that  6 c h i l d r e n answered  eyewitnessing  on  implying  the  notice and  their  witnesses'" tail  interview questions  respondent could  about n o t i c i n g t h i s  to  the  interview style  expected.  that  of  Most of  (e.g.,  results  perception  100  of  their  eyewitness  objective  assessment of  reinforces sensibly  the  and  their  misled.  The  For  event.  the  school  live  to  less  likely  nize  an  was  deficits  than  highschool  evaluate  seen  i n eyewitness an  the  event  as  or  should  incorrect  hearing 4,  and  be  three  inference  age.  the  responses (Some  oldest high-  misleading  6 children  were  to correctly  slide  event.  the  proposal  Young c h i l d r e n  a consequence are  inaccuracy of  also  were asked  even w i t h  demand  questioning  gave more s u g g e s t i v e  consistent with  and  accuracy  an  aged w i t n e s s e s  memory.  implicit  suggestive  frame from the  f i n d i n g s are  memories of  further  replying  decreasing with  After 1,  to the  witnesses  evident  i n f o r m a t i o n , Grade  originally  These  of  that they  suggesting  s t u d e n t s , however.)  event  event,  suggestion  suggestibility  post  suggests  Younger c h i l d r e n  susceptibility  degree of  capable  This  interrogation.  results with  m i s l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s , each  with  are  potential.  of youngrchildren  of questions  this.  about the  eyewitness  with  i n Young C h i l d r e n  characteristics  confirm,  not w i d e l y mismatched  to eyewitness  susceptibility  more e a s i l y  are  claim that children  seriously  Suggestibility The  abilities  of  also recog-  encoding  have s k e t c h i e r less  statements  able about  to the  event. The  general  susceptibility accurate One  of  to  impact  suggestion  responding  the  confederate  o f memory i n d e t e r m i n i n g  found  suggestibility  i s i m p l i c a t e d by  f o r the items  a c t o r wore a watch  live  was and  event  concerned a second  the  witnesses' variation  in  manipulations. w i t h whether item dealt with  the a  101  manipulation suggestive variation  performed by the confederate.  responses were noted w i t h  Higher  t h e watch  i n t h e degree o f s u g g e s t i b i l i t y  levels of  item.  appeared  This  t o depend  upon t h e s a l i e n c e o r memorableness o f t h e m a t e r i a l w i t h the  question  dealt.  absence o f a watch  Only one w i t n e s s  specifically  on t h e c o n f e d e r a t e .  noted the  I n c o n t r a s t , many m o r e  witnesses  contradicted the interviewer's suggestions  the  l e a f was removed b y h a n d .  plant  salience to  of counter-suggestive  the greater  item  across  children not.  a l l four  encode  This  age groups.  fewer d e t a i l s  likely  accounts  This  variation  information  degree o f suggestive  likely  o f an e v e n t ,  by  i nt h e  t h e 'watch'  results  whether  increased  stating  contributed  responses with  The p r e s e n t  f o rtheir  which  indicate  salient or  vulnerability to  suggestion. Although the  central role  findings, have  quality  i n determining  the pragmatics  leading recall  by t h e f i n d i n g  information protocols  contradicted findings  they  to notice.  had noted  The r e s u l t s  eyewitness  found  This  suggest  pragmatic  interrogation.  will  from t h e i r  proposal  that  that  the child  accept  mis-  spontaneous  information  context  appear t o  set of influences i s  o f an event  that  played  suggestibility  i n the questions.  (19 8 0 )  about aspects  enced by t h e p a r t i c u l a r during  evidence  the suggestion  be m i s l e d  of  t h a t younger witnesses  contradict Yuille's  only  the pattern  as w e l l .  despite  that  o f c h i l d r e n ' s memory  of the interview situation  influenced the results  implicated  will  the poorer  they  directly These  adult  witnesses  have  failed  i s being  influ-  s/he i s p l a c e d i n  The age o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r  102  may  have c o n s i d e r a b l e impact  a  s i x year  is  likely  upon t h e  o l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , an viewed  as  a  figure,of  child's  a d u l t such  responses.  as  From  the i n t e r v i e w e r  considerable authority  and  re-  l i a b i l i t y , he'nce h i s / h e y i n c r e a s e d a g r e e m e n t w i t h a n i n t e r v i e w e r ' s suggestion.  A  sixteen year  a more q u a l i f i e d omniscient impact  old, i n contrast, i s likely  perspective, according far less  qualities  of pragmatic  t o a d u l t s , on constraints  the b a s i s of  documented w i t h a d u l t w i t n e s s e s , however. (1980)  found  information lawyer.  a d u l t s were attributed  disagreement  and  the  had  the witness  lack  Although the  ing  able  trends  and  the  the  fails  detail.  however, younger witnesses  No  children  t o agree  t o any  aspect than  matter  have  accept  misleading  to  pattern of  a  defence  account  et a l . study,  the  event the  the previous an  event  a witness  who  than  suggestion delivered  which  together.  pragmatics follow-'  discussion.  A  i s more v u l n e r clearly  what the q u a l i t y  a r e more l i k e l y  for  suggestibility  q u i t e complex, the  of  been  Bradshaw  b e t w e e n memory a n d  by  The  Dodd and  i n the Marin  justified  to misleading questions  a particular  present  is likely  t o n o t i c e an  nature  than  i n t e r v i e w e r observe  interview context  who  to  and  alone.  i n t e r v i e w c o n t e x t may  found  interplay  c o n c l u s i o n s appear  child  the  between the  o f age  likely  to a n e u t r a l source  Something about  the  of  far less  have  "status"  age  of a d i f f e r e n t  to  of  remembers  their  memory,  highschool-aged from  an  adult.  The n o t i o n t h a t t e s t i m o n y c a n be a f f e c t e d by v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e age r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a w i t n e s s and i n t e r r o g a t o r i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n l i g h t of proposals which advocate the admissa b i l i t y o f m e d i a t e d t e s t i m o n y d e l i v e r e d by c h i l d w i t n e s s e s t o y o u t h i n t e r r o g a t o r s ( C o h e n , 19 7 5 ) . A proposal which would avoid the trauma of a c o u r t appearance f o r c h i l d r e n t e s t i f y i n g about e x p e r i e n c e s such as s e x u a l m o l e s t a t i o n .  103  It  s h o u l d be n o t e d  questions without this  study.  likely  contexts which statements. the  live  event  of suggestibility  as e x t r a o r d i n a r y e f f o r t s  were designed  of the live  i n suggestibility  event  of a specific  inferring  prose  recall.  likely world with  the literature  t o draw i n f e r e n c e s .  etc.  likely,  I t was t h o u g h t  effects  individuals  t o more r e a d i l y  about  a witnessed  event.  i n eyewitness  process i n a r e more  event  s t u d y may h a v e b e e n l e s s  changes  i n memory a n d of the specifi  Although  sion  t h a t t h e confederate consulted a watch before a r e more l i k e l y  likely  t o agree  lead  d i d not support  i n this  they  proces  to incorrect inferences  the influence  script.  input  outcomes,  and would  olds  the time,  from  developmental  as noted  Instead, developmental  of the live  individuals  enriching  testimony  agree  The r e s u l t s  appear t o have obscured  manipulations  suggest  i s different  older children  that this  older  pragmatics  to  fea-  watch.  but unstated causes,  a l s o be r e f l e c t e d  prediction.  Certain  Their greater experience with the  might  this  from  the role of  scripted  them t o "read between t h e l i n e s " ,  i n f e r e n c e s about  intentions,  into  on i n f e r e n t i a l  When r e a d i n g p r o s e ,  enables  manipulations  t i m e was i n t e n d e d t o m i s l e a d  t h e c o n f e d e r a t e wore a  from  incorrect  F o r example, t h e confederate  pattern of suggestibility  expected  t o make  effects.  were s p e c i f i c a l l y  mention  that  w e r e made t o c r e a t e  to gain insight  conclusions to witnesses.  The  t h a t were found a r e  would p r e c o n d i t i o n i n d i v i d u a l s  processes  to leading  m a n i p u l a t i o n s were n o t examined i n  certain  into  responses  F o r example, t h e s u g g e s t i b i l i t y  inferential tures  antecedent  The l e v e l s  inflated  that children's  the s i x year  t o draw t h e c o n c l u mentioning  t o the suggestion  that  104  confederate children  wore  could  acquiescence The to  they mony. whose  and a u t o m a t i c i t y  testimony  going  memorial and  beliefs  tion, impact  this  experience children  considerably of  the world.  in  coherent  reconstructions  more  they  have  than  o f t h e event  likely  Adults  have  present  knowledge  events.  Young  of the world  i ti s possible  are likely  o f events.  Long-term  enhanced  And while their  result  by  the perspective  i n t e r s e c t with  layer  lies i n  account.  describing  and unconsciously  part  may  the facts the witnesses  inevitably  be  additions  greatly From  may  that  c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s  eyewitness  listener.  and  a wealth of  may b e u s e f u l  of his/her  represents  positive  inferences  base  with-  by o u r knowledge  a dyad,  knowledge  within  i s one  the potential f o r distor-  Inferential  and cohesive  testi-  o f an event,  Our p e r c e p t u a l  In short,  memory.  suggest  eyewitness  a considerably  filter  limited  embellishment  communication ing  Despite  unconscious  This  influenced  likely  testi-  of eyewitness  a good  ideal.  performance.  which  The  given".  superiority of older  rather  individual's  may  disadvantaged.  inference  1  and  eyewitness  to the facts  are intimately  their  the recall  a more  strictly  constructivism  with  Grade  comments)  constructions  seem t h a t  and unattainable  through  i n their  and d i s t o r t i o n  i twould  eyewitness  (fewer  i n d i v i d u a l s a r e more  nonetheless.  the "information  about  upon  older  inferences  i n bias  processes  verbal  of inferential  adheres  beyond  unrealistic  that  t o be t r u e ,  Intuitively,  memory  interviewer.  include  result;  o f poor  the confederate's  premise  appear  would  because  t o an a d u l t  spontaneously  nature  an  recall  original  mony d o e s  out  a watch  adults  of  i n ensurthe may  r e c o l l e c t i o n s o f events  105  with  inferences  t h e y may  s t i l l  drawn from t h e i r be a b l e  their  given  which  are closely tied  raises  testimony which  Difficulties  Parallel tion  to clearly  t o perceptual  hypothesis,  study  availability  t o determine  the recall with  differences  A manipulation i fr e c a l l  could  care  implements.  i n the effectiveness  the task  not r e c a l l  deficit  was i n c l u d e d  i n their  retrieval  It  i s p o s s i b l e however t h a t  interview  o f t h e cues would however.  event  recall  be  Individuals care  that  tools who  t h e eye-  s t u d y was n o t h a m p e r e d  was a t optimum  the objects  levels.  were n o t e f f e c t i v e took place  and numerous o t h e r  f o r a l l witnesses,  b e n e f i t was d e r i v a b l e  that  absence.  F o r one, the i n t e r v i e w  room a s t h e o r i g i n a l  1 and i nthe  more d e t a i l s t h a n w i t n e s s e s  problems and t h a t  memory p r o m p t s .  i nthe  I t was p r e d i c t e d  performance o f c h i l d r e n i n t h i s  by  diffi-  be improved by t h e  i n the presence of the plant  significantly  the task  have e x i s t e d  analysis.  and t h e r e c o g n i -  T h e s e r e s u l t s may b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s e v i d e n c e witness  point  A group o f Grade  The cues d i d n o t i m p r o v e r e c a l l ,  performed  latter  the encoding  responded t o the eyewitness  of the plant  who p e r f o r m e d did  This  and those  Recall  o f c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l cues.  6 witnesses  evident.  by conjecture  but the additional contribution of retrieval  present  age  both  i s consistent  i s not eliminated.  presence  those aspects of  givens.  i n Eyewitness  culties  Grade  of the world,  f o r future meta-eyewitness  performance with  memory m e a s u r e s  separate  are enriched  an i n t e r e s t i n g i s s u e  Retrieval  understanding  i n t h e same  p o t e n t i a l cues  o v e r r i d i n g whatever p o t e n t i a l  from t h e plant care objects  themselves.  may  106  Moreover, care  This  Support  the  may h a v e l e s s e n e d  for this  free recall event.  suggestion  of the plant  care  Theoretical  Implications of  has been proposed  ments i n e y e w i t n e s s  processes review  age.  lying  behind  note three  possible  encoding:  1) m a t u r a t i o n a l  cessing,  sources  information  processing  i n the present  literature,  change.  Kail  f o r age-related  of these  m e n t we b e c o m e m o r e e f f i c i e n t  In their  and S i e g a l changes  (1977)  i n mnemonic  i n t h e speed o r r a t e o f i n a t t e n t i o n and semantic  proposed  perspective  study i s  however, about t h e  developmental  changes  improve-  m a t e r i a l becomes p r o g r e s s i v e l y  3) t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c h i l d ' s A l l three  n o t have  o f t h e age r e l a t e d  evident  2) i n c r e a s i n g s e l e c t i v i t y  knowledge.  may  during  significantly.  has been s a i d ,  of the developmental  o f no age d i f f e r e n c e s  objects, then,  t h a t much  this  cues.  Findings  performance  Little  from  impact as p h y s i c a l  efforts  because the encoding of witnessed richer with  easily  implements manipulated  The p r e s e n c e o f t h e s e individuals'recall  It  their  very  i s the finding  advantaged  and  t o t h e theme o f p l a n t  a n d h e n c e may h a v e b e e n r e c o n s t r u c t e d  memory.  in  a l l the implements p e r t a i n e d  and  perception conceptual  factors arise  and imply  at processing  pro-  from  an  that with  develop-  information  i n our  environment.^  C a r e y (1981) h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t f a c e e n c o d i n g s k i l l s a r e perhaps best e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f n e u r o l o g i c a l l y based maturat i o n a l f a c t o r s , ( e . g . development o f a neural s u b s t r a t e o f the r i g h t hemisphere.)  107  From t h e v i e w p o i n t  of Piagetian  f a c t o r w o u l d be o f any e x p l a n a t o r y changes  i n the child's cognitive  figurative bedded  processes  Children's tion  memory p r o c e s s e s  reconstruct  Piaget's influential  theory  fail lack  of child  c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s  been based related In  contrast,  a n d m e m o r y a r e em-  level  of the child.  the cognitive maturity  development has been  i n legal writings  seriato  Most o f P i a g e t i a n  or events  eyewitness  recall  that  work  observations  of individuals, their  W h i l e memory  f o rcertain material  mental  level  o f one's c o g n i t i v e  Piaget  i s correct  observations  incomparable  (e.g.,  i n memory, h o w e v e r , h a s  of logically  demonstrate  testimony  extremely  t o support the  the eyewitness  are unavoidably  upon c h i l d r e n ' s  arrays  For Piaget, the  the event.  and i s c i t e d  Shoeman, 1 9 8 3 ) .  i.e., qualitative  imagery, stage  the latter  ( a s i n t h e now f a m o u s  statement or the i m p l i c a t i o n that of  only  structures.  the operative  example) because they  correctly  value,  of perception,  i n and r e f l e c t  theory,  or complexly  some p h y s i c a l  process.  i s typically  concerned  with  appearances  and t h e i r  actions.  may d e p e n d u p o n t h e d e v e l o p -  structures,  i n assuming t h a t  i ti s not c l e a r  a l l memory i s s u b j e c t  that  to the  same c o n s t r a i n t s . Mandler children's  (1981) h a s a r g u e d  performance  dren are asked  to deal  interpretations. development, to  adulthood.  processing  across with  There  she argues,  that  qualitative differences i n  ages a r e o n l y  material  that  are significant that  events and s t o r i e s .  when  chil-  i s open t o m u l t i p l e  aspects  do n o t v a r y  As examples, she c i t e s  evident  o f knowledge  greatly  from  infancy  t h e s c h e m a t a we u s e f o r  Without  this  commonality, she  108  argues,  we  would  be  unable  to  communicate  and  to  understand  children. The  findings  Mandler's children  world.  not  reveal the  the  present  statements  and  do  and  the  of  of  adults  children  in their  the  completeness  was  being  The  finding  suggests the is  in  children.  the  Much  of  the  from  significant tiveness rallel  was  i n the  sequencing  f o r the  study  that  do  t o more  of  In the  than  and of  design  age  on  of  the  eyewitness  intriguing  relationships  between  both  the  obvious  abilities  and  significant  a t one from  reasons  short, i t appro-  testimony  children of  and  kind.  correlations however.  Grade the  a  grade  level  inconsistent  The  reflec-  not  Pa-  found  significant  l e v e l h o w e v e r ,  other  for this  When  of  performance. were  is  instances of  measures  eyewitness  study  testimony.  some  results  between  most  present  provide  found  of  recall  exists  between  o f degree  what  amount  eyewitness  exist  in  but  of  adults.  do  verbal  aspects  development.  i n the  perspective i s not  g r a d e . l e v e l s examined  relation  no  effect  study  patterns of  two  found  and  the  with  did  Differences  rationale  the  different  differences  and  of  descriptions  did exist  drastically  children  appear  Individual  upon  recall  temporal  differences  of  with  of  context  Issue  event  that  construers  considerable continuity  Piagetian  realm  assumption  different  the  with  Age-related differences  age  the  that  abilities  The  in this  results  are  significant  i n f o r m a t i o n nor  that  vary  consistent  the  focusing  testimony.  d i d not  theoretical  concerned  the  no  adults  of  extensiveness of  furthermore  argued  adults The  of  eyewitness  priate  or  recalled  analysis  and  are  support  qualitatively  Qualitative  event  incorrect  are  not  study  i t was  cor-  not  examined.  pattern of  for  There  results.  109 Further  pursuit  of  the  witness  p e r f o r m a n c e may  issue not  of be  individual differences an  optimal  in  t a c t , however,  eyefor  two  reasons. First,  past  demonstrate ences  and  (1980) did  eyewitness  h a v e any  that  the  variation  and  clear  the  how  the  eyewitness  focus  impact of  the  tions  testimony,  perceptual  analysis with  little  and  adults  etc.)  children.  be  adult witnesses.  the  only  to  to  an  age  pursue  and  of  who  condiviews  Examination in  f o r making  to  con-  weaknesses of -children  i f i t were p o s s i b l e  i t is difficult  of  children  to  demonstrate  d i d e x i s t b e t w e e n some i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  performance,  had  implausible  adult  conditions to  may  factor that  conditions.  issue  how  the  quality  I t i s not  relative  potential strengths Even  attended  of  testimony  (e.g.,  event under optimal  unoptimal  a more u s e f u l  se,  Although  a l s o been the  variations i n witnessing  about the  eyewitness  in  situa-  eyewitness  f a c t o r s , per  determinant  recall  e f f e c t of  and  s e r i o u s l y one  o b s e r v e s an  the  relationship  how  at with  show s u p e r i o r  may  differences  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  e v e n t was,  same e v e n t u n d e r q u i t e  and  testi-  situational  the  clusions  i n eyewitness  upon the  i t has  s i x y e a r o l d who may  pos-  required  individuals despite  most s i g n i f i c a n t  been s e r i o u s l y looked a  of  It is  IQ  skills.  stressful  represent  that  level  one's vantage p o i n t ,  event,  to  Goetze  variation in  testimony.  invariant personality variables  overlooks  difficult  adults.  even considerable  information  within  Second : , the tionally  of  i n c h i l d r e n or  upon e y e w i t n e s s  a basic  evident  personality  performance  impact  i t i s notoriously  r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r -  found that  type  mony r e p r e s e n t s  suggests  impressive  f o r example,  not  sible  any  research  i m a g i n e how  this  and  a  110  could  be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o  various impact be  ethical  the legal  and.psychometric  of objective  differences  The results those  gathered  two  from  live  o f e v e n t was events  ences  appears  events  Although  likely  The l i v e  the live  and  event  eyewitness  gross  superior  may  different  f o r the slide  and s l i d e  to intentionally distinction,  provide a better  between t h e  cued  1)  differ-  by t h e  participants  s o t h a t memory  as c l o t h i n g ,  this  and  body b u i l d ,  difference sequence  e t c . were  especially  f o r the older  about  situations  test  witnesses  and more  attend to the slide  event.  t h e memory  of the slide  findings  of  of eyewitness  to  less  f o r the event  measure o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l  levels  which  between t h e two  Perhaps  but they  typical  upon  was u n e x p e c t e d  competence o f c h i l d r e n , their  depending  i n  events were equated i n  attended.  event,  with  performance  i n t h e t a s k demands g e n e r a t e d  i n contrast,  memory  f e a t u r e s such  familiar  comparable  of eyewitness  of the details  w h o may b e m o r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e likely  eyewitness  In the present case, the  presentation likely  t o be i n t e n t i o n a l l y  affected  that  are not f u l l y  events.  clarity  many a s p e c t s , a s l i d e attend.  events  suggest  Much o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e  a n d 2) d i f f e r e n c e s  events.  however.  t o be i n f l u e n c e d by two f a c t o r s :  i n the visual  could  of Findings  be q u i t e  focal.  I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e  practictioners,  regarding the quality  t o age would  of witnesses f o r  in-witnessing conditions  of the present study  obtained with slide  relation type  Implications  findings  conclusions  a  reasons.  of considerable value to legal  Methodological  treatment  To  and  do n o t p r o v i d e a v a l i d performance.  borrow event  memorial picture  A live  event  Ill  is  more l i k e l y The  to  pattern  do of  that. p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t s seem t o  contradict  the  quite  f o r a l l grade  poor  In  contrast,  of  the  live  above a s s e r t i o n s i n c e  there  of  accounts  f o r the  the  two  ability  of  age-related  and  media to  recognition function  aspects  of  our  viewed  confederate.  contrast,  of  In  dimensions, the  thief's  differences  ance i s found lished  data  recognition both video cated had  be  cited  of  slide  adults  input  the  appear t o  lack.  the video  enlive  range with was  seen a  that  study  perform(unpub-  the  facial  presentation  for  results  indi-  models  More p e r t i n e n t  finding that  in close-up  compared The  the  media  Jaashela  recognizing  to benefit  recognition  to  the  without  was  the  a specialized  identification  at  segment.  that  For  suggestion  this  the  likely  ability  close  fashion,  were b e t t e r  i n a video  in facial  from the  adults  in  performance.  represent  representations.  a d u l t s were able  life-like  difference  event t h i e f  In  recognition  information  Diamond and  1981).  in  (Yin,1978).  for the  d i s c u s s i o n , h o w e v e r , was  the  apart  c h i l d r e n and  photographic  been presented  short,  may  was  character.  conjecture  interacted at  Carey.;.;  m a r k e d l y more a d v a n t a g e d by In  faces  i n examining  i n Carey,  ability  c h i l d r e n and  present  of  Support  i n work by  and  facial  a r e s u l t of  the  crucial  event  in identification  quite  and  slide  dramatic  in a non-interactive face.  may  convey  recognition  improvement  environment  event, witnesses  two  The  i s r a i s e d as  w h i c h may  code other  an  differences  possibility  encoding  l e v e l s f o r the  event confederate.  capacity  This  was  correct  directly  to  adults than  that  the were  children.  from a r i c h e r more  tasks,  an  ability  children  112  More t h a n any attributes preferred eters  of  consideration,  real-life  methodology  interactions that  for providing  influencing eyewitness  particularly recall  of  pated.  appropriate  for  are  They are  also  important  especially interview  information  spontaneous, for  on  situation greatly  events  that  influences  the  events  about  the  are  children's unantici-  real-life  This  is  pragmatics  children's  the  param-  u n a n n o u n c e d and  increasing  i t appears  simulate  the  Live  interrogative procedures.  s i g n i f i c a n t as  to  make l i v e  answering questions  that  of  ability  identification.  events  representativeness  i t i s the  of  the  responses  to  questioning.  Photo-identification The merit  facial  recognition  to  infer  identification  the  example,  are  and  Marin  a l . (19 79)  ences  et  a  to. t h a t female  procedure,  inconsistent  group of  reported  who  the  of  found with  f o r Grade  1 children  6 children.  were a l s o  found  i n unpublished  assessed Grades  2,  the  an  witnesses  4 and  found  7 following  a  trends results, (1980) differpattern  in pilot  identical  live  work  event  correctly identifying and  75%  for a  research  simulated  by of  bicycle  the  combined  S i m i l a r patterns of  p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n performance  5 and  Goetze  i t is  s i g n i f i c a n t age  s t u d y was  Grade  of  The  Interestingly, a  Following  percentage of  study.  findings no  First,  developmental  in this  performance. in this  reasons.  the  reported  confederate.  woman w e r e 1 2 . 5 %  tion  typicality  in identification  similar  photo-identification results  for several  performance  for  with  or  additional discussion  difficult in  Performance  identifica-  Yuille  which  witnesses theft.  had  from  113  Also of  the  i n terms  live  cation  event  of  point  performance  conditions  a Any  could  resulted  rates  varying  the  witnesses  and  whether  are  important  cation  and  witness  from  final  aspect  the  issue  of  and  non-significant their  data.  And  levelling  recognition. declines pattern found levels  with of  a hat.  or  the  Marin  The  results  et  from  the  f o r the to  compared  20%  upon  the of  of  amount verbal  present  from  results,  reviews  then,  eyebe  1974). findings  in  to  thesis.  noted  time  identifiof  trends the  of  exchange,  eyewitness  relates  recognition  unusual,  documented  present live  study  event. noted  by  s l i d e event  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n were to  adult i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  Both albeit  the  investigations  those the  procedure  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n performance  a l . (1981)  similar  event  facial  of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .  Buchout,  a l . (1979) of  The  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n can  1983,  i n laboratory  data  left  introduction  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of correct  range  developmental  et  live  photo-identification  patterns  dips  the  1.  in a l l likelihood  amount  The  eyewitness  i n the  Carey  the  findings  photo-identifi-  Grade  rates  report  of  the  f o r encoding  i n the  depending  (Bessner,  i n performance of  children  that  age  situation  impression  atypical  raised  viewed  target,  wore  of  was  (1980) 74%  a  the  than  different  in highlighting  inaccurate  (1980)  to  target  A  Goetze  of  33%  older  variations  Rumpel  performance  performance  optimal  of  perceived  the  impressive level  target  i n quite  balance;  deplorably  to  number  W e l l s • and  r  an  the  relatively  features. have  to  identification rates,  for witnesses  under which  represented  Lindsay  overall  levels with  found  in  existence  of  facial  showed  no  dips  Interestingly, Marin  et  target, f o r the  the; h i g h s c h o o l  a l .  or a  was  i . e . , 33% Grade  6  sample.  114  Note, Marin  et  a l . reported  8 witnesses  and  results  relative  reflect  small  interpretation; . attention  to  the  to  a u n i v e r s i t y sample.  changes  The  data  of  7  Grade  The  i n p e r f o r m a n c e and  are  existence  photo-identification  superior performance w i t h  present  deserve  cautious  noted, however, t o emphasize unusual developmental  performance  is s t i l l  warranted  trends in  that in  future  investigations.  Legal  Implications of The  ings  most important  i s that  empirically children.  the  system.  As  year  noted  as  No  fourteen  capably  are  as  amount o f  was  no  greater  that  have more p r o b l e m s w i t h i s that the  child  via free recall.  obtained, clearly or  c h i l d r e n can  by  year year  are  olds  in this  s e n s i b l y and  in their  found  recall  in their  for adults.  structured recall. report Although  of  an  this  trusted to  confabulated  details.  highly trustworthy.  Six  and  confusion  witnessed  of  the  event  and  physical descriptions Younger c h i l d r e n A  clear  recommenda-  obtained  limit  restrict  the  from  to  D e s c r i p t i o n s of  a  information  themselves  unlikely  Errors are  legal  study  without  e v e n t be will  in  children  Canadian  i n t e r r o g a t i o n about a  be  competency  old witnesses.  remembered d e t a i l s . C h i l d r e n are  to provide  itself  eyewitness  find-  an  the  found  primary  represent  suspect  twelve  found  study's  c a p a c i t i e s of  eighteen  inaccuracies than  the  witnessing  held  extensive  e r r o r s were  does not  demarcation of  o l d c h i l d r e n responded  the  tion  i m p l i c a t i o n of  above, the  fourteen  d e t a i l e d and  event.  of  In most i n s t a n c e s ,  functioned  to  age  legal  justifiable  younger than  nine  Findings  to  fantasize the  more l i k e l y  to  event occur  115 in  physical descriptions.  are  likely  questions  to provide  the  t h e .more t h e y  child's  initial  children w i l l  give  however, by f i r s t year  required, depart  information.  avoiding  estimations.  duced by phrasing  from t h e information  responses.  This  may  child  that  and indeed  This  questioning.  t o give  rather  study,  age  c a n be r e -  findings of the present  use  p h o t o - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n procedures with  be  metic-  particularly  the temptation^  testimony.  the  Concluding  should  y o u n g c h i l d r e n who,  abbreviated  with  Six  communicate t o t h e  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n may b e  dealing with  minimized,  p r e f e r r e d t o answer,  t o adhere t o i n p r a c t i s e since  is".: s t r o n g when tend  explicitly  that  be  responses  T h i r d l y , leading questions  avoided.  difficult  erroneous  that  i t i s appropriate  d o n ' t know".  ulously  Secondly,  be  found i n  the likelihood  age-inappropriate  questions  I f specific  interviewers should  report, the greater inaccurate  f o r example,  o l d s , f o r example, have tremendous d i f f i c u l t y  height  "I  incorrect colour  are subsequently  aware t h a t  Witnesses o f a l l ages,  as  Finally,  i twould  to lead  suggested, based  on  seem i n a d v i s a b l e t o  s i x and nine  year  olds.  Remark  Goetze information  (19 80)  has w r i t t e n t h a t  may b e l o s t  to the legal  recognize  children's capacity  developed  strategies of questioning  retrieval  of this  firms  this  child  witnesses  appears  of  valuable  community by i t s f a i l u r e t o and f o r n o t  having  which would maximize the  (p. 97 )  The c h a l l e n g e t o be  deal  f o r observation  information."  statement.  "a good  The p r e s e n t  i n future  two-fold:  study  con-  investigations of  116 1)  An  increased understanding  children  have w i t h eyewitness  particular children legally and  relevance f o r those  process  the world  r e l e v a n t procedures  completeness  of  of  the b a s i s f o r the  reporting  (-  interested  a question  children's  2)  the  w i l l maximize the  eyewitness  of  i n understanding  a r o u n d them) and which  difficulties  accounts.  how  creation accuracy  of  117 REFERENCES B e r n s t e i n , B.E., Claman, L. , H a r r i s , J.C., & Samson, J . (1982). The c h i l d w i t n e s s : A model f o r e v a l u a t i o n and t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n . ChildJWeljiare, L X I ( 2 ) , 95-104. Bessner, R. (1983). Eyewitness i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n Canada. C r i m i n a l Law Q u a r t e r l y , 25 (3) , 313-347. . Bigelow, S. (1967). Witnesses of tender y e a r s Q u a r t e r l y , 9, 298-306.  Criminal  Law  Blaney, R.L., & Winograd, E. (19 78). Developmental d i f f e r e n c e s • i n c h i l d r e n ' s r e c o g n i t i o n memory f o r f a c e s . Developmenta1 Psychology, 14, 441-442. Brown, A.L. (1975). R e c o g n i t i o n , r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , and r e c a l l of n a r r a t i v e sequences by p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 46, 155-166. Brown, A.L. (19 76). The c o n s t r u c t i o n of temporal s u c c e s s i o n by p r e o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n . In A.D. Pick (Ed.) Minnesota Symposium on C h i l d Psychology, 10, M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota P r e s s . Buchout, R. (19 74). 231(6), 23-31.  Eyewitness testimony. S c i e n t i f i c  American,  B u l l o c k , M. (1982, June). Puppet p l a y : A method o f g a t h e r i n g v e r b a l statements from young c h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . Canada Evidence A c t , R.S.C. (1970). C. E-10,  S.16.  Carey, S. (1981). The development of face r e c o g n i t i o n . In G. Davies, H. E l l i s & J . Shepherd (Eds.) P e r c e i v i n g and remembering f a c e s . London: Academic P r e s s . Carey, S., Diamond, R., & Woods, B. (1980). Development of face r e c o g n i t i o n - a m a t u r a t i o n a l component. Developmental Psychology, 16, 257-269. C l i f f o r d , B.R. (1978). A c r i t i q u e of eyewitness r e s e a r c h . In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. M o r r i s , & R.N. Sykes (Eds.) P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory, London: Academic P r e s s . Cohen, R.L.  (1975). Report to Law  Reform Commission, Ottawa.  Cohen, R.L., & Harnick, M.A. (1980). The s u s c e p t i b i l i t y o f c h i l d witnesses t o s u g g e s t i o n . Law & Human Behavior, £(3_) ' 201-210. C o l l i n s , W.A., Wellman, M., K e n i s t o n , A.H., & Westby, S.D. (1978). A g e - r e l a t e d aspects of comprehension and i n f e r e n c e from a t e l e v i s e d dramatic n a r r a t i v e . C h i l d Development, 49, 389-399. Dale, P.S., L o f t u s , E.F., & Rathbun, L. (19 78). The i n f l u e n c e of the form of the g u e s t i o n on the eyewitness testimony of p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1_, 289-277.  118 Deffenbacher, K.A., Brown, E.L. , & S t u r g i l l , W. (1975). Some p r e d i c t o r s o f eyewitness memory accuracy. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. M o r r i s & R.N. Sykes (eds). P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory, London: Academic P r e s s . Dent, H.R., & Stephenson, G.M. (1979). An experimental study o f the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f d i f f e r e n t techniques o f q u e s t i o n i n g c h i l d witnesses. B r i t i s h Journal of S o c i a l & C l i n i c a l Psychology, 18, 41-51. D i r k s , J . & N e i s s e r , U. (1977). Memory f o r o b j e c t s i n r e a l scenes: the development of r e c o g n i t i o n and r e c a l l . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 23, 315-328. Dodd, D.H., & Bradshaw, J.M. (1980). Leading q u e s t i o n s and memory: Pragmatic c o n s t r a i n t s . J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behavior, 19, 695-704. Egan, D., P i t t n e r , M. , & G o l d s t e i n , A.G. (1977). Eyewitness i d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Photograph v s . l i v e models. Law & Human Behavior, 1, 199-206. F l a v e l l , John H. (1977). C o g n i t i v e Development, New J e r s e y : Prentice-Hall. F l a v e l l , J.H. & Wellman, H.M. (1976). Metamemory. In R.V. K a r l & J.W. Hagen (Eds.) Memory i n cognitive.development, H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Eribaum A s s o c i a t e s . F l i n , R. (1980). Age e f f e c t s i n c h i l d r e n ' s memory f o r u n f a m i l i a r f a c e s . Developmental Psychology, 16, 373-374. Goetze, H.J. (1980). The e f f e c t o f age and method o f i n t e r v i e w on the accuracy and completeness o f eyewitness accounts. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. G o l d s t e i n , A.G. (1977). The f a l l i b i l i t y o f the eyewitness: P s y c h o l o g i c a l e v i d e n t . In B.D. S a l e s (Ed.), Psychology i n the l e g a l p r o c e s s , New York: John Wiley. G o l d s t e i n , I . (1959). C h i l d eyewitnesses. T r i a l Lawyers Guide, 3, 45-51. Goodman, G.S., & M i c h e l l i , J . (1981). E f f e c t s o f c h i l d r e n ' s eyewitness testimony. Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y o f Denver, Denver, Colorado. Greene, E., F l y n n , M.S., & L o f t u s , E. (1982). Inducing r e s i s tance t o m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behavior, 21, 207-219. Hoffman, C D . (1976). A developmental i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f r e c o g n i t i o n memory. C h i l d Development, 47, 794-799. Kagan, J . (1965). Impulsive & r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n : s i g n i f i c a n c e of c o n c e p t u a l tempo. In J . Krumboltz (Ed.), L e a r n i n g and the educational process, Chicago:Chicago Press.  119 Kagan, J . (1966). R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y . The g e n e r a l i t y and dynamics o f c o n c e p t u a l tempo. J o u r n a l Of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-24. ^ K a i l , R.V. J r . , S S i e g e l , A.W. (1977). The development o f mnemonic encoding i n c h i l d r e n . From p e r c e p t i o n t o a b s t r a c t i o n . In R.V. K a i l & J.W. Hagen, (Eds.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on the development of memory and c o g n i t i o n , N.J. Erlbaum. K i r a s i c , K.C. (1980). Developmental changes i n r e c o g n i t i o n i n context memory. C h i l d Development, 51, 302-305. Kobasigawa, A. (1974). U t i l i z a t i o n o f r e t r i e v a l cues by c h i l d r e n i n r e c a l l . C h i l d Development, 45, 127-134. Konecni, U., & Ebbersen, E.B. (1979). E x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y o f r e s e a r c h i n l e g a l psychology. In Law & Human Behavior, 3, 39-69. K r e u t z e r , M.A. , Leanard, S.C., & F l a v e l l ' , J.H. (1975). An i n t e r view study o f c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about memory. Monographs of t h e S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development, 40_(1, S e r i a l No. 159). L i c h t e n s t e i n , E.H., & Brewer, W.F. (1980). Memory f o r g o a l d i r e c t e d events. C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 12, 412-445. L i n d , E.A., & Walker, L. (1979). Theory t e s t i n g , theory development, and l a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h on l e g a l i s s u e s . Law & Human Behavior, 3_/ 5-20. L i n d s a y , R.C.L. , W e l l s , G.L.& Rumpel, C U . (1980). Can people d e t e c t e y e w i t n e s s - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n accuracy w i t h i n a c r o s s s i t u a t i o n s ? J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology. L o f t u s , E.F. (1974). R e c o n s t r u c t i n g memory: The i n c r e d i b l e w i t n e s s . Psychology Today, 8_, 116-119. L o f t u s , E.F. (1975). Leading q u e s t i o n s and the eyewitness C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1_, 560-572.  eyereport.  L o f t u s , E.F. (1976). Unconscious t r a n s f e r e n c e i n eyewitness i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Law and Psychology Review, 2_, 93-98. L o f t u s , E.F. (1977). S h i f t i n g human c o l o u r memory. Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 5_, 696-699. L o f t u s , E.F. (1978). R e c o n s t r u c t i v e memory processes i n eyewitness testimony. In B.D. S a l e s (Ed.). P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Law and Psychology, N.Y.: Plenum. L o f t u s , E.F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. P r e s s .  120 L o f t u s , E.F. (1981). R e c o n s t r u c t i v e memory p r o c e s s e s . In B.D. Sales (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s i n law and psychology: The t r i a l p r o c e s s . N.Y.: Plenum. 1  L o f t u s , E.F., M i l l e r , D.G., & Burns, . (1978). Semantic i n t e g r a t i o n o f v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o a v i s u a l memory. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 4_, 19-31. L o f t u s , E.F., & Palmer, J.C. ( 1 9 7 4 ) R e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f automobile d i s t r u c t i o n : An example o f the i n t e r a c t i o n between language and memory. J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behavior, 13, 585-589. L o f t u s , E.F., & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The i n f l u e n c e o f the wording o f a q u e s t i o n . B u l l e t i n o f the Psychonomic S o c i e t y , 5_, 86-88. Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P. (1980). Realism and eyewitness i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Law and Human Behavior, 4_, 347-358. Mandler, J.H. (1981). S t r u c t u r a l i n v a r i a n t s i n development. In L.S. L i b e n (Ed.), P i a g e t and the Foundations o f Knowledge, H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marin, B.V., Holmes, D.L., Guth, M., & Kovac, P. (1979). The p o t e n t i a l o f c h i l d r e n as eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior. 4, 295-306. Melton, G., Bulkey, J . , Wilkan, D. (1982). Competency o f c h i l dren as w i t n e s s e s . In J . Bulkey (Ed.) C h i l d Sexual Abuse and the Law, Report o f the American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n N a t i o n a l L e g a l Resource Center f o r C h i l d Advocacy and P r o t e c t i o n . Monahan, J . , & L o f t u s , E. (1982). The psychology o f law. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441Nelson, K., & Gruendel, J . (1981). G e n e r a l i z e d event r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s : B a s i c b u i l d i n g b l o c k s o f c o g n i t i v e development. In A. Brown, & M. Lamb (Eds.), Advances i n Developmental Psychology, 1, 131-158, H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Newcombe, N. , Rogoff, B., & Kagan, ZT. (1977). Developmental changes i n r e c o g n i t i o n memory f o r p i c t u r e s of o b j e c t s and scenes. Developmental Psychology, 13, 337-341. P a r i s , S.G. (1978a). The development o f i n f e r e n c e and t r a n s formation as memory o p e r a t i o n s . In P.A. O r n s t e i n (Ed.), Memory development i n c h i l d r e n , New J e r s e y : Erlbaum. P a r i s , S.G. (1978b). C o o r d i n a t i o n o f means and g o a l s i n the development o f mnemonic s k i l l s . In P.A. O r n s t e i n (Ed.), Memory development i n c h i l d r e n , New J e r s e y : Erlbaum. P a r i s , S.G., & Lindauer, B.K. (1977), C o n s t r u c t i v e aspects of c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension and memory. In R.V. K a i l and J.W. Hagen. P e r s p e c t i v e s on the development of memory and c o g n i t i o n , 35-60. New J e r s e y : Erlbaum.  121 P i a g e t , J . (1969). The c h i l d ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f time, London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l . ' P i a g e t , J . (1973). Memory and I n t e l l i g e n c e . New York: B a s i c Books. Schoeman, F. (1983). Childhood competence and autonomy. J o u r n a l of L e g a l S t u d i e s , 12(2) , 267-288. Shepherd, J . , Davies, G., & E l l i e s , M. (1981). S t u d i e s o f cue s a l i e n c y i n G. Davies, M. E l l i s , & J . Shepherd (Eds.). P e r c e i v i n g and remembering f a c e s , New York, N.Y.: Academic Press. S i e g e l , A.W., Babich, J.M., & K i r a s i c , K.C. (1974). V i s u a l r e c o g n i t i o n memory i n r e f l e c t i v e and i m p u l s i v e c h i l d r e n . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 2_, 379-384. S i e g e l , S. (1956). Non-parametric s t a t i s t i c s f o r the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s , New York: McGraw-Hill. Sophian, C , & S t i g l e r , J.W. (1981). Does r e c o g n i t i o n memory improve with age? J o u r n a l o f Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 32., 343-353. S t a f f o r d , C. (1962). C h i l d as a w i t n e s s . Washington Law Review, 27, 303-313. T i c h n e r , A., & P o u l t o n , E. (1975). Watching a c t i o n s . Ergonomics 18, 35-51.  f o r people and  ;  Tversky, B., & T e i f f e r , E. (1976). Development o f s t r a t e g i e s f o r r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n . Developmental Psychology, 12, 406-410. Wilson, J . (1978). C h i l d r e n and the law. Toronto: Butterworths. W o h l w i l l , J . (1973). The study o f b e h a v i o r a l development, Academic P r e s s .  N.Y.:  Yarmey, A.D. (1979). The psychology o f eyewitness testimony, New York: Free P r e s s . Yin, R.K. (1978). Face p e r c e p t i o n : A review o f experiments with i n f a n t s , normal a d u l t s and b r a i n - i n j u r e d persons. In Handbook of Sensory P h y s i o l o g y , R. Held, H.W. Lerbowitz & M.L. Tueber (Eds.), V o l . 8 , S p r i n g e r - V e r t a g , B e r l i n . Y u i l l e , J.C. (1980). A c r i t i c a l examination o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f eyewitness r e s e a r c h . Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 335-345.  122  APPENDIX Live  Event Questionnaire  1.  How o l d d o y o u t h i n k  2.  How  3.  H i s h a i r was b l o n d e  4.  What k i n d o r wavy?  5.  How  6.  Did you notice  7.  D i d he wear  8.  D i d he have a b e a r d  9.  What d i d h i s c l o t h e s  tall  long  1 0 . * On w h i c h  ( S u g g e s t i b i l i t y items are s t a r r e d ) . t h e man  do y o u t h i n k  was?  t h e man  coloured,  was? wasn':t i t ?  o f h a i r d i d t h e man h a v e ? Was (Order randomly v a r i e d between was h i s h a i r ?  i ts t r a i g h t , c u r l y , witnesses.)  (Asked t o i n d i c a t e on  the colour  self).  o f h i s eyes?  glasses? o r a moustache? look  like?  (Order randomly  varied).  (Prompt f o r c o l o u r s ) .  arm d i d he wear h i s watch?  11.  D i d t h e man  12.  D i d he c a r r y  1 3 . * He u s e d  A  carry these  anything objects  w h e n h e came i n t o t h e room? i n h i s hands?  s c i s s o r s t o c u t o f f a",leaf, d i d n ' t  14. * What was t h e s i z e o f t h e t h i n g  that  he?  he p u t i n s i d e t h e p a p e r  bag? 15.  D i d t h e man  16.  D i d he mention  Meta-eyewitness  say anything anything  t o you? about t h e time?  questions  1.  Do y o u t h i n k t h e man c o u l d you s e e i n g i t ?  have done s o m e t h i n g  without  2.  Do y o u t h i n k y o u w o u l d h a v e d e f i n i t e l y n o t i c e d been wearing a r i n g ? o r c o u l d you have m i s s e d counter balanced across witnesses).  3.  I f I w e r e t o come b a c k i n a m o n t h d o y o u t h i n k y o u c o u l d s t i l l r e m e m b e r w h a t t h e man l o o k e d l i k e ? Would you r e member a s w e l l a s y o u d o now?  i fhe had it? (Order  123  APPENDIX  Slide  Event  1  Questionnaire  B  (Suggestibility  item  1.  How o l d d o y o u t h i n k t h e man i n t h e s l i d e  2.  How t a l l  .3.  do you^.think  t h e man  H i s h a i r was b r o w n c o l o u r e d ,  i s starred) . show  was?  was? wasn't i t ?  4.  W h a t k i n d o f h a i r d i d t h e man h a v e ? Was i t s t r a i g h t , c u r l y , o r wavy? (Order v a r i e d randomly a c r o s s w i t n e s s e s ) .  5.  How l o n g w a s h i s h a i r ?  6.  D i d he have a beard o r a moustache? varied across witnesses).  7.  D i d he wear  8.  What d i d h i s c l o t h e s  ( I n d i c a t e on  self). (Order  randomly  glasses? look  like?  XPrompt f o r c o l o u r s ) .  9. * T h e woman m e t a f r i e n d w i t h a b o o k a t t h e b e g i n n i n g the s l i d e s . D o e s s h e o n l y m e e t t h i s woman o n c e ? 10.  D i d t h e woman w e a r b o o t s o r s h o e s ?  11.  What was t h e c o l o u r o f t h e w a l l e t terminology f o r stolen object)?  (or witnesses'  of  own  124  APPENDIX  R e c o g n i t i o n Memory  I t e m #1: Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3  C  Items; Descriptions  &  Instructions  Background The o r i g i n a l - s i d e w a l k w i t h f i r e Sidewalk without f i r e hydrant. Sidewalk with stop sign.  hydrant,  Instructions: Here a r e three p i c t u r e s . Can y o u p i c k p i c t u r e w h i c h shows t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e l a d y was when to h e r friend. I t e m #2: P i c t u r e 1: Picture Picture  2: 3:  out the she t a l k e d  Woman w i t h f r i e n d ( S u g g e s t i b i l i t y manipulation). O r i g i n a l - Woman w i t h f r i e n d w h o h a s h e r h a n d i n her j a c k e t pocket. F r i e n d w i t h a book. Friend holding a briefcase.  Instructions: H e r e a r e t h r e e p i c t u r e s o f t h e woman t a l k i n g t o her f r i e n d . C a n y o u p i c k o u t t h e p i c t u r e y o u remember s e e i n g ? I t e m #3: P i c t u r e 1: P i c t u r e 2: Picture  3:  M a n a n d woman. O r i g i n a l - M a n l e a n i n g i n t o woman. Man a l o n g s i d e woman w h o i s l o o k i n g i n o p p o s i t e direction. Man n e x t t o woman w h o a p p e a r s t o b e t r i p p i n g o v e r some b r a n c h e s a t h e r f e e t .  Instructions: Here a r e three p i c t u r e s Can y o u p i c k o u t t h e o n e y o u remember I t e m #4: Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3  o f t h e man a n d woman. seeing.  Man c o n c e a l i n g wallet. O r i g i n a l - Man p l a c i n g w a l l e t i n s i d e j a c k e t , Man p l a c i n g w a l l e t i n b a c k p o c k e t o f j e a n s . Man p l a c i n g w a l l e t u n d e r a r m s .  Instructions: H e r e a r e t h r e e p i c t u r e s o f t h e man w i t h t h e w a l l e t . Can y o u p i c k o u t t h e p i c t u r e t h a t y o u remember s e e i n g ?  125  APPENDIX  Live  Event  Description  1.  Man o p e n e d  2.  E n t e r e d room.  3.  Said,  4.  Witness  5.  Man  says,  6.  Man  carried  7.  P l a c e d b a s k e t on  8.  Removed  9.  Set flower  Coding  D  Scheme  door.  " I s anyone u s i n g  this  room?"  reply.  1  '  I'll  o n l y be a minute,  basket.  flower  table.  p o t from window  p o t on  s i l l .  table.  10.  Removed m i s t e r  from basket.  11.  Sprayed  12.  Removed a l e a f  13.  Disposed of  14.  Removed w a t e r i n g c a n f r o m  15.  Removed s c i s s o r s  16.  P u t hand  17.  Returned objects  plant. from  plant.  leaf. basket.  from basket.  i n and o u t o f paper bag. t o basket,  or 18.  Returned mister  to basket.  19.  Returned watering can t o basket.  20.  Returned  scissors  21.  Returned  flowers  22.  Said,  23.  " I s h o u l d be g o i n g " .  24.  Man  to basket. t o window  " I t ' s (a s p e c i f i c  exited  through  door.  s i l l .  time)".  then".  APPENDIX E  Slide  Event  D e s c r i p t i o n Coding  Scheme  1.  A woman w a l k i n g .  2.  Carrying  3.  Waves  4.  Chats with  5.  They  6.  And  7.  Woman c o n t i n u e s w a l k i n g .  8.  Crosses  9.  Man  approaches.  10.  And  gets  11.  T h e man b u m p s i n t o  12.  The g r o c e r i e s  13.  Man  14.  Woman s e t s  15.  Man h e l p s h e r p i c k  16.  Woman c h e c k s h e r g r o c e r i e s .  17.  Man  18.  Removes  19.  Places  20.  Man  a n d woman w a v e  21.  And  part.  22.  Man  runs  23.  Woman c o n t i n u e s t o s t e p s .  24.  Searches  25.  Notices missing wallet.  26.  Points  groceries.  hello. friend.  wave. depart.  street.  closer. woman.  fall.  a n d woman s t o o p .  reaches  purse on ground. up g r o c e r i e s .  i n t o woman's p u r s e .  something. i t i nh i s pocket. t o each  away.  f o r keys.  i ndirection  o f man.  other.  127  APPENDIX F  Physical  Description  Age  o f target«  Coding  2.  Height  3.  Weight  4.  Body  5.  Colour  6.  Type o f s t y l e o f h a i r  7.  Hair  8.  Complexion  9.  Facial  hair  10.  Colour  o f eyes  11.  Type o f nose  12.  Type o f ears  13.  Special  14.  Colour  15.  Style  16.  Colour  17.  Style  18.  Colour  19.  Style  20.  Colour  21.  Make o f f o o t w e a r ,  22.  Style  Scheme  build of hair  length  features, of  of  e.g., scars,  jacket jacket  of clothing  under  of clothing of of of  of  jacket  under jacket  pants pants footwear  footwear  e.g., Nike  128  APPENDIX G  129  Table ANALYSIS 4  Source Grade  OF V A R I A N C E (Grade  Sum (G)  FOR  level)  of Squares  1  EVENT D E S C R I P T I O N  X 2  (Slide vs. Live)  df  Mean S q u a r e  365.186  3  121.729  543.273  44  12.347  244.819  1  G X E  19.228  Error  243.898  Error Event  type  (E)  SCORES  F  p  9.859  .001  244.819  44.166  .001  3  6.409  1.156  .337  44  5.543  130  Table  2  A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR L I V E EVENT D E S C R I P T I O N SCORES FOR CUE P R E S E N T ( C P ) AND CUE A B S E N T (CA) C O N D I T I O N GRADE ( 1 v s 6) AND R E C A L L C O N D I T I O N (CP v s CA)  Source Grade  Sum o f S q u a r e s  Mean S q u a r e  F  p  264.666  1  264.666  31.514  .001  5.580  1  5.580  0.664  .419  G X R  .315  1  .315  0.037  .847  Error  369.531  44  8.398  Recall  (G)  df  Condition  (R)  131  Table  3  A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR L I V E E V E N T D E S C R I P T I O N SCORES FOR CUE P R E S E N T (CP) AND CUE A B S E N T (CA) C O N D I T I O N S GRADE (1 v s 6) AND R E C A L L C O N D I T I O N (CP v s CA) SUBSET  Source  Grade  Sum  df  Mean  Square  36.085  1  36.085  14.540  .001  R e c a l l (R) Condition  2.916  1  2.916  1.175  .284  G X R  3.202  1  3.202  1.290  .262  109.198  44  2.482  Error  (G)  o f Squares  132  Table  4  A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR CORRECT P H Y S I C A L D E S C R I P T I O N SCORES 4  Source Grade  Sum (G)  Error Event G X E Error  (E)  (Grade  of  level)  Squares  X 2  (Event type)  df  Mean  Square  318.576  3  106.192  222.160  44  5.049  159.387  1  38.475 165.341  21.032  0.001  159.387  42.415  0.001  3  12.825  3.413  0.025  44  3. 7 5 8  133  Table  5  A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 4  Source  Grade  Sum (G)  Error Event G X E Error  (E)  (Grade  level)  o f Squares  X 2  df  INCORRECT SCORES  (Event type)  Mean  squares  10.571  3  3.524  81.559  44  1.854  1.308  1  4.069 46.550  P 1.901  .143  1. 308  1.236  .272  3  1. 356  1.282  .292  44  1.058  134  Table  6  Analysis of Variance f o rRatio Scores: Event Description Scores / Physical Description 4  (G)  Error Event G X E Error  level) X 2  Sum o f S q u a r e s  Source Grade  (Grade  (E)  df  (Event  type)  Mean  Squares  163.162  3  54.387  542.342  42  12.913  6.670  1  74.982 457.481  Scores  F  P  4.212  .011  6.670  .612  .438  3  24.994  2.295  .092  42  10.892  135  Table  7  A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR CORRECT A P P A R E L D E S C R I P T I O N SCORES 4  Source  Sum  (Grade  of  level)  Squares  X 2  df  (Event type)  Mean  Squares  126.105  3  42 .0 35  185.186  42  4.409  144.567  1  G X #  23.109  Error  112.640  Grade  (G)  Error Event  (E)  9.533  0.001  144 .567  53.905  0.001  3  7. 7 0 3  2.872  0.048  42  2.682  136  Table  ANALYSIS  4  Source  Grade  Sum  (G)  Error Event G X E Error  (E)  8  OF V A R I A N C E FOR I N C O R R E C T D E S C R I P T I O N SCORES  (Grade  of  level)  Squares  X 2  df  (Event  Mean  APPAREL  type)  Squares  3.537  3  1.179  66.883  42  1.592  10.145  1  1. 892 38.155  0. 740  0.534  10.145  11.167  0.002  3  0.631  0.694  0.561  42  0.908  137  Table  9  ONE-WAY A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E TRAY O B J E C T R E C A L L SCORES  Source  Sum  o f Squares  df  Mean  FOR  Squares  Grade  4.3250  3  1.4417  Error  46.8514  47  0.9968  Total  51.1764  50  F  1.446  p  0.2413  138  Table  10  ONE-WAY A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR UNPROMPTED V E R B A L R E C A L L SCORES  Source  Sum o f S q u a r e s  df  Mean S q u a r e s  Grade  15.3793  3  5.1264  Error  45.6010  47  0.9702  Total  60.9803  50  F 5.284  p 0.0032  139  Table  11  ONE-WAY A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR PROMPTED V E R B A L R E C A L L SCORES  Source  Sum  o f Squares  df  Mean  Squares  Grade  14.3305  3  4.7768  Error  40.6500  47  .8649  Total  54.9805  50  P  5.523  0025  140  T a b l e 12 ONE-WAY A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR R E C O G N I T I O N MEMORY SCORES Source  Sura o f S q u a r e s  df  Mean  Squares  Grade  6.3214  3  2.1070  Error  25.3929  52  0.4883  Total  31.7143  55  4.315  0.0086  141  Table  13  ONE-WAY A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E L I V E EVENT P H O T O - I D E N T I F I C A T I O N  Source  Sum  of  Squares  df  Mean  FOR CHOICES  Squares  Grade  2.8252  3  0.9417  Error  12.5447  69  0.1818  Total  15.3699  72  P  5.180  0.0028  142  Table  14  ONE-WAY A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR S L I D E EVENT PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION RESULTS  Source  Sum  o f Squares  df  Mean  Squares  Grade  0.1503  3  0.0501  Error  10.8318  52  0.2083  Total  10.9821  55  F 0.241  p 0.8677  143  Table  15  ONE-WAY A N A L Y S I S OF V A R I A N C E FOR COMBINED S U G G E S T I B I L I T Y SCORES  Source Grade  Sum (G)  o f Squares  df  Mean S q u a r e s  19.0087  3  6.3362  Error  23.6000  42  0.5619  Total  42.6087  45  F 11.276  p 0.00  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096576/manifest

Comment

Related Items