Two years later: Effect of question repetition and retention interval on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults.

TLDR

The literature on children’s eyewitness testimony is contradictory, with developmental trends in accuracy, suggestibility, and stress response varying across studies, leading critics to claim a lack of theoretical cohesion and questioning the applicability of traditional memory theories due to motivational and social influences, while early work prioritized ecological validity over reconciling findings with conventional memory concepts. The study examined witnesses’ memories for an event experienced two years earlier. Participants from four age groups (6-, 8- and 10-year-olds and adults; N = 79) answered repeated questions about an ambiguous incident from an earlier study. Question repetition effects mirrored those seen two years earlier, yet children differed from adults by being less consistent on yes‑no questions, less accurate on open‑ended questions, more prone to fabricate answers about a man’s occupation, and some confused the actions of two research assistants, underscoring the need for further study of long‑delay changes in children’s testimony. Citation: Poole & L.

Abstract

This study examined witnesses' memories for an event experienced 2 years earlier. Ss in 4 age groups (6-, 8- and 10-year-olds and adults; N= 79) answered repeated questions about an ambiguous incident that occurred as part of an earlier study (D. A. Poole & L. T. White, 1991). Surprisingly, the effects of question repetition were similar to the patterns observed 2 years ago. There were important differences in the testimonies of children and adults, however, that were not observed in the initial study: Children were less consistent than adults across sessions on yes-no questions, less accurate in response to open-ended questions, and more likely to fabricate answers to a question about a man's occupation. Some children also confused the actions of 2 research assistants. These results indicate the need for additional research on qualitative and quantitative changes in children's testimonies over long delays. The literature on children's eyewitness testimony is a story of contradictions, with developmental trends in accuracy, suggestibility, and response to stress differing from study to study (see Ceci & Bruck, 1993, for a review). Discrepancies have prompted critics to argue that eyewitness research lacks theoretical cohesion and that established theories of perception and memory are not immediately applicable because of the influence of motivational and social factors in event reporting (Sheehy & Chapman, 1982, p. 345). In early studies, concerns about ecological validity often loomed larger than efforts to reconcile eyewitness findings with traditional concepts of memory development.