An official website of the United States government
ABSTRACT In child sexual abuse (CSA) testimony, attorneys may ask children questions containing pronoun anaphora (e.g., “Where was your Dad?” “What did he do?”heis a pronoun anaphora for referent,Dad). To answer these questions, children must recall the pronoun's referent and appropriate answer to the question. This may be too complex a cognitive task for young children, especially when there are multiple question‐and‐answer (Q–A) turns between the referent and pronoun, leading to misunderstanding. We examined Q–A pairs containing pronouns in 40 CSA testimonies of 5 to 10‐year‐olds. Many attorneys' questions (24%) contained pronouns. Attorneys averaged 4.11 Q–A turns between the referent and pronoun. With each additional Q–A turn, the likelihood of misunderstanding increased. Children's age was also associated with a significant decrease in misunderstanding, meaning older children exhibited fewer misunderstandings. To reduce misunderstanding, those questioning children should clarify the referent quickly when their question contains pronoun anaphora.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on August 1, 2027
Use of Anaphora in Criminal Cases of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse: It , That , This , These , and Those
ABSTRACT In child sexual abuse trials, attorneys often use demonstrative anaphors, such asit,that,this,these, andthose, to refer to children's earlier statements, questions, or portions of them. For example, after a child says, “He left the room,” an attorney may ask, “What happened after that?” Here,thatis an anaphor referring to the multi‐word statement “He left the room.” To answer such questions, children must identify the intended referent and retrieve the relevant information, increasing cognitive load and potentially leading to brief responses or misunderstanding. We examined how the anaphorsit, that, this, these, andthoseshaped responses from 5‐ to 10‐year‐old children in 40 trial testimonies comprising 12,314 question–answer (Q–A) pairs. Prosecuting and defense attorneys frequently used anaphora, appearing in 30% of Q–A pairs. When anaphors replaced multi‐word or compound referents rather than single‐word referents, children's elaboration decreased. Contrary to expectations and prior studies, children elaborated more when a Q–A pair contained multiple anaphors. Elaboration and misunderstanding also increased when children, rather than attorneys, first introduced an anaphor. We conclude that those questioning children about sexual abuse should avoid using anaphora for multi‐word or compound referents and promptly clarify any anaphoric referent to reduce misunderstanding or incomprehension.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2404704
- PAR ID:
- 10706321
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Volume:
- 1562
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 0077-8923
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
When a parent is accused of child sexual abuse (CSA), parent conflict raises concerns about allegation credibility. However, little is known about how attorneys question children about parent conflict. We examined 21,863 question-answer pairs from 53 testimonies of 6- to 17-year-olds (M = 13.46) in cases involving accused parents (49.1% stepfathers, 42.1% biological fathers, 8.8% other). We identified parent conflict topics and analyzed differences by attorney, child age, question type, and child elaboration. Parent conflict arose in nearly all cases but served different purposes: defense attorneys used it to suggest allegations resulted from conflict, whereas prosecutors used it to contextualize delayed disclosure. Attorneys questioned younger children more often about coaching. Closed-ended questions and unelaborative responses predominated, although children elaborated more when describing general parent conflict than other conflict topics. Findings highlight parent conflict as a versatile rhetorical tool and the need for developmentally sensitive questioning.more » « less
-
Researchers studying children’s reports of sexual abuse have focused on how questioners overtly assess coaching and truthfulness (e.g., “Did someone tell you what to say?”). Yet attorneys, and defense attorneys, in particular, may be motivated to ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness in subtle ways, such as with implied meaning (e.g., “Did your mom help you remember?”). Such questions may be particularly challenging for children, who may interpret statements literally, misunderstanding the suggested meaning. The purpose of this study was to examine and categorize how attorneys’ ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness. We wanted to learn how attorneys subtly accuse suggestive influence, and how frequently this occurred. We hypothesized that questions indirectly accusing suggestive influence would be common, and that defense attorneys would ask more subtle questions, and fewer overt questions, than prosecutors. We examined 7,103 lines of questioning asked by prosecutors and defense attorneys to 64 children testifying about alleged child sexual abuse. We found that 9% of all attorneys’ lines of questioning asked about suggestive influence or truthfulness. The majority (66%) of these were indirect accusations. Indirect accusations of suggestive influence spanned a range of subtleties and topics, including addressing conversational influences (e.g., coaching), incidental influences (e.g., witnessing abuse), and others. We also found defense attorneys were less likely than prosecutors to ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness overtly. We conclude that attorneys commonly ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness in subtle ways that developing children may struggle to understand, and which may result in affirmations of influence, even when allegations are true.more » « less
-
The accuracy of children’s memory, and the way they recall their memories, affects the perceived credibility of their reports. Defense attorneys may be motivated to attack the credibility of children’s reports by suggesting their memory of events is flawed, inaccurate, or influenced, while prosecutors may try to enhance children’s credibility by highlighting the accuracy of their reports. In the current study, we explored if, and how, attorneys address memory concerns in child sexual abuse (CSA) trials. Using a qualitative content analysis of 134 transcripts of children testifying about alleged CSA, we assessed the frequency and content of attorneys' questions about memory. The memory questions we identified suggested a range of attorney motives, including to refresh children’s recollections in court, highlight accuracy of (prior) reports, and imply lying or suggestive influence. We also found differences in the types of memory questions prosecutors and defense attorneys asked, supporting that prosecutors and defense attorneys likely have different motives for asking children about memory.more » « less
-
One way attorneys challenge witnesses’ credibility is through impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. We examined the testimony of 6- to 12-year-old child witnesses in 120 sexual abuse prosecutions and identified 96 cases in which attorneys challenged children with prior testimony that was allegedly inconsistent with the child’s current statements. In 11% of the cases, the statements were not in fact inconsistent. In 94% of the remaining cases, we identified one or more of 12 developmental difficulties with the question-types or topics potentially leading to the inconsistencies. This included suggestive tag questions in 45% of the cases, which always co-occurred with other question-type or topic difficulties. The most common problems (appearing in more than 20% of cases) included questions about time and number, questions requiring the child to distinguish among individual incidents, sexual terminology, and questions using negative polarity items such as “any” and “ever.”more » « less
