conducted by Zajac, Jury & O ’ Neill (in press) , who examined the role of
several psychosocial variables on fi ve - and six - year - old children ’ s performance
under cross - examination. Although cross - examination compromised accuracy
in the vast majority of participants, children with low self - esteem, self - confi -
dence and assertiveness performed particularly poorly. Given that child abuse
has been associated with low scores on these variables (Martin & Beezley,
1977 ; Oates, Forrest & Peacock, 1985 ; Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989 ; Howing,
Wodarski, Kurtz & Gaudin, 1990 ), our fi ndings raise the concerning possibil-
ity that the same factors that may make children targets for abuse, or may be
the consequences of abuse, could also make them particularly susceptible to
the cross - examination process. Similar research examining the role of cognitive
factors (e.g., IQ, memory and language ability) on children ’ s responses to
cross - examination is underway, but preliminary fi ndings indicate that, within
the normal range of functioning, these variables contribute little to cross
-
examination performance (O ’ Neill, Jury & Zajac, 2005 ).
The i mpact of d elay
Even in countries making concerted efforts to expedite trials involving child
complainants, cross - examination typically occurs long after an allegation has
been made. In New Zealand, for example, child witnesses can expect to wait
an average of eight months between making an allegation and appearing in
court (Lash, 1995 ). Child witnesses testifying in other countries also encounter
170
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
lengthy delays (Goodman et al. , 1992 ; Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 1995 ; Eastwood
& Patton, 2002 ), with some as long as three years (Eastwood & Patton, 2002 ).
In an attempt to model the conditions in actual forensic settings, the cross -
examination interview in our original analogue studies (Zajac & Hayne, 2003;
2006 ) occurred eight months after direct evidence was pre - recorded. In light
of research showing that suggestibility increases with delay (e.g., Zaragoza &
Lane, 1994 ), we hypothesized that eliminating the delay between direct exami-
nation and cross - examination might facilitate fi ve - and six - year - old children ’ s
accuracy during cross - examination. To test this hypothesis, we employed the
same basic paradigm, but cross - examined children either 1 – 3 days or eight
months after their direct - examination interview. Despite highly accurate initial
reports, children ’ s performance during cross - examination was very poor, even
when they were cross - examined shortly after the target event. In fact, chil-
dren ’ s cross - examination accuracy scores did not differ as a function of delay,
suggesting that reducing the delay between the allegation and the trial or
conducting pre
- trial cross
- examination may do little to facilitate children
’ s
performance. Furthermore, when the direct examination interview questions
were repeated one week following cross
- examination, children
’ s accuracy
returned to pre - cross - examination levels. These data suggest that children ’ s
poor cross - examination performance cannot be solely attributed to memory
impairment, and that the changes that children make during cross - examination
do not necessarily result in memory impairment (Righarts, Zajac & Hayne,
2009 ).
Of course, delays during criminal investigations are not restricted to those
occurring between allegation and trial. Child victims of sexual abuse, for
example, may not disclose until many months or even years after the abuse
has occurred. It is possible that, by conducting our direct examination inter-
views very soon after the target event, we have effectively inoculated children
against the impact of delay. Consequently, our fi ndings using short delays
between each phase of the experimental paradigm might well be considered a
best - case scenario of children ’ s cross - examination performance.
Preparing c hildren for c ross - e xamination
The fi nding that children ’ s responses to cross - examination cannot be attrib-
uted to memory impairment suggests that pre - trial interventions for children
may hold promise, to an extent that they would not if memory was the primary
issue. In light of this possibility, our most recent research has been exploring
potential interventions to facilitate children ’ s accuracy during cross - examina-
tion questioning.
Many jurisdictions have implemented formal preparation programmes for
children who are required to testify in court. These programmes generally
involve familiarizing children with their role as a witness and with courtroom
personnel and procedures. Although these programmes are not specifi cally
Investigative Interviewing in the Courtroom
171
designed to facilitate accuracy, it is anticipated that reducing distress and con-
fusion associated with testifying will indirectly help children to provide
complete and accurate testimony. While systematic research evaluating these
programmes is scarce, existing evaluations suggest that the preparation sessions
increase children
’ s understanding of the trial process, reduce their anxiety
about giving evidence and help them to testify with more confi dence (Dezwirek -
Sas, 1992 ; Davies et al. , 2004 ).
Further to familiarization programmes, some researchers have explored
interventions aimed specifi cally at facilitating children
’ s accuracy. Many of
these interventions have been remarkably simple, such as telling children that
interview questions might be diffi cult, or that saying ‘ I don ’ t know ’ is prefer-
able to guessing an answer. Although these interventions have met with at
least some success (e.g., Warren, Hulse - Trotter & Tubbs, 1991 ), their effi cacy
does not necessarily generalize to cross - examination, during which leading and
complex questions are often delivered in a highly persuasive manner.
What does a warning about cross
- examination need to encompass? As
described earlier, several aspects of the language used during cross - examination
are likely to promote compliance. First, reliance on leading questions (e.g.,
‘ Your mother was there at the time, wasn ’ t she? ’ ) can suggest to children that
the interviewer has fi rsthand knowledge of the event, a problem likely to be
exacerbated by the fact that adults, especially parents and teachers, often know
the answers to the questions that they ask children. Anecdotally, when we ask
our child participants leading cross - examination questions, they frequently ask
us whether we accompanied them on the memory event. Second, because
children tend to assume that adults are genuine conversational partners (Grice,
1975 ), they are unlikely to anticipate that the questioning style used during
cross - examination might be unsupportive. Specifi cally, children are unlikely to
expect attacks on their credibility or understand that complex language struc-
tures
can be used as a means to confuse them. Finally, children are often
reluctant to disagree with adults, particularly adults in positions of authority.
Children ’ s willingness to correct adults ’ incorrect statements is likely to decrease
even further when interviewers adopt a confrontational approach.
Could a brief verbal warning targeting these three areas increase children ’ s
resistance to misleading cross - examination questions? If so, does it matter who
delivers the warning? These questions formed the basis for a recent study that
we conducted with fi ve - and six - year - old and nine - and ten - year - old children
(Righarts & Zajac, 2009 ). The study followed the same general paradigm used
in our past research, but some children were given a brief verbal warning
immediately prior to their cross - examination interview. This warning informed
children that they would be asked some more questions about the police
station, that the interviewer did not visit the police station and therefore did
not know what happened there, that the questions might be tricky and that
it was OK to disagree with the interviewer if she got things ‘ muddled ’ . The
warning was either delivered by an unfamiliar experimenter or by the experi-
menter conducting the cross - examination interview. Children in the control
172
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
group were not given a warning. As in previous studies, children were highly
accurate during the direct examination interview, but accuracy scores during
cross - examination were signifi cantly compromised. The warning did not facili-
tate children ’ s cross - examination performance, regardless of who delivered it.
It therefore appears that the brief interventions that have proved successful in
child suggestibility research may be insuffi cient to buffer children from the
negative effects of cross - examination (Righarts & Zajac, 2009 ).
Could a more comprehensive intervention be successful? Following the
unsuccessful warning intervention, we turned our attention to developing a
means of preparing children for cross - examination questioning. One or two
days prior to the cross - examination interview, half of the fi ve - to six - year - old
and nine - to ten - year - old children in the sample were given practice at answer-
ing cross
- examination - style questions about a short fi lm (unrelated to the
memory event), with feedback on their responses. The duration of the prepara-
tion session was approximately 20 minutes. Control children watched the fi lm,
but were not given the practice and feedback. During the subsequent cross -
examination interview, the children who received preparation made fewer
changes to their earlier responses and changed a smaller proportion of their
correct responses relative to the control children. Furthermore, overall accu-
racy levels during the cross - examination interview were signifi cantly higher in
the preparation group than in the control group. In short, the intervention
was successful (Righarts & Zajac, 2009 ).
While this research is in its very early stages, our preparation intervention
appears to have several advantages. First, during the preparation session,
children were asked questions that were entirely unrelated to their
‘ testi-
mony ’ , making allegations of coaching less feasible. Furthermore, the inter-
vention was effective despite being delivered by an unfamiliar interviewer, as
would be the case in real - life situations where court preparation would be
conducted by an independent third party. Finally, for the nine - to ten - year - old
children, the success of the intervention was unrelated to their performance
during the preparation session. That is, for these older children, mere partici-
pation in the preparation session was suffi cient to increase accuracy during
cross - examination.
Naturally, there are aspects of the intervention that require more compre-
hensive investigation. For example, although the intervention did not reduce
the number of prior mistakes that children corrected during cross - examination,
the absolute number of errors that children made during direct examination
was very small, making the statistical power to observe a signifi cant difference
relatively low. It is also important to bear in mind that the preparation session
in this study was conducted just one or two days prior to the cross - examination
interview. Because such short timeframes may not be practical in actual cases,
further research is necessary to ascertain the role that the timing of the inter-
vention plays in its effectiveness.
Most important to note is that while the intervention facilitated children ’ s
cross - examination performance, it did not eliminate the negative effects of this
questioning style in either age group. That is, even children in the preparation
Investigative Interviewing in the Courtroom
173
condition made changes to their earlier testimony that decreased their overall
accuracy levels. This fi nding is further testament to the robust nature of the
cross - examination effect.
Postscript: Adults u nder c ross - e xamination
While the consistent fi nding that cross - examination questioning decreases the
accuracy of children ’ s reports is concerning on its own, it also raises the ques-
tion of whether cross - examination could affect adults ’ testimony in a similar
way. Zajac & Cannan ( 2009 ) note several reasons to suspect that this may be
the case. Anecdotally, for example, we know that children are not the only
witnesses who fi nd cross - examination confusing and stressful. Many adults,
including police witnesses report the same types of concerns (Flin, 1993 ), and
much has been written to assist adult witnesses to cope with challenging cross -
examination questions (e.g., Brodsky,
2004 ). Second, as described below,
laboratory research has demonstrated that adults ’ eyewitness reports are sus-
ceptible to the same kinds of contaminating infl uences as those of children.
Like children, adults are vulnerable to the way in which a question is
worded. As questions move from open to closed to leading, adults ’ reports
become less accurate (Poole & White, 1991 ), and when faced with a question
requiring only a yes or no answer, adults too are more likely to answer ‘ yes ’
than ‘ no ’ (Kebbell et al. , 2001 ). Adults will also attempt to answer nonsensical
questions (Pratt, 1990 ), especially when they require only a yes or no answer
(Waterman et al. , 2001 ). Even subtle changes in the wording of a question
(e.g., replacing
a with
the ) can impair adults
’ accuracy (Loftus
& Zanni,
1975 ). Like children, adults also fi nd it more diffi cult to accurately answer
linguistically complex questions relative to questions phrased in simple terms
(Perry et al. , 1995 ; Kebbell & Johnson, 2000 ), and adults ’ susceptibility to
misinformation increases with increased question complexity (Loftus
&
Greene, 1980 ).
Furthermore, adults are far from immune to soci
al pressure during the
course of an interview. Social psychologists have reported for decades that
adults are vulnerable to persuasion (see, for example, studies on conformity,
Asch, 1956 ; Cialdini, 1988 ; and on obedience, Milgram, 1963; 1974 ). Adults ’
suggestibility increases markedly when they are under pressure or in an intimi-
dating environment (Hyman, Husband & Billings, 1995 ; Kassin & Kiechel,
1996 ; Loftus, 1997 ; Horselenberg, Merchelbach & Josephs, 2003 ; Redlich &
Goodman, 2003 ). Like children, adults are more susceptible to leading ques-
tions when the interviewer is of higher status (Roper & Shewan, 2002 ). In
fact, adults are more likely to comply with another adult who is dressed in
uniform as opposed a shabby outfi t, suggesting that the mere emblems of
authority can elicit compliance (Bushman, 1984; 1988 ).
In addition to the empirical fi ndings described above, we also know that
many adult victims of crime exhibit specifi c vulnerability factors that could
174
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
render them particularly susceptible to cross - examination questioning. These
factors may include testifying about traumatic or highly sensitive events, older
age, or learning or communication problems. Adults who have been sexually
victimized are likely to be a particularly vulnerable group of witnesses (Frazier
& Haney, 1996 ; Baker, 1999 ; Edward & MacLeod, 1999 ; Lees, 2002 ), as
sexual assault has been linked with low self - esteem and low self - confi dence,
both of which are associated with vulnerability to suggestion (Gudjonsson &
Singh, 1984 ; Singh & Gudjonnsson, 1984 ).
Not only are adult witnesses likely to exhibit factors that may increase their
vulnerability to cross - examination questioning, the questioning itself is likely
to be qualitatively and quantitatively different from that used to cross - examine
children. For example, we know that, compared to children, adult witnesses
are asked more cross - examination questions, a higher proportion of which are
complex and credibility challenging (Zajac & Cannan, 2009 ). Furthermore,
when cross - examining adults, lawyers are likely to use different reasons for
challenging a witness ’ s story. In cases of a sexual nature, for example, adult
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Page 33
