Adults' judgments of children's coached reports.

Abstract

This study investigated adults' judgments of the honesty of children's coached true and fabricated mock testimony. Adults saw video clips of children testifying in a mock court about a true or fabricated event in their lives. They were asked to make an assessment of the truthfulness of the testimony, and respond to questions about their perception of children's credibility. Half of the adults saw children testifying after a competence examination, and the other half saw children testifying without a competence examination. Overall, girls were rated as more competent than boys, and their testimony was more likely to be believed. Younger children were more likely to be rated as incompetent than older children. A factor analysis of adults' responses revealed six factors which significantly predicted adults' overall assessment of children's credibility, and their evaluations of children's competence to testify. Adults' detection accuracy was at chance, with the majority of children rated as truthful. Viewing the competency examination and cross-examination did not improve the adults' detection accuracy. However, seeing the cross-examination made adults' less likely to believe children's testimony. The implications of these results for the judicial system are discussed.