Effects of Interview Style and Witness Age on Perceptions of Children's Credibility in Sexual Abuse Cases

Abstract

The present study concerned effects of interview style and victim age on perceptions of child victim/witnesses and defendant guilt. In 2 experiments, participants read written scenarios of child sexual abuse trials. The scenarios included a transcript of the child victim/ witness's forensic interview, in which questioning varied from less leading to highly leading. In Experiment 1, child age (4 years vs. 7 years) did not significantly influence guilt ratings, but mock jurors were less likely to convict the alleged perpetrator and less likely to rate the child as credible and reliable when testimony was elicited through a highly leading vs. an intermediately or less leading interview. The effect of interview style on guilt ratings replicated in Experiment 2 for a 4-year-old victim/witness but not a 7-year-old victim/witness. In both studies, women compared to men were more likely to convict the defendant and to believe the child. Implications for understanding jurors’ reactions to child victim/witness testimony are discussed.