Potential Motive to Fabricate and the Assessment of Child Witnesses in Sexual Assault Cases

Abstract

Sometimes, perceived credibility of a child's sexual assault allegation determines investigative and adjudicative decisions. Surprisingly, there is very little research on one common cross-examination technique used to discredit the child complainant; the presentation of a potential motive for the child to fabricate the allegation. In Experiment one, participants provided three reasons for complainant credibility after reading a mock child sexual assault case. Amongst participants’ first reasons, motive for the complainant to fabricate the allegation was the second most frequent response. In Experiment two, participants rated the honesty, accuracy and credibility of both the complainant and accused in a mock trial where a motive to fabricate was either present, absent, or not mentioned. Motive to fabricate had no effect on ratings of the complainant. However, when the evidence against the accused was strong, the accused was rated as more accurate, more honest, and more credible when a motive was present than when one was not. The forensic implications of the results are discussed.