The believability of children and their interviewers' hearsay testimony: when less is more.

Abstract

Hearsay testimony from children's interviewers is increasingly common in sexual abuse trials, but little is known about its effects on juries. In 2 studies, the authors examined college students' perceptions of 3 types of hearsay testimony (an actual interview with a child or an adult interviewer providing either the gist of what that child had said or a verbatim account of the interview). Interviewers were rated as more accurate and truthful than the children. The interview was rated as higher quality, and children's statements, including their false statements, were sometimes rated as more believable in the interviewer gist hearsay condition. Mock jurors reacted differently to various types of hearsay testimony, and interviewer gist testimony may favor a child's case.