This research was supported in part by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. Also, a special thank you to the many families who participated in this study, and the volunteers and research staff who helped with the data collection.

NOTE: The following protocol was developed in accordance with the ethical standards approved by the McGill University Research Ethics Board. For all studies with children and involving deception, it is required to obtain Ethics Approval from the university or institution. Please note that different Ethics Boards may have different requirements.
1. Preparation for the Experiment
<ol>
	<li>Instruct E1 to memorize the necessary dialogue for each experimental condition (Appendix B), and E2 should become familiar wit...

The authors declare that they have no competing financial or conflicts of interests in regards to this manuscript.

The current methodology is designed to provide researchers with an ecologically valid method for evaluating different types of children&#39;s true and false reports. The representative findings suggest that the current methodology can encourage children to provide both false denials and false accusations about a high-cost event. In comparison to past studies that only examined children&#39;s false denials after witnessing a low-cost event (e.g., breaking a toy) 8, 9, 12, the current study can produce ...

The primary goal of the present study is to provide an ecologically valid method for evaluating children&#39;s true and false testimonies in an experimental setting. Children&#39;s intentional false reports in police and forensic interviews have lowered the public&#39;s trust in the validity of child testimonies because of the potential negative consequences to the accused, accuser and criminal justice system3-6. A considerable amount of research has evaluated children&#39;s ability to falsely deny an event or transgression to protect someone7-12, yet considerably less is known about children&#39;s abilities to make a false accusation13-14. Even though children do make false denials and/or purposefully omit information in their testimonies, there have also been numerous real-life cases of children being persuaded to falsely accuse someone of committing a transgression, such as false allegations of abuse in custody battles5, 15-18. By having children willingly produce false denials and false accusations in an experimental setting, the current research methodology is designed to provide a stronger understanding of the types of false reports children can tell in their eyewitness testimonies.
Previous lie-telling research with children has generally involved a low-cost situation, whereby they were telling a lie about a non-threatening event, such as a broken toy9, 12, 14. Children who provide testimonies to police officers or forensic interviewers often disclose information about a high cost-event, such as witnessing a crime or experiencing abuse. Being asked to recall information about a non-threatening event may not promote deceitful behaviors in the same manner as when children actually witness a serious transgression or crime. For instance, children who witness a crime may experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress19-20; thus, they are often reluctant to discuss their potentially traumatic experience(s) with others21-22. To improve the understanding of children&#39;s ability to generate false reports in situations where they are asked to provide a testimony, the present study has children tell a truth or lie about an alleged theft that they may (or may not) have witnessed.
Past experimental research on children&#39;s lie-telling skills has typically used three-to-four follow-up questions to evaluate whether children&#39;s initial false claims were maintained throughout the interview10-11, 23-25. In addition, many of these interview protocols have relied on closed-ended questions where a child had to provide one-word responses, such as &#34;Yes&#34; or &#34;No&#34;. Although such methodology does provide some insight into children&#39;s deceptive capabilities, the findings may not generalize to real-life settings where child witnesses are being questioned about an event. When providing a testimony to police officers or forensic interviewers, children often have to answer many questions that require them to provide both closed and open-ended responses; therefore, if a child is telling a lie, they will have to maintain it over multiple types of follow-up questions. To address this limitation, the present study will use a lengthier interview method to assess children&#39;s lie-telling skills, and the characteristics of their testimonies. The interview protocol is influenced by the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) protocol, which are ecologically valid police interview techniques that are used for increasing the amount of information obtained from an eyewitness26-30. Rather than relying on a few closed-ended questions, the interview consists of two baselines, three open-ended, and seven closed-ended questions (refer to Appendix A). The larger number and variety of questions permits for the examination of age, gender and experimental condition-based differences in the length and types of information children are willing to disclose in their testimonies.
In order to appear convincing, lie-tellers often have to simultaneously manage their verbal and non-verbal behaviors, and assess the mental state of the lie-recipient10, 31-32. However, when interview questions require increased cognitive effort from the responder, lie-tellers are more likely than truth-tellers to make noticeable errors throughout their testimony33-34. Moreover, increasing the mental effort required by the responder actually discourages lie-telling35, as the cognitive load of telling a lie and responding convincingly to challenging and unexpected questions can be too cognitively taxing for some34, 36. For these reasons, police and forensic interviewers have been encouraged to use open-ended questions and prompts, such as those in the Cognitive Interview, to increase the cognitive effort required by the interviewee33-34, 35. In addition, these types of questions give honest responders multiple opportunities to elaborate on the information they previously disclosed, which can lead to more detailed and accurate testimonies30, 38-39. The current methodology can therefore provide data on children&#39;s true and false testimonies when they are asked generalizable interview questions and prompts that are intended to increase the cognitive load of the responder, and the amount of information they are willing to disclose about an event.
To overcome limitations with past studies, the current research methodology utilizes four-experimental conditions to evaluate the different types of true and false reports children are willing to provide regarding an alleged theft. In this study, children (ages 6-11) will witness an instigator (E1) discover a stranger&#39;s wallet with twenty dollars in it. Children are then asked by E1 to lie to an interviewer (E2) by either falsely denying a theft that occurred (False Denial condition), or by falsely accusing E1 of a theft that did not take place (False Accusation condition). In addition, some children will be asked to tell the truth about a theft that did (True Accusation condition) or did not take place (True Denial condition). Children are then to be interviewed by a second researcher (E2) about the events that took place with E1. The interview is to be videotaped, and later transcribed into written transcripts. Coders then record the number of words and wallet-related details disclosed by the children on the open-ended questions; responses on the closed-ended questions are used to evaluate children&#39;s ability to maintain their true and false reports.

<table>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td>Testing Room</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>The room where the rapport-building activities and theft occur. The room should have at least two chairs and two tables. One table will be used for the rapport-building activities and interactions between the instigator (E1) and the child participant. The second table will have the jacket and wallet placed on it. Other items, such as books, a labtop, flowers and office items can be placed on the second table to conceal the wallet.&#160;&#160;&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Common Room</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>Parents and other family members will remain in this room for the duration of the study. Comfortable chairs, a table, magazines, and age-appropriate toys will make the overall study experience more enjoyable for the family.&#160;&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Interview Room</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>The room that will be used to interview the children. The room should have a table, two-chairs, and hidden cameras to record the interview.&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Consent Form</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>Form that the parents compete prior to beginning the study. It should include a detailed explanation of the study, along with all the ethics considerations. Parents should sign this form before commencing the activities with the child.&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Demographics Form</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>A form that that provides any demographic information that is needed for the study, such as the race, income, religious background, and level of education of the family.&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Rapport-building Activities</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>Age-appropriate games and cognitive measures, such as a standardized verbal ability task. The rapport-building activities should take between 30 to 40 minutes.</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Jacket</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>A jacket that would realistically be worn according to the weather outside.&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Wallet</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>A gender-neutral wallet that includes fake identification cards, such as an old bus pass, and a twenty-dollar bill.&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Puzzle</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>A child-friendly puzzle that can be completed in 5 to 10 minutes. The current study utilized a puzzle that included 30 pieces.&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Interview Script</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>The interview script used in the current study.</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Hidden Cameras</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>Any camera that can easily be hidden from the child participants. The camera(s) should also be able to record individual HD videos for at least 30 minutes.</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Word Processing Program</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>Any word processing program that can be used to transcribe the videos. This program should also be able to count the number of words in a document.&#160;&#160;</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td>Statistical Analysis Program</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>N/A</td>
			<td>Any statistical analysis program that can perform chi-square or logistic regressions for children&#8217;s willingness to lie data, and linear regressions on children&#8217;s maintenance scores.&#160;</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

an experimental analysis of children's ability to provide a false report about a crime

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting false testimonies and interviewing children have restricted the generalizability of the findings. The primary aim of the current study is to provide an easy-to-administer and ecologically valid method for measuring the veracity and quality of school-aged children's (ages 6-11) testimonies when they are asked to provide different types of true and false reports. Moreover, the methodology enables researchers to examine the social and developmental factors that could influence the credibility of a child's testimony. In the current study, children will witness a theft, and are then asked to either falsely deny the transgression, falsely accuse a researcher of the theft, or tell the truth. Afterwards, children are to be interviewed by a second researcher using a thorough and ecologically valid interview protocol that requires children to provide closed-ended and free-recall responses about the events with the instigator (E1). Coders then evaluate the length and number of theft-related details the children give throughout the interview, as well as their ability to maintain their true and false reports. The representative results indicate that the truth and lie-telling conditions elicit the intended behaviors from the children. The open-ended interview questions encouraged children to provide free-recall information about their experiences with E1. Moreover, findings from the closed-ended questions suggest that children are significantly better at maintaining their lies with age, and when producing a false denial compared to a false accusation. Results from the current study can be used to develop a greater understanding of the characteristics of children's true and false testimonies about crime, which can potentially benefit law enforcement, legal staff and professionals who interview children.

Patterns of Lie-telling Behavior
Figure 1 shows the rate of children&#39;s lie-telling behavior in each experimental condition. As reported in Wyman, Taieb-Lachance, Foster, Crossman and Talwar (under review), child participants were more willing to tell a lie in the lie-telling conditions compared to the truth-conditions; however, no differences were found in the percentage of lie-tellers in the FD and FA condi...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime at JoVE.com

An Experimental Analysis of Children&#039;s Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

The current methodology is designed to provide an ecologically relevant approach for measuring the veracity, length and quality of children's true and false testimonies. Implications of the current methodology for future research and professionals who interview children will also be discussed.

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting ...

The overall goal of this study is to provide an ecologically valid method for evaluating children's true and false testimonies in an experimental setting. This method can answer key questions in the forensic psychology field such as how and why children produce false reports about crimes they witness. The main advantage of this technique is that it can produce generalizable information about child testimonies, as participants will witness a high-cost event before telling different true and false reports when being questioned using an empirically supported interview structure.Begin by placing the necessary materials for the filler activities in the testing room. Put 20 and fake identification cards such as an old bus pass inside a wallet to give the participant the impression that the wallet belongs to someone else. Then, hide the wallet in a concealed location in the testing room, such as behind a flower pot on a table.Place a jacket near the wallet to be retrieved by the instigator immediately prior to the theft situation. Put a testing in progress sign on the door of the testing room to avoid disturbances. Assign each child participant to one of four experimental conditions.For the false denial condition, take the money from the wallet, but ask the children to falsely deny the theft to the interviewer by saying that the instigator did not take the money. For the false accusation condition, have children witness the instigator leave the money in the wallet, but ask them to tell a lie to the interviewer by falsely accusing the instigator of taking the money. For the true denial condition, do not take the money from the wallet and ask the children to truthfully deny the theft to the interviewer.Lastly, for the true accusation condition, have the child witness the instigator take the money from the wallet and ask them to truthfully accuse the instigator of taking the money. Next, bring the legal guardians of the child into a common room, and ask them to complete a consent form that explains the procedures and purpose of the research. After the guardians have completed the paperwork, escort the child participant to the testing room.In the testing room, inform the child that they will engage in some games and that they are free to stop the study at any time if they feel uncomfortable or upset. After the child provides verbal assent that they understand the instructions of the study, begin the filler activities in order to help build rapport between the instigator and the child, as well as to disguise the true nature of the study. After completing the filler activities, have the instigator grab their jacket before going with the child to the interview room.Locate the wallet behind the flower pot on the table. Open the wallet and notify the child that the wallet belongs to another researcher. Remove 20 dollars from the wallet and depending on the condition the child is placed in, either take the money or place it back in the wallet.Then, place the wallet back in its original position. Leave the jacket in the testing room and take the child to the interview room. Use an interview room that has a table with two chairs facing each other.In this room, have the interviewer greet the instigator and the child. After the instigator introduces the child to the interviewer, have the instigator state that they forgot their jacket in the testing room. At this time, the interviewer indicates that they forgot their clipboard with the interview questions in the same room as well.Right before the instigator leaves the room, have them instruct the child to complete a filler activity, while both the interviewer and the instigator go to the testing room to get the questions. After two minutes, have the instigator return to the interview room without the interviewer. During this time, ask the child to tell a truth or a lie about the wallet situation based on one of the four experimental conditions that the child has previously been placed in.Then, have the instigator leave the room. Finally, one minute after the instigator leaves the room, instruct the interviewer to return and interview the child about the events with the instigator. Begin the interview with two baseline questions, in order to build rapport between the interviewer and the child as well as to provide baseline data regarding each child's verbal ability to disclose information.Ask one free recall question immediately after the baseline questions. The second free recall question should be asked at the end of the interview. Then, ask the child to describe everything they remembered from their time with the instigator, but in reverse order.Finally, after completing the interview, bring the child into the common room. Have the instigator and the interviewer debrief the child about the deceptive nature of the study and tell them that the theft was pretend and did not actually occur. Children are more willing to tell a lie in the lie telling conditions compared to the truth conditions in which children's ability to maintain the lies improves significantly with age.The present study utilized an interview structure that encouraged detailed disclosures by using free recall questions and a reverse order question. Although children provided the longest disclosure with the most event details on the first free recall question, the reverse order and second free recall questions encouraged children to provide longer responses and more specific event details about the alleged theft. Once mastered, this technique can be done in 90 to 120 minutes if it's performed properly.While attempting this procedure, it's important to remember that even though children will experience a high-cost event that may cause some discomfort, the current paradigm is not designed to cause serious distress that corresponds to real-life situations children testify about. Following this procedure, researchers can make modifications to the paradigm, such as questionnaires or debrief interviews at the end of the study to better understand children's reasoning for their behaviors during the study as well as their reflections on the interview process. After watching this video, you should have a good understanding of how to design and implement a generalizable experimental study that is designed to investigate how and why children produce false disclosures in investigative interviews.

an-experimental-analysis-children-s-ability-to-provide-false-report

Research

JoVE Journal

Behavior

8.4K vistas.  McGill University. The overall goal of this study is to provide an ecologically valid method for evaluating children's true and false testimonies in an experimental setting. This method can answer key questions in the forensic psychology field such as how and why children produce false reports about crimes they witness. The main advantage of this technique is that it can produce generalizable information about child testimonies, as participants will witness a high-cost event before telling different true and fa...