Discriminating Between Children's Accounts of True and False Events

Claremont Graduate University, Claremont CA

Investigators

Abstract

This research examines the utility of several validity assessment techniques for differentiating between children's accounts of true and false events. Several techniques have been developed to assess the validity of people's accounts of events, however most of these techniques (a) have been developed for use with adults and not children, (b) have not been extensively tested with children, and (c) do not incorporate relevant principles of cognitive development. This project tests the hypothesis that with children, validity assessment techniques are more successful at discriminating between accounts of familiar versus unfamiliar events than between accounts of true versus false events. Two studies will be conducted to test the utility of several validity assessment techniques for discriminating between true and false events with events that are familiar or unfamiliar to children. In the first study the event recalled is one experimentally introduced to the participants. In the second study the event recalled is a forensically relevant one -- a stressful and invasive medical procedure that has been experienced by each participating child or not. This research will contribute to the development of theories of cognitive development that apply to a wide range of memory tasks that operate during every-day cognition. More immediately, the proposed research will help researchers, legal professionals, and social service agents discriminate between children's accounts of real-world events that did occur versus those that did not occur.