Another child’s model statement

The perceived disadvantages of playing a detailed example of another child talking about an unrelated (i.e. another child’s model statement) could be summarised as: (1) tainting, (2) longer interviews, and (3) providing an inappropriate example. The last two disadvantages were also expressed in relation to the ‘child’s own model statement’

technique. Firstly, participants stressed the importance of eliciting a completely untainted account and the criticism they could face if there were any signs of coaching; “we have to be totally transparent and impartial and we get criticised that we’re goading or that we’re influencing children or that we’re preparing them for the interview” (FG1, PA). In

particular, the participants would be reluctant to play an account provided by another child because it could contaminate their child interviewee’s account; “it could be argued by the

162 defence that the child had picked up some details from the account to embellish their own account” (FG1, PD). One participant even went so far as to say that, “it would only take one tiny similarity for the defence to say, “ well if that’s similar, the whole thing is nonsensical” (FG2, PD), which demonstrates that they think that playing another child’s model statement is a risk that simply isn’t worth taking. Research, into using another’s model statement, states that it should be unrelated to the to-be-remembered event (Leal et al., 2015; Vrij, 2015). However, the effects of using another’s model statement on source monitoring have yet to be directly tested and, thus, cannot be assumed. Source monitoring (Johnson, Hashtroudi & Lindsay, 1993; Lindsay, Allen, Chan & Dahl, 2004) could be a potential issue. The extent to which the ‘model statement’ event needs to be conceptually dissimilar to the witnessed event is likely to run along a continuum of high to low risk.

Secondly, lengthening the interview would “eat into your best evidence” (FG1, PA). As some participants had experience of interviewing young children, they reflected on how the children’s short attention spans already reduced the amount of time that they had to interview them in the first place. Adding in a model statement section “could basically burst the bubble” (FG3, PB), confusing the child and resulting in less information being elicited before they get tired or lose concentration.

Finally, playing another’s child model statement was considered to be inadvisable because it would be an inappropriate example in terms of its age appropriateness and in terms of giving child lie-tellers a template. Firstly, there were concerns that another child’s ability to provide a detailed account may not be realistic for the child being questioned; “it would be inappropriate expectations for that child [truth-teller]” (FG2, PC). In other words, the child being interviewed may simply not be able to give as much detail as the child in the model statement. Furthermore, the length of delay between event and recall could be longer or shorter for the child in the model statement compared to the child

163 witness, with the effects of delay on recall ability varying from one child to the next. Even playing the model statement of a child of the same age as the child interviewee would not be appropriate due to developmental differences; “another one recently she couldn’t string a sentence together and was four so even if you’re balancing it off against another four- year-old, this little girl’s not got the capability of even saying three words in a row” (FG2, PB). On the other hand, one participant questioned:

Are we just giving them [child lie-tellers] more ammunition to say, “well this is how it’s done” so they’re already thinking and exaggerating their account a little bit to fill it up so that they’re giving you more detail? (FG3, PC)

Overall, participants were suggesting the possibility that another child’s model statement, provided by another child, might raise the standards too high for child truth- tellers but give child lie-tellers the means to achieve these higher standards.

6.4.2.2.3 Child’s own model statement

As previously mentioned, both ‘longer interviews’ and ‘providing an inappropriate example’ were disadvantages that also emerged when participants discussed using a child’s practice interview as their own model statement. The concerns regarding longer interviews largely overlapped with previous issues for using another child’s model statement.

Participants felt that adding this extra component into the interview protocol would take away precious time that could be used to gather information. In particular, it might interrupt the child’s willingness to talk:

164 You take them to an interview, they’re ready and they’re eager to just […] talk to you. So if you then delay that by doing a little practice with them say, they might lose momentum. (FG3, PC)

Reflecting on current practice, one participant followed up that comment by saying, “we can limit some just with our introductions if they’re too long. Sometimes you’ve just got to let them talk straightaway” (FG3, PD).

The participants’ concerns regarding ‘providing an inappropriate detail’ differed, however, from another child’s model statement when discussing its effect on truth-telling children. Participants felt that practising talking about a non-traumatic event might elicit a detailed response but when this was used as a basis for talking about a traumatic detail, then the expectations of providing detail might be unachievable. There were two ways in which participants thought that children might deal with unrealistic expectations; “they might feel that they’re letting you down and themselves down” (FG1, PD), or “they [might] feel that they might need to add in more detail to the incident that they don’t remember much about” (FG1, PC). Either way children’s reactions might be negative. In terms of their own model statement being an ‘inappropriate example’ for lie-telling

children, the feedback, similar to that for using another child’s model statement, suggested that the child lie-tellers would use this to elaborate their lie:

The ones that are lying, are we just giving them more ammunition to say, “well this is how we want the interview done” so then they’re already thinking and

165 exaggerating their account a little bit to fill it up so that they’re giving you more detail? (FG3, PC)

The same participant also suggested that child lie-tellers might use the practice interview to check that they can lie convincingly by lying then too. The interviewer might then, inadvertently, reinforce lie-telling behaviour; “the only worry would be

reinforcement, “oh it’s very good because you’ve lied your way through that practice interview and I’m telling you how perfectly you’ve done”” (FG3, PC).