We are not able to resolve this OAI Identifier to the repository landing page. If you are the repository manager for this record, please head to the Dashboard and adjust the settings.
Co-witness discussion is relatively frequent, but misinformation in the form of
information provided by other witnesses is an under-researched topic. The present
thesis investigated how and to what extent children’s witness reports were influenced
by information from a co-witness. In all four studies, the children were interviewed
about a live event they had individually experienced two weeks previously. Some of
the children encountered misinformation from a co-witness, and their reports were
compared to a control group. In Study I, 7 and 12-year old children (N = 174)
encountered misinformation from a co-witness whom they met before the interview.
The misinformation led the children to add false details to their reports (commission
errors), but not to omit true details (omission errors). The children made significantly
more errors with respect to a peripheral detail compared to a central one. No
differences between the age groups were found. Study II investigated the effect of the
source of influence (adult vs. child). Before they were interviewed, the children (N =
176, aged 11-12) encountered misinformation via a videotaped interview with a cowitness.
This resulted in an increase in both omission and commission errors in the
children’s reports. Contrary to our expectations, the children were more vulnerable to
influence when the co-witness was a peer child, compared to an adult. Moreover, all
children who had made a commission error provided additional (incorrect) details
when probed for more information. However, true reports were found to be more
detailed than false reports. In Study III, children (N = 115, aged 10-13) were
interviewed together with a co-witness who either provided false details or denied
true details. The children were influenced to make omission errors, but not to make
commission errors. The effect of influence varied greatly depending on the type of
detail. When probing for more details in a subsequent interview, correct reports were
found to contain more information than false ones. Study IV investigated whether
children’s recall could be improved by using a self-administered interview protocol
(SAI). Immediately after the event, the children (N = 192, aged 11-12) reported their
experiences in one of two qualitatively different SAI-forms (SAI-Structured or SAIOpen)
or did not report their experiences (control). In an interview two weeks later,
children who had previously completed one of the two SAI-forms included more
details in their free recall of the event compared to children in the control group.
Those who had completed the SAI-Structured form reported the most information.
The SAI manipulation did not reduce the children’s vulnerability to co-witness
influence. Taken together, the results of this thesis show that children are vulnerable
to co-witness misinformation and that such influence can result in both omission and
commission errors. Therefore, in legal situations, it is crucial that measures are taken
to avoid the negative effects of co-witness influence
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.