“Should children be believed when they disclose sexual abuse?” Katrina Belliveau

Background Information Sexual abuse is often a “hidden crime” (often goes unreported) 1 in 10 abuse investigations in Canada involves suspected sexual abuse of children Child often the only witness to the crime Person accused is often a family member or someone close to the child

Impact of allegations Families torn apart by false allegations Children (re-)victimized by having to testify against an accuser Wrongful convictions

Controversy Some say that any disclosure of sexual abuse by a child should be treated as valid Others contend that children rarely disclose sexual abuse on their own and any disclosure should be treated as “highly suspect”

Supporting Views Children can be resistant to suggestion Children lack the sexual experience needed to make up stories of abuse Disclosure of sexual abuse of any kind should be taken seriously, no matter what circumstance leads to the disclosure

Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) Summit (1983): 5 component model for how children disclose sexual abuse in stages: 1)secrecy 2)helplessness 3)entrapment and accomodation 4)delayed, conflicted and unconvincing disclosures 5)retraction of disclosure -Disclosure can have a dramatic start or be a slow gradual process (as cited in London et al.) Talk about problems with this model

Research Sauzier (1989): Longitudinal study on 156 (documented) sexually abused children: -looked at both effects and types of disclosure from children

Findings 56% voluntary disclosures More likely to disclose to a parent (except in cases where parent was perpetrator) Accidental disclosure (involuntary disclosure) puts less stress on children than voluntary disclosure

Research Greenstock & Pipe (1999) Peer support decreases suggestibility in children 48 children 5-10 years of age School dental visit/invasive procedure Interviewed 4 days later Children interviewed alone, with an informed peer, and an uninformed peer (no dental visit) Younger children (5-7) were less likely to be misled by incorrect information when interviewed in the presence of a peer (informed or uninformed), even when the peer contributed nothing to the conversation Evidence that even highly suggestible children (preschool age) can resist suggestion in some cases

Reasons For False disclosure Custody battles Parent/authority figure can influence the child Suggestive/leading questions can lead to implanted memories/false allegations Children often make up stories (fantasy vs. reality) especially younger ones

Research for suggestibility Poole & Lindsay (2001) 3-8-year olds Participation in science experiments Parents read them a story (experienced/non-experienced events follow up interview by researchers: despite age reported the non-experienced events when given open-ended questions Importance of exposure to misinformation from authority figures

Suggestibility Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas, and Moan (1991): Questioned 5-7 year old girls about details of a medical exam Regular medical examination/genital examination Open-ended, direct, and misleading questions about the touching from examinations and to demonstrate using dolls Immediate testing and three month delay -children questioned immediately after and three months later Results showed As cited in Bruck et al. (1998).

Suggestibility Results indicated that in immediate recall and after a 3 month delay: -Children make errors in omission (leave out events) and commission (falsely claim to have experienced an event)

Interview Techniques Bruck et al. (1998): Biases Stereotype Inducement (e.g. “did the bad man do that?”) Atmosphere of the interview (pressure on the child; lack of a neutral environment) Use of anatomically correct dolls (these are also highly debated) Repeated questioning Context of disclosure

Voluntary disclosure “suspect” Research suggests that children rarely disclose sexual abuse Paine & Hansen (2001): Adult self-report data from an archival study revealed: -50% of participants who experienced attempted sexual activity or non-contact sexual experiences did not disclose -54% of children subjected to intercourse did not disclose -inverse relationship between disclosure and severity of abuse

Research Sorenson & Snow (1991) Adult self-report data Nearly 75% of abuse victims initially deny abuse 75% did not disclose within one year of abuse 18% waited more than 5 years to disclose 7-10% recant confession due to pressure

Age differences Ceci & Bruck (1993) Meta-analysis: 88% of the studies (14/16) Preschoolers are the most suggestible Even older children can be vulnerable to suggestive interviewing techniques Older children do not reach “adult level” of resistance to suggestion until early adolescence

Credibility of children Bruck et al. (1998): Need for: -Unbiased neutral interviews -Limit the number of interviews -Avoid leading questions -Avoid bribes, threats -TRAINING

Important to consider: Context in which the child discloses Corroborating evidence of any kind Need to increase the responsiveness of adults to children

Limitations to Research Retrospective research: data from adults in most cases Longitudinal research is dated False denials: self-report data only Children being looked at may have made false allegations of abuse

Conclusions Children need to be treated as a “special population” when it comes to sexual abuse allegations Need to increase community awareness Training for people who work with children More longitudinal research is needed

The legal system How do they handle this issue in the legal system in Canada? Children treated as a “special population” Children can be accompanied by a “support person” in court Awareness that children’s testimony is vulnerable to suggestibility and influence from adults Can no longer be cross-examined by the accused It is the law to report suspected sexual abuse of children

Graduate Programs in Canada & USA Dr. Barry Trute or Dr. Diane Hiebert-Murphy University of Manitoba http://www.familystrengths.ca/team.html#ContactDrBarryTrute Sandy K. Wurtele, Associate Professor, Ph.D., University of Alabama, 1983. Clinical interests: Child sexual abuse and pediatric psychology. Therapy orientation: Behavioral. Janis Wolak (Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire, US)

Discussion Questions: “What would you do if a child disclosed to you that they were being sexually abused?” “What factors would you consider in deciding on a course of action?”

References Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (1998). Reliability and credibility of young children’s reports: From research to policy and practice. American Psychologist, 53 (2), 136-151. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (2002). The nature of children’s true and false narratives. Developmental Review, 22 (3), 520-554. Goodman, G.S., Taub, E. P. (1992). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2). Greenstock & Pipe (1999). Are two heads better than one? Peer support and children’s eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11 (6), 461-483. London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (1), 194-226. Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 271-295. Poole, D. A. & Lindsay, D. S. (2001). Children’s eyewitness reports after exposure to misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7 (1), 27-50. Sauzier, M. (1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or for worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12 (2), 455-469.