The aim of the study was to determine the influence of authority on the susceptibility of child witnesses and the reliability of their testimonies. This study, consisting of experimental and control groups, included 20 girls and 20 boys, totalling 40 children. It took place in two phases; an initial phase (“eyewitness”, “post-event interview”) and, one week later, a final phase (“recall”). In the individual interviews held with the children, a questionnaire consisting of a free narrative question and 18 open-ended questions was used. The free narrative question asked the children to specify the details they remembered about the animated film. The open-ended questions focused on the events and characters in the film. However, 12 of the open-ended questions could be answered correctly since they were about characters and situations in the film that the children had watched, while six of the questions were trick questions that were about characters and situations that were not shown in the film. For data analysis, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to reach the deeper level of perception and memories that children shared about the film. In conclusion, after analysis, it was found that even when the interview takes place immediately after the event, children are significantly affected by the misinformation given by an adult and their knowledge on the event in question is shaped according to this misinformation. It was observed that children create "a new event" based on the information they receive from an adult.
Key words: Child, Eyewitness testimony, Reliability, Suggestibility, Suggestive interview, Memory.
2. Baumgartner, T.R., Strandberg, H.C. and Eslick, A.N. (2015). "Effects of self-confabulated misinformation on eyewitness memory" Infront Outback – Conference Proceedings, CSBS Student Research Conference, 23.
3. Binet, A. (1900). “La suggestibilité.” Paris: Schleicher.
4. Bruck, M., Ceci, S.J. and Hembrooke, H. (1998). “Reliability and credibility of young children’s reports: From research to policy and practice.” American Psychologist, Vol. 53, pg. 136-151.
5. Ceci, S.J. and Bruck, M. (1993). “The suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis.” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 113, pg. 403-439.
6. Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F. and Toglia, M.P. (1987). “Age differences in suggestibility: Narrowing the uncertainties.” Ceci, J., Toglia, M. P. & Ross, D. F. (Eds.). Children's Eyewitness Memory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
7. Foley, M.A. and Johnson, M.K. (1985). “Confusions between memories for performed and imagined actions: A developmental comparison.” Child Development, Vol. 56, pg. 1145-1155.
8. Gombos, V., Pezdek, K. and Haymond, K. (2012). “Forced confabulation affects memory sensitivity as well as response bias.” Memory & Cognition, Vol. 40, pg. 127-134. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0129-5
9. Gudjonsson, G.H. and Sigurdsson, J.F. (2003). “The relationship of compliance with coping strategies and self-esteem.” European Journal of Psy. Assessment, Vol. 19, pg. 117-123. doi:10.1027//1015-57126.96.36.199
10. Gulotta, G., De Cataldo, L., Pino, S. and Magri, P. (1996). “Il bambino come prova negli abusi sessuali.” In C. Cabras, Psicologia della prova. Giuffrè, Milano. 157-214.
11. Lipmann, O. (1911). “Pedagogical psychology of report.” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 5, pg. 253-261.
12. Loftus, E.F. (1975). “Leading questions and the eyewitness report.” Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 7, pg. 550-572.
13. Otgaar, H., Howe, M., Memon, A. and Wang, J. (2014). “The development of differential mnemonic effects of false denials and forced confabulations.” Behavioral Sciences and Law, Vol. 32, No.6, pg. 718-731.
14. Pezdek, K., Lam, S.T. and Sperry, K. (2009). “Forced confabulation more strongly influences event memory if suggestions are other-generated than self-generated.” Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 14, pg. 241-252. doi: 10.1348/135532508X344773
15. Schwarz, S. and Roebers, C.M. (2006). “Age differences in the effects of social influence on children’s eyewitness performance and their metacognitive monitoring.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 94, pg. 229-248. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.01.003
16. Sporer, S.L. (1982). “A brief history of the psychology of testimony.” Current Psychological Reviews, Vol. 2, pg. 323-339.
17. Stolzenberg, S. and Pezdek, K. (2013). “Interviewing child witnesses: The effect of forced confabulation on event memory.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 114, No. 1, pg. 77-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.006
18. Varendonck, J. (1911). “Les temoignages d’enfants dans un proces retentissant.” Archives de Psycholgie, Vol. ll, pg. 129-171.
19. Wilford, M.M., Chan, J.C.K. and Tuhn, S.J. (2014). “Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 20, pg. 81– 93. doi:10.1037/xap0000001
20. Yates, A. (1987). “Should young children testify in cases of sexual abuse?” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 144, pg. 476-480.
21. Zaragoza, M.S., Payment, K.E., Ackil, J.K., Drivdahl, S.B. and Beck, M. (2001). “Interviewing witnesses: Forced confabulation and confirmatory feedback increase false memories.” Psychological Science, Vol. 12, No. 6, pg. 473-477. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00388
22. Zaragoza, M.S., Rich, P., Rindal, E. and DeFranco, R. (2016). “Forced fabrication and false eyewitness memories.” In. False and Distorted Memories (Eds. Robert A. Nash, James Ost). London: Psychology Press.