Inconsistencies in complainant's accounts of child sexual abuse arising in their cross-examination (Record no. 6795)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 04255nab a22003137a 4500
005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION
control field 20250625151534.0
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 200820s2020 ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 ## - CATALOGING SOURCE
Original cataloging agency AFVC
100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Pichler, Anne S.
9 (RLIN) 9337
245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Inconsistencies in complainant's accounts of child sexual abuse arising in their cross-examination
Statement of responsibility, etc Anne Sophie Pichler, Stefanie J. Sharman, Sarah Zydervelt, Nina Westera and Jane Goodman-Delahunty
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT)
Name of publisher, distributor, etc Taylor & Francis,
Date of publication, distribution, etc 2020
500 ## - GENERAL NOTE
General note Psychology, Crime & Law, 2020, Advance publication online, 11 August 2020
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc A key cross-examination tactic in trials of child sexual abuse (CSA) is to highlight inconsistencies between sources of information to discredit the complainant's account. The present study examined the prevalence, origin and nature of inconsistencies arising in the cross-examination of complainants in CSA trials. Further, we examined the association between these inconsistencies and the types of question that elicited them in the earlier police interview of the child witness (i.e. open-ended, specific, or leading). Transcripts of video recorded interviews (evidence-in-chief) of 73 complainants (15 males, 58 females) and subsequent cross-examinations at trial were coded. Results showed that inconsistencies were raised in the cross-examination of 94.5% of complainants; most between what the children said in their police interview versus their cross-examination. A greater proportion of inconsistencies was associated with specific than open-ended questions asked in the police interview. However, open-ended questions were associated with some inconsistencies, perhaps due to the longer answers they elicited. Shorter police interviews relying mainly on open-ended questions may minimise the opportunity for inconsistencies to arise in cross-examinations. Judges and juries require education about inconsistencies that arise from memory's reconstructive nature and lay people's tendency to use these inconsistencies to make inferences about the unreliability of witnesses. (Authors' abstract). Record #6795
526 ## - STUDY PROGRAM INFORMATION NOTE
Program name A key cross-examination tactic in trials of child sexual abuse (CSA) is to highlight inconsistencies between sources of information to discredit the complainant's account. The present study examined the prevalence, origin and nature of inconsistencies arising in the cross-examination of complainants in CSA trials. Further, we examined the association between these inconsistencies and the types of question that elicited them in the earlier police interview of the child witness (i.e. open-ended, specific, or leading). Transcripts of videorecorded interviews (evidence-in-chief) of 73 complainants (15 males, 58 females) and subsequent cross-examinations at trial were coded. Results showed that inconsistencies were raised in the cross-examination of 94.5% of complainants; most between what the children said in their police interview versus their cross-examination. A greater proportion of inconsistencies was associated with specific than open-ended questions asked in the police interview. However, open-ended questions were associated with some inconsistencies, perhaps due to the longer answers they elicited. Shorter police interviews relying mainly on open-ended questions may minimise the opportunity for inconsistencies to arise in cross-examinations. Judges and juries require education about inconsistencies that arise from memory's reconstructive nature and lay people's tendency to use these inconsistencies to make inferences about the unreliability of witnesses. (Authors' abstract). Record #6795
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
9 (RLIN) 121
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element CRIMINAL JUSTICE
9 (RLIN) 167
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name as entry element EVIDENCE
9 (RLIN) 237
650 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
9 (RLIN) 445
Topical term or geographic name as entry element POLICE PROCEDURES
651 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name INTERNATIONAL
9 (RLIN) 3624
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name AUSTRALIA
9 (RLIN) 2597
700 ## - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Sharman, Stefanie J.
9 (RLIN) 4939
700 ## - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Zydervelt, Sarah
9 (RLIN) 9338
700 ## - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Westera, Nina
9 (RLIN) 9339
700 ## - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Goodman-Delahunty, Jane
9 (RLIN) 3818
773 0# - HOST ITEM ENTRY
Title Psychology, Crime & Law, 2020, Advance publication online, 11 August 2020
830 ## - SERIES ADDED ENTRY--UNIFORM TITLE
Uniform title Psychology, Crime & Law
9 (RLIN) 8609
856 ## - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
Uniform Resource Identifier <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1805743">https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1805743</a>
Public note DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2020.1805743
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Source of classification or shelving scheme Dewey Decimal Classification
Koha item type Journal article

No items available.