000			04255nab a22003137a 4500
999			_c6795 _d6795
005			20250625151534.0
008			200820s2020 ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_aPichler, Anne S. _99337
245			_aInconsistencies in complainant's accounts of child sexual abuse arising in their cross-examination _cAnne Sophie Pichler, Stefanie J. Sharman, Sarah Zydervelt, Nina Westera and Jane Goodman-Delahunty
260			_bTaylor & Francis, _c2020
500			_aPsychology, Crime & Law, 2020, Advance publication online, 11 August 2020
520			_aA 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			_aA 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			_aCHILD SEXUAL ABUSE _9121
650			_aCRIMINAL JUSTICE _9167
650			_aEVIDENCE _9237
650		4	_9445 _aPOLICE PROCEDURES
651			_aINTERNATIONAL _93624
651		4	_aAUSTRALIA _92597
700			_aSharman, Stefanie J. _94939
700			_aZydervelt, Sarah _99338
700			_aWestera, Nina _99339
700			_aGoodman-Delahunty, Jane _93818
773	0		_tPsychology, Crime & Law, 2020, Advance publication online, 11 August 2020
830			_aPsychology, Crime & Law _98609
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1805743 _zDOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2020.1805743
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE