Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul-Aug;33(4):655-661.
doi: 10.1002/acp.3483. Epub 2018 Oct 22.

Effects of the putative confession instruction on perceptions of children's true and false statements

Jennifer Gongola  1 , Nicholas Scurich  1   2 , Thomas D Lyon  3
Affiliations

Effects of the putative confession instruction on perceptions of children's true and false statements

Jennifer Gongola et al. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2019 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

The putative confession (PC) instruction (i.e., "[suspect] told me everything that happened and wants you to tell the truth") during forensic interviews with children has been shown to increase the accuracy of children's statements, but it is unclear whether adults' perceptions are sensitive to this salutary effect. The present study examined how adults perceive children's true and false responses to the PC instruction. Participants (n = 299) watched videotaped interviews of children and rated the child's credibility and the truthfulness of his/her statements. When viewing children's responses to the PC instruction, true and false statements were rated as equally credible, and there was a decrease in accuracy for identifying false denials as lies. These findings suggest that participants viewed the PC instruction as truth-inducing. Implications for the forensic use of the PC instruction are discussed.

Keywords: child credibility; deception detection; interviewing children; putative confession.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Perceived credibility of children's true and false statements as a function interview instruction. Note that the error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aamodt MG, & Custer H (2006). Who can best catch a liar? A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. The Forensic Examiner, 15, 6–11.
    1. Ahern EC, Stolzenberg SN, McWilliams K, & Lyon TD (2016). The effects of secret instructions and yes/no questions on maltreated and non-maltreated children's reports of a minor transgression. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 784–802. 10.1002/bsl.2277 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ball CT, & O'callaghan J (2001). Judging the accuracy of children's recall: A statement-level analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 331–345. - PubMed
    1. Block SD, Shestowsky D, Segovia DA, Goodman GS, Schaaf JM, & Alexander KW (2012). “That never happened”: Adults' discernment of children's true and false memory reports. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 365–374. 10.1037/h0093920 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bond CF Jr., & DePaulo BM (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 - DOI - PubMed