Repeated interviews about a repeated event: A child sexual abuse case study

1. Repeated interviews about a repeated event: A child sexual abuse case study Sonja P. Brubacher & David La Rooy Central Michigan University University of Abertay Dundee bruba1sp@cmich.edu david@larooy.net s.brubacher@iiirg.org 6th Annual Meeting of the iIIRG 2-5 July, 2013 Maastricht *Paper now available at Child Abuse & Neglect*

2. Case Information • Repeated sexual abuse by mum’s boyfriend from age 7 – 11 • Disclosed to her mother at 12 upon viewing a storyline of abuse on TV • Interviewed 3 times over one month • Her account was generic and she provided few incident-specific details • Nevertheless, the case was successfully prosecuted

3. Overview • Why is this case important? Repeated Events Repeated Interviews

4. Background: Repeated Events • Memories are different for repeatedly occurring experiences versus single • Scripts (Generics) versus Episodes • “What usually happens” versus “what happened” • Difficult to retrieve details associated with any specific episode • Legal requirement (‘particularization’) to report specifics • And/or perceptions of credibility

5. Background: Repeated Interviews • Sometimes necessary for cognitive and motivational reasons (Leander, 2010; Carnes et al. 1999; 2001) • Benefits • Reminiscence, comfort • Costs • Inconsistencies, ‘snowball effect’ of poor interviewing • Few studies illustrating effects (Cederborg, La Rooy & Lamb, 2008; La Rooy, Katz, Malloy, & Lamb, 2010)

6. Examination of interviews in Case

7. Interview Quality Percentage prompt type High Quality: Orbach et al., 2000 Low Quality: Sternberg et al., 2001

8. Question Type & Language Episodic Generic Contextual Percentage Child Response Interviewer Prompt

9. Episodic Generic Contextual DK/NR Prompt-Response Congruency Language of Child Response - Percentage Language of Interviewer Prompt

10. Trends across interviews • Interviewer prompts became more closed • 60% → 80% → 88% • Interviewer prompts became increasingly more generic (as did child’s responses) • 27% → 26% → 74% • Less time spent eliciting contextual information • 50% → 28% → 14% • Greatest prompt-response congruency in Int. 3 • DK/DR responses were reduced • Int. 3 contained the most ‘episodic leads’/rare details

11. Particularizing Episodes - Example • Initial disclosure in Interview 1 was generic: • C: He was making me do things I don’t want to do • I: Tell me more about that • C: I’ll give you an example, one time when mum was putting [name] to sleep in her room mum fell asleep with her and [suspect] was in my room... • I: Had that happened before? (“Frequency Question”) • C: Yes • I: Tell me everything that happened the first time… • Positive aspects of this exchange? Other strategies?

12. Episodic Leads – Example Unique Details • One time I got a big red mark on my nose • He tried to make a deal, that I licked his front bum then he would take me to the movies, but I said ‘no’ and he never asked again • What are these? How to respond?

13. Episodic Leads – Example “Rare” Details • sometimes he says ‘that was good’ • the abuse mostly happened when mum was at the shops but “sometimes it happens downstairs when she’s sleeping upstairs” • He touches there (points to chest) but he doesn’t do that often • Could these be useful?

14. Conclusions:Particularization Considerations • Practice narratives practice retrieval of episodic information (Brubacher et al., 2011; Roberts et al., 2011) • Children are responsive to interviewer language (Brubacher et al., 2011; 2012; 2013; Schneider et al., 2011). • Allow narratives to flow uninterrupted (secure contextual detail later) (Powell & Snow, 2007) • Follow up on Episodic Leads provided by the child

15. Conclusions: Particularization Considerations • Label occurrences when they arise • Reduce ambiguity/inconsistency (Powell & McMeeken, 1998) • ‘Rare’ details may be useful when paired with a follow-up option posing question and invitation • Has that happened any other times? Tell me more… • Children as young as 6 can answer this question (Brubacher, 2011; Disst. Exp. 3) • Listen!! – protocol flexibility

16. Conclusions:Is Generic Narrative Useful? • Cognitive benefits • Provides opportunity to refresh memory (Brubacher, 2011; 2012) • Increases overall information •  episodic details and deviations • May  accuracy for specific occurrences • Motivational benefits • Generic recall in trauma victims (distancing effect;Terr, 1990; 1994) • Easier, so enhances confidence

17. Questions?