Factors Predicting Central Details in Alleged Child Sexual Abuse Victims’ Disclosure

1. Factors Predicting Central Details in Alleged Child Sexual Abuse Victims’ Disclosure Agnes Alonzo-Proulx & Mireille Cyr 7th International InvestigativeInterviewingResearch Group conference June 2014

2. Oftenonly source of information • Central forensically relevant (CFR) details • Age and open-ended prompts • (Abecassis, Sera, Yonas, & Schwade, 2001; Agnew, Powell, & Snow, 2006; Ahern, Lyon, & Quas, 2011; Akehurst, Milne, & Kohnken, 2003; Alaggia, 2004; Alaggia, 2005, 2010; Alderden & Ullman, 2012a, b; Aldridge & Cameron, 1999; Aldridge et al., 2004; Aldridge & Wood, 1998; Aldridge, 1998; Alvarez, Kenny, Donohue, & Carpin, 2004; Arata, 1998; Atkinson-Tovar, 2003; Bahrick, Parker, Fivush, & Levitt, 1998; Baker-Ward, Gordon, Ornstein, Larus, & et al., 1993; Batten, 2001; Bebbington et al., 2011; Becker-Blease, DePrince, & Freyd, 2011; Becker-Blease, Freyd, & Pears, 2004; Beers & De Bellis, 2002; Beichner & Spohn, 2012; Berg, 2000; Berger & Herringer, 1991; Berkey, 1992; Berliner & Conte, 1995; Bertel, 2012; Bidrose & Goodman, 2000; Boat & Everson, 1996; Boat, Everson, & Amaya-Jackson, 1996; Bolen, 2002; Bolen & Lamb, 2002, 2004; Bottoms, Quas, & Davis, 2007; Bottoms, Rudnicki, & Epstein, 2007; Bouffard, 2000; Bradley & Follingstad, 2001; Bradshaw & Marks, 1990; Brainerd & Reyna, 2008; Brewer, Rowe, & Brewer, 1997; Bridges, Faust, & Ahern, 2009; Brodsky, 2013; Brown, Lamb, Pipe, & Orbach, 2008; Brown, Lewis, Lamb, & Stephens, 2012; Brown, Pipe, Lewis, Lamb, & Orbach, 2007; Brubacher, Glisic, Roberts, & Powell, 2011; Brubacher & La Rooy, 2014; Brubacher, Roberts, & Powell, 2012; Bruck, 2009; Bruck & Ceci, 1999, 2012; Bruck, Ceci, Francoeur, & Barr, 1995; Bruck, Ceci, Francouer, & Renick, 1995; Bruck, Melnyk, & Ceci, 2000; Buch, 2010; Buck, 2002; Buck, London, & Wright, 2011; Buck, Warrren, & Brigham, 2004; Bunting, 2008; Burgwyn-Bailes, Baker-Ward, Gordon, & Ornstein, 2001; Bussey, 2010; Butler, Gross, & Hayne, 1995; Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Campbell, Patterson, Dworkin, & Diegel, 2010; Campis, Hebden-Curtis, & DeMaso, 1993; Cantlon, Payne, & Erbaugh, 1996; Carnes, Nelson-Gardell, Wilson, & Cornelia Orgassa, 2001; Carnes, Wilson, & Nelson-Gardell, 1999; Carrick, Quas, & Lyon, 2010; Carvalho, Galvao, & Cardoso, 2009; Cassel, Roebers, & Bjorklund, 1996; Ceci & Bruck, 1993, 1995; Ceci & Huffman, 1997; Cederborg, Lamb, & Laurell, 2007; Cederborg, Orbach, Sternberg, & Lamb, 2000; Cederborg, Danielsson, Rooy, & Lamb, 2009; Chae & Ceci, 2005; Chae, Goodman, Eisen, & Qin, 2011; Chapman & Smith, 1987; Cheit, 2003; Cheung, 2008; Cheung & Boutte-Queen, 2010; Christianson, 1992; Clifford & George, 1996; Clubb, Nida, Merritt, & Ornstein, 1993; Coker, 2010; Collings, 2007; Connolly & Lindsay, 2001; Connolly & Price, 2006; Connolly, Price, & Gordon, 2010; Connolly & Read, 2006; Connolly & Read, 2007; Connon et al., 2011; Coohey, 2006, 2007; Cordon, Saetermoe, & Goodman, 2005; Corwin & Olafson, 1993; Cossins, 2002; Coulborn-Faller & Corwin, 1995; Cronch, Viljoen, & Hansen, 2006; Cross, De Vos, & Whitcomb, 1994; Cross, Martell, McDonald, & Ahl, 1999; Cross, Walsh, Simone, & Jones, 2003; Cross, Whitcomb, & De Vos, 1995; Cyr & Lamb, 2009; Dahl, Lindsay, & Brimacombe, 2006; Daro, 1994; Davey & Hill, 1999; Davidson, Bifulco, Thomas, & Ramsay, 2006; Davies, Tarrant, & Flin, 1989; Davies, Westcott, & Horan, 2000; De Jong & Rose, 1991; de Villiers & deVilliers, 1999; DeLoache & Marzolf, 1992, 1995; Demaegdt, 2013; DePrince et al., 2012; DeVoe & Faller, 1999; Dhooper, Royse, & Wolfe, 1991; Di Blasio, Miragoli, & Procaccia, 2011; Diaz & Manigat, 1999; Dietze, Powell, & Thomson, 2010, 2012; Dietze, Sharman, Powell, & Thomson, 2011; Dion, Cyr, Richard, & McDuff, 2006; DiPietro, Runyan, & Fredrickson, 1997; Distel, 1999; dos Santos & Dell' Aglio, 2009; dos Santos & Dell'Aglio, 2010; Douglas, Coghill, & Will, 1996; Douglass, Smith, & Fraser-Thill, 2005; Douglass, 2001; Dow, Kenardy, Long, & Le Brocque, 2012; Drucker Investigative interview

3. Child sexual abuse Child-suspect relationship Frequency Type Reported coercion Disclosure Purposeful or accidental Parental reactions Investigative interview

4. Close child- suspect relationship

5. Single vs repeated occurrences • Generic accounts • Struggle to particularize (Powell, Thomson, & Dietze, 1997; Powell & Thomson, 2003) anddetermine which detail comes from which occurrence (Brubacher, Glisic, Roberts, & Powell, 2011; Roberts, 2002) • Analog studies… • Only 5 fieldstudies • multiple events = ++ details(Hershkowitz, et al., 1998; Orbach, Hershkowitz, Lamb, Sternberg, & Horowitz, 2000) • single = multiple except when invitations were used (Sternberg, et al., 1996) • single = multiple (Dion et al., 2006; Leander 2010) Frequency of child sexual abuse

6. Analogstudy(Goodman et al., 2001) • Bothabused and non-abusedplayedwith male confederate • More severlyabusedchildren: more omission errors and lessaccurate in answer to specific Q • Type of abuse or pastvictimization? • Field studies and prospective studies • No effect(Leander, 2010; Alexander, 2005; Hershkowitz, 1998…) Type of sexual abuse

7. Abuse’scharacteristics ? Reportedcoercion?

8. Child sexual abuse Child-suspect relationship Frequency Type Reported coercion Disclosure Purposeful or accidental Parental reactions Investigative interview

9. how the disclosure occurred (e.g. purposeful or accidental) • parental reactions (i.e. did the parents believe and protect the child) Context of initial disclosure

10. more disposed (Goodman, et al., 2003; Hershkowitz, 2009). • preserving long-term memory (Alexander, et al., 2005; Goodman, Quas, Batterman-Faunce, Riddlesberger, & Kuhn, 1994). • Alexander and her colleagues (2005) • significantly higher proportion of correct answers and fewer omission errors  • maternal support was dichotomously measured (e.g. Cheit, 2003; Martin, Anderson, Romans, Mullen, & et al., 1993) • differentiate maternal belief and protective actions (Heriot, 1996; Lovett, 2004; Malloy & Lyon, 2006; Pintello & Zuravin, 2001) Parental reactions

11. accidental disclosure: usually made by younger victims (Campis, Hebden-Curtis, & DeMaso, 1993; Nagel, Putnam, Noll, & Trickett, 1997; Sorensen & Snow, 1991) • amplify fear and anxiety • older children who choose to intentionally disclose (Campis, Hebden-Curtis, & DeMaso, 1993; Lovett, 2004), • better able to bear this anxiety (Hartman & Burgess, 1988; Kilgore, 1988; Lovett, 2004). • affect children’s ability and motivation to provide a rich account of their sexual abuse (Hershkowitz, 2009) Purposeful vs accidentaldisclosure

12. Child’sage • Interviewing techniques (NICHD) • Proportion of central forensically relevant (CFR) details • CSA characteristics • Disclosure’s characteristics The presentstudy

13. Method

14. 210 CSA cases of 4-to-14-year old 106 CSA cases of 4-to-14-year old 54: child did not report abuse 9: no interview was performed 12: alleged abuse was not sexual 13: availability 27: not substantiated 37: did not follow the NICHD Protocol 27: not substantiated 15: child did not report abuse 6: other 58 NICHD Protocol interviews 58 interviews before training NICHD matched Sample

15. Pre-substantive phase 1) interviewers’ presentation and definition of their role 2) explanation of the child’s role and expected tasks 3) definition of ground rules 4) rapport building 5) make a free recall practice of the episodic memory • Substantive phase 6) begin with an open-ended utterance 7) investigate at least one incident : maximum use of open-ended questions 8) single versus multiple incidents 9) collect details of the context of initial disclosure 10) a discussion of a neutral topic in the termination phase. An inter-rater agreement was performed with another graduate student for 20% of interviews and reached .92. Adherence to the NICHD Protocol

16. Children’s utterances: • number and type of details • Central forensically relevant details (CFR) • DV=Proportion CFR details = total central details number of interviewer’s Q • Coders • trained on an independent set of transcripts  agreed 90% of the time • 20% of the transcripts were independently coded • .88 for interviewers’ utterances and .81 for CFR details Transcriptscoding

17. a set of 12 dummy variables was created • suspect is an immediate family member (yes/no) • suspect is an extended family member • suspect is an acquaintance • suspect is a stranger • child reports single incident • sexual exposure/touching over the clothes • fondling under the clothes or oral-genital contacts • penetration • absence of coercion • physical coercion • combination of physical coercion and threats • emotional or material rewards Abuse’scharacteristics

18. Police officers: interview caregivers • (13) the disclosure was accidental • (a) the suspect and the victims were surprised • (b) irritations or other physical marks • (c) a sibling disclosed the abuse to the caregiver • (d) external manifestations : sexualized behavior/ drawings • (14) maternal belief • (15) maternal protective actions • Missing data: • 63.53% and 61.76% for father • 9.5% (n=11) for maternal belief and protective actions • inter-rater agreement for 20% of the files : intra-class coefficient of .99. Disclosure’scharacteristics

19. Results

20. Descriptive analysis

21. Bivariatecorrelations

22. Block 1 : Age • Block 2: NICHD Protocol • Block 3:Abuse characteristics • Coercion: absence , physical, physical and threats (gifts or emotional rewards) • Block 4: disclosure characteristics • Mother protects Theoretical grounds Hierarchicalregression: 6 IV

23. Overall model : adjusted R2 = .276 [F (6, 98) = 7.605, p < .0001] • Child’sage: ß=.29**, sr2=8% • Proportion of (CFR) details 12%*** • NICHD:ß = .37***, sr2=13% • No reported coercion • Physical • Physical threats ß=.28*sr2=3% 7%* • Protective mother • ß=.24**, sr2=5% Results: hierarchicalregression 5%**

24. Child’s age and NICHD Protocol • Two strongest predictors (sr2) • Underline their importance in obtaining a detailed investigative interview • Physical coercion and threats • More details to provide • Harder to disclose but…more motivated afterwards • remains limited : sr2 = 3% Discussion

25. Maternal protection • child’s safety, recovery and mental health • also important in providing a rich account • intuitive yet largely unexplored • low levels of maternal support  recanting despite convincing evidence (Berliner & Elliott, 1996) • preserving long-term memory (Alexander, et al., 2005; Goodman, Quas, Batterman-Faunce, Riddlesberger, & Kuhn, 1994). Discussion

26. Child-suspect relationship • (r) Alexander and al. (2005) and Goodman and al. (2003) • decision to disclose • Severity and frequency of abuse • (r) • decision to disclose • NICHD Protocol for half of the interviews… • extra efforts • CSA characteristics: encoding process or child’s willingness to fully disclose it ? (Dion, Cyr, Richard, & McDuff, 2006) Discussion

27. Maternalbelief • (r)  maternal belief ≠protective actions (Pintello & Zuravin, 2001) • believing the child but not protecting him or her • abuse is not reprehensible • recommendation for interviewers • Disclosure on pourpose or accidental • (r): surprisingrechild’s motivation • variable categorization ? • Alaggia (2004): 42% • more field studies are needed Discussion

28. child’s age and use of the NICHD Protocol = strong predictors of the proportion of CFR details disclosed • importance of contextual and exploratory factors : reported coercion and maternal protection • field study conducted with a broad access to actual founded CSA files and interviews transcripts was the first one to focus on these exploratory variables • investigative interview process as a whole • data collected from real files and not retrospective data Summary

29. Small sample even though similar to samples from other field studies (Cross, Martell, McDonald, & Ahl, 1999; Patterson & Campbell, 2009) • Data collection • multiple informants • not directly collected from alleged victims and their family • mother believed her child, may not have received as much attention • Qualitative aspect : reported coercion • enlighten this motivational aspect of reported coercion Limitations

30. agnes.alonzo@gmail.com Thankyou!

32. 6-7 years old children • staged event three times > one time • free-recall (e.g. ‘tell me everything you can remember about’) • and general questions (e.g. ‘What did the person look like?’) • items that varied across the events (e.g. ‘Did you change what you were wearing?’) • the repeated-event group more errors • items that remained the same • the repeated-event group had a significantly lower overall error rate than the single-event group McNichol, Shute and Tucker (1999)

33. studies investigating the impact of abuse characteristics on the type and number of details • sparse, mixed and incomplete. • reported coercion?? • contributes significantly to the victim’s anxiety at the time of disclosure (Lovett, 2004) All in all…

34. Preliminary analyses