Unit 7

Front 1

3 assumptions of operating when truth-lie discussion is conducted

Back 1

First, children under a certain age, generally 14, are considered morally incompetent.

Second, the truth-lie discussion will identify children who should not provide evidence (predictive power).

And third, among those who are allowed to testify, the truth-lie discussion will promote truth-telling behaviour (truth-promoting effect)

Front 2

Traditionally, a solemn affirmation was considered akin to _________

Back 2

sworn testimony

Front 3

In the very early history of common law, all persons under a certain age were simply prohibited from testifying in criminal court. At what age were witnesses allowed to testify?

Back 3

14

Front 4

Under what circumstances is a competency inquiry required in Canada today?

Back 4

a. For any person under the age of 14 b. For any person under the age of 5 c. For any person under the age of 5 if there is no corroborating evidenceCorrect Answer

d. None of the above

Front 5

In 1893 in Canada, children were permitted to testify as unsworn witnesses if a judge determined the child could not testify under oath. What was the important qualification to this law?

Back 5

The evidence of an unsworn person had to be corroborated

Front 6

What does it mean to be an unsworn witness?

Back 6

The witness makes a promise to the court to tell the truth

Front 7

In what year did the Badgely report recommend that the competency inquiry for children under the age of 14 years be abolished?

Back 7

1984

Front 8

In what year did the most recent amendments to the law concerning children’s competence come into force?

Back 8

2006

Front 9

In what country is the competency evaluation most likely to be required before a child is allowed to testify in criminal court?

Back 9

United States

Front 10

Competence is concerned with ____________________ whereas credibility is concerned with ___________________

Back 10

Admissibility, weight

Front 11

If a competency inquiry is rarely done in Canadian criminal courts, why should students study it?

Back 11

It may be part of a forensic interview

Front 12

What does cognitive competence mean?

Back 12

To be able to perceive, recollect, and communicate details of a past event

Front 13

When an inquiry was made into a child’s cognitive competence, what was the topic typically raised by the judge?

Back 13

A neutral topic

Front 14

If a jurisdiction requires an inquiry into a child’s cognitive competence, which part of a good forensic interview is most likely to substitute for it?

Back 14

The practice interview

Front 15

In Huffman, Warren, & Larson (1999) children were more likely to answer direct and suggestive questions correctly if they engaged in a lengthy discussion about truth and lies than if they had engaged in a short truth-lie discussion or if no such discussion occurred. What was the major problem with this study?

Back 15

The length of the discussion was confounded with length of time with the experimenter.

Front 16

In London and Nunez (2002) children engaged in a long or short discussion that was or was not focused on truth and lies before they asked children if they had peeked at a toy while the experimenter was away. What did they find?

Back 16

A truth-lie discussion promotes truth-telling behaviour in children

Front 17

In London and Nunez (2002) children engaged in a long or short discussion that was or was not focused on truth and lies before they asked children if they had peeked at a toy while the experimenter was away. What confound was present in this study?

Back 17

Only children in the truth-lie discussion conditions were asked to promise to tell the truth

Front 18

Lyon and Dorado (2008) speculated that typically developing and maltreated children will respond differently to a promise to tell the truth. What did they speculate might be needed to elicit honest responses from maltreated children?

Back 18

A reassurance that nothing bad would happen

Front 19

In Lyon and Dorado (2008) some children made false allegations in Experiment 2 but not in Experiment 1. Why do you think this happened?

Back 19

All children played with the toy in Experiment 1

Front 20

In Lyon and Dorado (2008) some children made false allegations in response to the second set of questions in Experiment 2 but not to the first set of questions in Experiment 2. Why?

Back 20

The second set of questions were highly suggestive

Front 21

What did Lyon and Dorado (2008) conclude about children and false allegations?

Back 21

That a promise to tell the truth combined with reassurance that the child will not get into trouble can lead to false allegations among maltreated children who failed the competency inquiry

Front 22

What did Lyon and Dorado (2008) conclude about the competency inquiry among maltreated children?

Back 22

It predicts truth-telling behavior

Front 23

According to Lyon and Saywitz (1999), young children are better able to identify a ______ than a _______.

Back 23

true statement, false statemen

Front 24

Which of the following questions, asked by a judge, is most likely to be answered correctly by a 4-year old?

Back 24

If this story character said my clock was green would that be the truth or a lie?

Front 25

In jurisdictions that have a truth/lie competency inquiry, what are the most common forms of questions?

Back 25

An equal number of meaning and morality questions

Front 26

The Oath-taking Competency test (Lyon & Saywitz, 1999) contains eight trails to measure which understandings?

Back 26

Truth, lies and consequences

Front 27

Based on an analysis by Evans and Lyon (2012) of actual competency inquiries, when judges ask children about the consequences of lying, they are most likely to phrase the question _________

Back 27

The first person (e.g., “If I told a lie…”)

Front 28

Based on an analysis by Evans and Lyon (2012) of actual competency inquiries, what is the most common form of morality question?

Back 28

Identify the consequences of lying

Front 29

State and discuss the most recent changes to the competency laws in Canada. (7 points)

Back 29

All persons under the age of 14 years are presumed competent to testify (1). Note that there is nothing in legislation that prohibits very young children (e.g., 2-year olds) from testifying (1), although the younger the child is the more likely it is that the child’s competence will be successfully challenged. (1) All persons under the age of 14 years will testify on a promise to tell the truth (1). This is a significant departure from previous laws that either prohibited children who could not take an oath from testifying (1) or required corroboration of evidence from an unsworn child (1). An inquiry into the moral understanding of the child is prohibited. (1)

Front 30

When a truth-lie competency inquiry is conducted, there are at least three assumptions operating. What are the assumptions? (3 points) (you do not have to defend or discount the assumptions with empirical evidence, name them only).

Back 30

Children under a certain age, generally 14, are considered incompetent to testify in courts (1). The competence inquiry will identify children who should not testify (predictive power) (1). Among those who are allowed to testify, the inquiry and will promote truth-telling behavior (promoting effect) (1).

Front 31

In research on the efficacy of the truth-lie discussions there are three primary paradigms. Describe the 3 paradigms. (14 points)

Back 31

In suggestibility studies (1), children participate in or observe a target event (1), are later misled about some details of the target event (1), and then children asked what they actually observed or experienced (1). In temptation studies (1), children play with a toy that includes hidden or secret parts (1). Sometime during the game the experimenter is called out of the room (1) and the child is asked not to “peek” or play until the experimenter returns and the game resumes (1). When the experimenter returns the child is asked if he/she peeked (1). In a transgression paradigm (1) the child is in a room with another adult (1) and observes the adult break something (1). The adult tells the child that he/she might get into trouble and so the child should not tell anyone what happened (1). The experimenter returns and asks the child what happened (1).

Front 32

Talwar, Lee, Bala, and Lindsay (2002) investigated the effect of a truth-lie discussion and a promise to tell the truth on children’s truth-telling behaviour. Describe the study, briefly review the results, and state the conclusion. (12 points)

Back 32

They used a temptation paradigm (1). Three- to 7-year old children engaged in a game that required them to guess the name of a toy based on the sound it made (1). Before the third toy was presented, the experimenter was called out of the room (1). Before she left, the experimenter told the child not to peek while she was gone (1). When she returned, the experimenter asked the child if he or she had peeked at the toy (1). Before being asked the peeking question, children were given one of the following treatments: no truth-lie discussion and no promise to tell the truth (1); a truth-lie discussion and no promise to tell the truth (1); a truth-lie discussion and a promise to tell the truth (1) ; just a promise to tell the truth (1). The same percent of children lied in the truth-lie discussion plus promise condition compared to the promise only condition (1). And, more children lied in the truth-lie discussion only condition than in either condition that elicited a promise to tell the truth (1). Talwar et al. concluded that it is the promise to tell the truth that prompts truth-telling behavior and that the truth-lie discussion does not (1).

Front 33

Compare and contrast the recommendations made by the Badgley committee with the 2006 amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, as it applies to the competence of child witnesses. (8 points)

Back 33

Both include a statement that children are deemed competent to testify in court. (1) Only the 2006 amendments preclude persons under the age of 14 years from testifying as sworn witnesses (1). Only the Badgley Report included a recommendation that any frailties with a particular child’s evidence should go to weight rather than admissibility (1). Both allow for some children’s evidence to be inadmissible if the child cannot respond to simply framed questions/understand and respond to question (1). Only the 2006 amendments clearly state that a person under the age of 14 must promise to tell the truth (1). Only the 2006 amendments prohibit questions about a child’s moral understanding of the nature of a promise to tell the truth (1). Only the 2006 amendments state that sworn and unsworn evidence should be treated similarly (1). Only the Badgley recommendations include a provision for a warning about a child’s evidence if such a caution is deemed by the judge to be necessary (1).

Front 34

When a truth-lie discussion is conducted, there are at least three assumptions operating. What are the assumptions? (3 points)

Back 34

Children under a certain age, generally 14, are considered morally incompetent (1). The truth-lie discussion will identify children who should not provide evidence (predictive power) (2). And, among those who are allowed to testify, the truth-lie discussion will promote truth-telling behavior (promoting effect) (1).

Front 35

In research on children’s honesty after having promised to tell the truth, maltreated children may behave differently than typically developing children from middle-class backgrounds. According to Lyon, Carrick, and Quas (2010), why might this be? (5 points)

Back 35

Maltreated children are often delayed in cognitive and language development. (1) Maltreated children may be more suspicious of adults (1), as the maltreatment was often at the hands of adults, most notably adults who were responsible for the child’s care (1). Often, maltreated children have been expected to keep their maltreatment secret (1) and so they may have developed different attitudes towards truth and lies (1).

Front 36

Lyon and Dorado (2008) concluded that an understanding of truth and lies and of the consequences of telling lies may predict lie-telling behaviour in some circumstances. This is contrary to earlier conclusions that a truth-lie discussion does not predict lie-telling behaviour. How can we reconcile these apparently contradictory conclusions? (7 points)

Back 36

First, in Lyon and Dorado (2008) an understanding of truth-lies and the consequences of lies predicted false allegations (1). In previous research the focus was on the effect of this understanding on false denials (e.g., saying “I did not peek” when the child had peeked) (1). Second, the effect was on children’s responses in the reassure condition, and not in the promise to tell the truth condition (1). Third, the analysis compared children who failed the Oath-taking Competency test versus children who passed the test (1). There are two reasons that this could affect the relationship between understanding truth and lies and the consequence of each and truth-telling behaviour. Arguably, the Oath-taking Competency test is a more sensitive measure of actual understanding (1). And, the effect was seen when children who clearly failed the test were compared with children who clearly passed the test (1). It is possible that a minimal understanding of these concepts is relevant, but once the minimum threshold is achieved, more sophisticated understanding does not further promote more truth-telling behaviour (1). Finally, this is only one demonstration of the relevance of a demonstrated understanding of the concepts of truth and lies, and the consequences of each and it will have to be replicated (1).

Front 37

Describe Lyon and Saywitz (1999) Oath-competency test. (17 points)

Back 37

The task has four trials to measure understanding of truth and lies (1) and four trials to measure understanding of the consequences of lying. (1) In each understanding trial, the child sees a picture of an object and pictures of two hypothetical children (1) who describe the object in either a true statement (1) or a false statement (1). During two trials the child is asked which hypothetical child “told the truth” (1) and during two trials the child is asked which hypothetical child “told a lie.” (1) This meaning task is designed to assess early competence (1), in which children understand that ‘truth” refers to true statements and “lie” to false statements, (1) without necessarily understanding the distinctions among lies, mistakes, and jokes. (1) This simple understanding of truth and lie is legally sufficient (1). Following the meaning trials, there are four trials to measure understanding of the consequences of lying (1). In each trial the child sees a picture of two hypothetical children (1) talking to a judge, a social worker, a doctor, or a grandmother. (1) One hypothetical child is described as telling the truth (1)and the other hypothetical child is described as lying.(1) The child chooses which of two characters “is gonna get in trouble” for what he or she said.(1)