The concept of putting children on the stand is a fascinating concept. There are many reasons why one might not want to put a child on the stand, but it is still necessary. It is for those reasons why many studies have looked into topics such as eye witness testimony and children’s memory. This study is focused on if and how a child’s memory can be influenced by others and the issues of source monitoring error. The main concern someone might have with a child on the stand is what the child saying what actually occurred or not. A study performed by Talwar , Lee, Bala & Lindsay (2004) discussed how a child might be more prone to lying if they (the child) would not be seen as guilty in scenario where the parent broke a puppet. The implications
…show more content…
The study showed that as children get older the ability to source monitor improves as they get older. This indicated that younger children, aged 3-4 would be more likely not to state what happened correctly. There is a positive trend with the older the child is the less source monitoring error is prevalent. Thus it is hypothesized that older children will score higher in the final interview than the younger children. It is also hypothesized that that regardless of age, children presented with suggested questioning will perform worse on the final interview. Lastly, it is hypothesized that children interviewed by a parent rather than a stranger will perform worse on the memory test for both conditions. Furthermore, a study by Baker-ward et al. (1993) studied the memory of a novel event long-term. The study also was looking for the source monitoring error with suggestibility. The Baker-Ward et al. (1993) paper serves also serves as basis for which the experiment was created on. However, given that the study used a novel event such as a doctor’s appointment there is reason to believe that that children in this study will not remember the information for a long period of time. Thus there are some notable key differences in when the testing will be …show more content…
Within these groups, three more subgroups of 10 being with parent interviewers, 10 being a stranger interviewer and 10 with no misleading interview from researchers to have a total of six groups for the 2x3 factor design. In order for there to be proper analysis enough children must part-take in the study, however too many children induces a cost inhibitive measure. Two groups of 30 children is roughly the size of three preschool classrooms and two first grade classrooms. When these children and chosen from an after-school subsided program in an affluent area, the children are well intermixed racially and social economically different enough that a wider representation of the population is covered. The ages selected directly reflects the results seen in Bright-Paul et. al (2005). This study indicated that children aged 4-5, preschoolers are the most susceptible to the source monitoring error. Similar findings were found in the study done by Lindsay, Johnson and Kwon (1991) as well. In order to determine if parental or stranger has an effect on the memory, it would only make sense to include a wider age range to as it known that 3-5 year-olds already display the behavior. Baker-Ward et al. (1993) also used similar ages as
The study showed that as children get older the ability to source monitor improves as they get older. This indicated that younger children, aged 3-4 would be more likely not to state what happened correctly. There is a positive trend with the older the child is the less source monitoring error is prevalent. Thus it is hypothesized that older children will score higher in the final interview than the younger children. It is also hypothesized that that regardless of age, children presented with suggested questioning will perform worse on the final interview. Lastly, it is hypothesized that children interviewed by a parent rather than a stranger will perform worse on the memory test for both conditions. Furthermore, a study by Baker-ward et al. (1993) studied the memory of a novel event long-term. The study also was looking for the source monitoring error with suggestibility. The Baker-Ward et al. (1993) paper serves also serves as basis for which the experiment was created on. However, given that the study used a novel event such as a doctor’s appointment there is reason to believe that that children in this study will not remember the information for a long period of time. Thus there are some notable key differences in when the testing will be …show more content…
Within these groups, three more subgroups of 10 being with parent interviewers, 10 being a stranger interviewer and 10 with no misleading interview from researchers to have a total of six groups for the 2x3 factor design. In order for there to be proper analysis enough children must part-take in the study, however too many children induces a cost inhibitive measure. Two groups of 30 children is roughly the size of three preschool classrooms and two first grade classrooms. When these children and chosen from an after-school subsided program in an affluent area, the children are well intermixed racially and social economically different enough that a wider representation of the population is covered. The ages selected directly reflects the results seen in Bright-Paul et. al (2005). This study indicated that children aged 4-5, preschoolers are the most susceptible to the source monitoring error. Similar findings were found in the study done by Lindsay, Johnson and Kwon (1991) as well. In order to determine if parental or stranger has an effect on the memory, it would only make sense to include a wider age range to as it known that 3-5 year-olds already display the behavior. Baker-Ward et al. (1993) also used similar ages as