The delicate handling of "don't know" responses during interviews with children (and everyone else)

Alan Scoboria, PhD, CPsych

Interviewing witnesses and victims

Problem statement: more kids appearing in court

Shift to relying upon childrens’ report

The interviewer’s dilemma

Obtain available accurate information, while minimizing acquisition of distorted or fabricated information.

Consequences if things go poorly

Erroneous information Wasted time Invalidated witness Miscarriages of justice

Consequences if things go well

Increased confidence in information Witnesses more likely to withstand

cross-examination Justice is well-served

Effective interviews

Emphasize free recall Minimize suggestion Avoid misleading questioning

Young children

Free recall = underreporting Pulls for additional questioning

The quantity / accuracy trade-off

Forced responding Free responding

Individual has the freedom to refuse to respond, express ignorance, or to say “I don’t know”

The quantity / accuracy trade-off

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Accuracy Output

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6

Correct Incorrect

Don’t know responses

Why are DK responses desirable? Reflect monitoring of knowledge Willingness to admit limits of

knowledge Ability to resist pressure

“In experimental tasks, or real-life interviews, it is rare to see subjects, of any age, being told that they do not have to give an answer to a question.” Moston, 1987, p69

What to do with DK responses?

Ignore them, move on may lose access to information

Restate the question, push for more may pressure responses, promote

guessing, even suggest answers Investigate the response

Handling DK responses in interviews

Force responses? Encourage? Discourage?

Handling DK responses in interviews

In testing situations, forced responding may be desirable

Mondak and Davis, 2002

Handling DK responses in interviews

Forced responding promotes guessing

Koriat, Goldsmith, Schneider, & Nakash-Dura, 2001Roebers, Moga & Schneider, 2001

Children and DK responding

Younger children tend to underutilize DK responses

Geiselman & Padilla, 1988Cassel, Roebers & Bjorklund, 1996Roebers & Schneider, 2000

Children and DK responding

Children can improve monitoring Accuracy motivation enhances use of

DK responses and improves accuracy. Effectiveness generally follows

developmental lines.

Koriat, Goldsmith, Schneider & Nakash-Dura (2001)Roebers, Moga & Schneider (2001)

Children and DK responding

Developmental trajectory < about age 6; low spontaneous

production > age 7, many of the concepts are in

place, use improves dramatically > age 9/10, often perform very similar

to adults

Children and DK responding

Encouraging DK responding Risk of “DK response set”

Moston, 1987

Children and DK responding

Simple instructions – mixed results; more effective with adults

Complex instructions – more effective with children

Mulder & Vrij, 1996; Nesbitt & Markham, 1999

Children and DK responding

Informational influence May view interview as a test for which

the interviewers has the answers

Mulder & Vrij, 1996Waterman, Blades & Spenser, 2004Malian & Scoboria, in progress

Children and DK responding

Question types and DK responding y/n, closed ended – lower DK

responding Wh-, open ended – higher DK

responding

Peterson, Dowdin & Tobin, 1999Peterson & Grant, 2001Waterman, Blades & Spenser, 2001

Answerable vs. Unanswerable questions

Enhanced risk of speculation to leading unanswerable questions y/n closed ended questions Leading questions may operate by

implying that an answer is available A leading question about something

that is unknown is misleading

DK statements and communication

Substantive responses Admitting ignorance I never saw that I might have seen that, but I can’t

remember the specific details

DK statements and communication

Choosing not to respond

DK statements and communication

Unwillingness to respond Exert power within interview Avoid self-implication Lying by omission

Yes, it is more complex

DK responses when witnesses have been coached

DK responses after multiple interviews, or previous poor interviews

DK responses as costs to interviewee increase (i.e., parent is suspect)

DK responses in suspects

Limitations of the research literature

No work on DK responses in developmentally delayed children

No work on meaning of DK responses in children

Implications of exploring DK responses not well understood

Naturalistic studies are needed

Take home points

Accepting DK responses appears essential

Encouraging them appears advisable

Balancing encouraging / discouraging DK responses is challenging

Take home points

Children ages 9-10+ frequently use DK effectively

Children ages 6-8 often demonstrate monitoring ability

Children < 6 often show poorer monitoring ability

Take home points

Attend to informational influence (what the interviewer “knows”)

Avoiding question types which undermine use of DK responses

Using developmentally appropriate language

Acknowledgements

Lisa Dadd Stephanie Fisico Mark Frey Amanda Harris Irving Kirsch Giuliana Mazzoni Julie Malian Chris Reid Hoa Trang

Funding sources

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

University of Windsor

Contact information

Alan ScoboriaAssociate Professor of PsychologyDepartment of Psychology401 SunsetWindsor, ON, Canada N9B3P4email: scoboria@uwindsor.caphone: 001-519-253-3000 x4090