Premium
The Productivity of Wh‐ Prompts when Children Testify
Author(s) -
Andrews Samantha J.,
Ahern Elizabeth C.,
Stolzenberg Stacia N.,
Lyon Thomas D.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
applied cognitive psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.719
H-Index - 100
eISSN - 1099-0720
pISSN - 0888-4080
DOI - 10.1002/acp.3204
Subject(s) - psychology , causality (physics) , action (physics) , productivity , interview , social psychology , developmental psychology , cognitive psychology , economics , macroeconomics , physics , quantum mechanics , political science , law
Summary Wh‐ prompts (what, how, why, who, when, and where) vary widely in their specificity and accuracy, but differences among them have largely been ignored in research examining the productivity of different question types in child testimony. We examined 120 six‐ to 12‐year‐olds' criminal court testimony in child sexual abuse cases to compare the productivity of various wh‐ prompts. We distinguished among wh‐ prompts, most notably the following: what/how‐happen prompts focusing generally on events, what/how‐dynamic prompts focusing on actions or unfolding processes/events, what/how‐causality prompts focusing on causes and reasons, and what/how‐static prompts focusing on non‐action contextual information regarding location, objects, and time. Consistent with predictions, what/how‐happen prompts were the most productive, and both what/how‐dynamic prompts and wh‐ prompts about causality were more productive than other wh‐ prompts. Prosecutors asked proportionally more what/how‐dynamic prompts and fewer what/how‐static prompts than defense attorneys. Future research and interviewer training may benefit from finer discrimination among wh‐ prompts. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.