Premium
Understanding expert testimony on child sexual abuse denial after New Jersey v. J.L.G .: Ground truth, disclosure suspicion bias, and disclosure substantiation bias
Author(s) -
Lyon Thomas D.,
Williams Shanna,
Stolzenberg Stacia N.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
behavioral sciences and the law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.649
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1099-0798
pISSN - 0735-3936
DOI - 10.1002/bsl.2490
Subject(s) - denial , supreme court , sexual abuse , psychology , child abuse , child sexual abuse , criminology , psychiatry , suicide prevention , poison control , medicine , law , medical emergency , political science , psychotherapist
The New Jersey Supreme Court held in New Jersey v. J.L.G . (2018) that experts can no longer explain to juries why sexually abused children might deny abuse. The court was influenced by expert testimony that “methodologically superior” studies find lower rates of denial. Examining the studies in detail, we argue that the expert testimony was flawed due to three problems with using child disclosure studies to estimate the likelihood that abused children are reluctant to disclose abuse: the ground truth problem, disclosure suspicion bias, and disclosure substantiation bias. Research identifying groups of children whose abuse can be proven without reliance on disclosure reveals that denial of sexual abuse is common among abused children.