Children are vulnerable to outside influences that lead to fabrication of testimony.
[5] Their testimony can be influenced in a variety of ways. Maggie Bruck in her article published by the
American Psychological Association wrote that
children incorporate aspects of the interviewer's questions into their answers in an attempt to tell the interviewer what the child believes is being sought.
[6] Studies also show that when adults ask children questions that do not make sense (such as "is milk bigger than water?" or "is red heavier than yellow?"), most children will offer an answer, believing that there is an answer to be given, rather than understand the absurdity of the question.[7] Furthermore, repeated questioning of children causes them to change their answers. This is because the children perceive the repeated questioning as a sign that they did not give the "correct" answer previously.
[8] Children are also especially susceptible to leading and suggestive questions.
[9] Some studies have shown that only a small percentage of children produce fictitious reports of sexual abuse on their own.
[10][11][12][13] Other studies have shown that children understate occurrences of abuse.
[14][15][16]
Interviewer bias also plays a role in shaping child testimony. When an interviewer has a preconceived notion as to the truth of the matter being investigated, the questioning is conducted in a manner to extract statements that support these beliefs.
[8] As a result, evidence that could disprove the belief is never sought by the interviewer. Additionally, positive reinforcement by the interviewer can taint child testimony. Often such reinforcement is given to encourage a spirit of cooperation by the child, but the impartial tone can quickly disappear as the interviewer nods, smiles, or offers verbal encouragement to "helpful" statements.
[8] Some studies show that when interviewers make reassuring statements to child witnesses, the children are more likely to fabricate stories of past events that never occurred.
[17]
Peer pressure also influences children to fabricate stories. Studies show that when a child witness is told that his or her friends have already testified that certain events occurred, the child witness was more likely to create a matching story.
[18] The status of the interviewer can also influence a child's testimony, because the more authority an interviewer has such as a police officer, the more likely a child is to comply with that person's agenda.
[19]
Finally, while there are supporters of the use of
anatomically correct dolls in questioning victims of sexual abuse/molestation, there are also critics of this practice.
[20] These critics say that because of the novelty of the dolls, children will act out sexually explicit acts with the dolls even if the child has not been sexually abused.
[20] Another criticism is that because the studies that compare the differences between how abused and non-abused children play with these dolls are conflicting (some studies suggest that sexually abused children play with anatomically correct dolls in a more sexually explicit manner than non-abused children, while other studies suggest that there is no correlation), it is impossible to interpret what is meant by how a child plays with these dolls.