RELEVANT
FOCUSED
READY

Perceived Credibility of Child Witness Statements
Alyx Romaniuk

Introduction

Discussion

Due to changes in legislation, children’s testimony can be presented
differently from most adults’ testimony (Antrobus et al., 2016). In
order to combat bias when making life-altering verdicts, research
must be done to identify and improve perceptions of child credibility.
The current research study attempts to answer the research question:
what are the factors that influence the perceived credibility of witness
statements given by children? The categories that will be further
analyzed include child witness factors, perceiver factors, and the
delivery method. The pragmatic worldview was held by the
researcher during this study. This view is important to note, as it
allowed freedom in choosing methods, techniques, and other aspects
to benefit the study. The view is also noteworthy, as it draws from
both qualitative and quantitative data (Creswell, 2014), which the
researcher sought to answer the current research question.

After analysis of the literature surrounding child witnesses, themes
emerged identifying three common factors that influenced the
perceived credibility of child witnesses. These included the factors of
the child witness, the perceiver factors, and the delivery method.
Factors relating to the child included age, demeanor, level of emotion,
and relationship to the accused. Perceiver factors that affected the
credibility rating included prior beliefs about children’s memory
function, prior negative opinions about the ability of children to
testify, the quality rating assigned to the interview of the child, and
gender. Finally, the method of delivery affected the perceived
credibility of the child. This included if the child testified live, if they
were able to perform a free-recall narrative of the event, and noted
the possibility of witness and jury fatigue altering perceptions.

Background

A review of the literature surrounding the credibility of child
witnesses aided in answering the research question. After thorough
analysis, the researcher has established that there are factors that can
influence the perceived credibility of child witnesses. The factors fall
into three major categories: child factors, perceiver factors, and
delivery method. Each study focused on varying combinations of the
three themes, and as a result, the degree to which each factor
affected the child’s perceived credibility deviated slightly. The
researcher acknowledged that there were gaps in the literature that
was selected. Time constraints of this research project narrowed the
scope, and in doing so, the researcher only considered studies that
identified influencing factors. It is important to note the argument of
factors not influencing the perceived credibility of child witnesses
were eliminated for the purpose of answering the current research
question, and the opposing argument must be considered for a full
perspective of the issue. It is also critical to note the majority of
literature surrounding this topic is grounded in sensitive cases, and
often time’s mock jurors are used for ethical reasons. There may be
notable differences if the mock jury is not evaluating the credibility of
a legitimate child witness, as well as not being responsible for any
punitive measures following their decision and credibility rating.

In court, judges, jurors, and lawyers often base their decision of guilt
on the testimony of two parties: victim and defendant. Due to the
adversarial essence of trial, understanding how the witness is
perceived is of utmost importance (Voogt & Klettke, 2017). The
matter of perception is especially true if the testifying witness is a
child. Their language and memory abilities have not fully developed
(Burrows & Powell, 2014), which can potentially lead to
inconsistencies in ratings of credibility. For the purpose of this study,
the term child has been operationally defined as anyone under the
age of sixteen. Perceiver includes any persons making decisions about
the child’s credibility, including judges, jurors, and lawyers.

Methods

This research was conducted using secondary data due to time
constraints on the project. The Justice Institute of British Columbia’s
Library provided access to a multitude of databases. The inquiry
began with a search of the words “witness statement” and “child”.
The scope was limited to scholarly, peer-reviewed journals published
between 2005 and 2021, and the full text had to be freely available
online. There were no geographical limitations imposed. Additional
keywords searched included: “child witness” and “testimony” in
conjunction with “influence”, “juror”, “perception”, and “credibility”.
Inclusion criteria specified that an article must acknowledge the age
of the witnesses and examine at least one factor that influences the
perceived credibility of child witnesses. Exclusion criteria eliminated
articles that focused solely on adult witnesses, if the age of the
children was not specified, or if there were no influencing factors
identified. The articles were subject to a title analysis, an abstract
review, and a full review. This process identified eight articles that
were deemed relevant in answering the research question and were
further analyzed.

Results

A number of authors focused their research on factors specific to the
child witness. Burrows and Powell (2014) focused on demeanor and
noted that behavior such as “opposition, irritation…and restlessness”
discredited the child (p. 201). A similar study found a child that was
more emotional was also rated as more credible, especially if the child
was older (Cooper et al., 2014). A third author considered the child
factors in tandem with perceiver factors. Voogt and Klettke (2017)
claimed perceivers have a gendered response, as females rate child
witnesses as more credible than males. However, this gendered
response was moderated by the relationship between the witness and
the accused. If the relationship was not biological, the credibility
rating by males increased and females decreased, leveling the two
genders (Voogt & Klettke, 2017). Antrobus and Newcombe (2016)
added to the discussion of perceiver factors, concluding that juror’s
beliefs about children’s memory can impact their credibility rating.
These researchers also considered the method of delivery, and stated
if a child did not testify live in court, they were assumed to be less
credible (Antrobus & Newcombe, 2016). Burrows and Powell (2014)
added to this theory that open-ended questions were preferred, and
a free-recall narrative is rated higher in credibility. These researchers
also noted that the interview process itself, if lengthy, leads to witness
and jury fatigue, further impairing their assessment of credibility
(Burrows & Powell, 2014).

Bachelor of Law Enforcement Studies

Conclusion

References

Antrobus, E., McKimmie, B. M., & Newcombe, P. (2016). Mode of
children’s testimony and the effect of assumptions about
credibility. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(6), 922–940.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1152927
Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. (2014). Prosecutors’ recommendations
for improving child witness statements about sexual abuse.
Policing and Society, 24(2), 189–207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784305
Cooper, A., Quas, J. A., & Cleveland, K. C. (2014). The emotional child
witness: Effects on juror decision-making. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 32(6), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2153
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design : Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Voogt, A., & Klettke, B. (2017). The effect of gender on perceptions of
credibility in child sexual assault cases: A systematic review.
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 26(2), 195–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2017.1280576

“Hearing Children’s Voices” by Richard Warshak
https://warshak.com/blog/2017/02/05/hearing-childrens-voices/

Justice Institute of British Columbia

March 2021