Study title

United Kingdom

Individual

(1). Data from child 'witnesses'. Samples of typical children (6- to 11-year-olds) were recruited from five mainstream schools in Greater London. Samples of children with autism (6- to 11-year-olds) were recruited from mainstream schools in Greater London, special schools in Greater London, and via parent support networks in Essex and Kent. Children were assessed with standardised cognitive tests (and some unstandardized tasks). Procedure for the mock criminal investigation. 1. Children viewed an event at school (either live or via a video) about school in Victorian times involving two male adult actors, one of whom committed a minor theft. 2. Children received a brief interview about this event on the same day - akin to a first response police officer taking an initial statement. 3. One week later children received a full investigative interview and viewed two identification line-ups (relating to the two male actors). Prior to this, children were semi-randomly allocated into four interview conditions: a standard police interview; a Verbal Labels interview (additional support from distinct questions about people, actions/objects, setting and conversations); a Sketch Reinstatement of Context interview (using a drawing technique to re-orientate the child to the context of the event); or a Registered Intermediary supported interview (a fully-qualified experienced intermediary supported and facilitated the child's communication throughout the interview and identification line-up). 4. 9-12 months later, available children in the sample were cross-examined by experienced barristers over Skype to mimic the 'live link' used in court. A defence statement was prepared and the barrister challenged the child on seven key points from this statement, attempting to get them to agree to erroneous information. Scoring for the child witnesses data. All standardised tests were scored according to the relevant manuals. Interviews (Brief and Investigative) were recorded, transcribed and scored according to clear and robustly derived criteria based on the number of 'units of correct information' recalled. These data were additionally scored for the types of details recalled (e.g. numbers of person, action, object, setting, conversation, and general details). Numbers of incorrect details (information that was inaccurate) and confabulations (information that did not occur in the event) were also recorded. Line-up choices were scored as correct identifications, incorrect identifications, incorrect rejections, or correct rejections. Mock cross-examinations were scored based on how many times, from a maximum of seven points in the 'defence statement', the child ceded to challenges posed by the barrister (higher scores for those who were more resistant to the barristers' challenges). We also recorded the extent to which children had provided information about these seven points in their investigative interviews (memory trace score - higher scores for those who provided fuller details). (2). Data from 'mock jurors'. Jury eligible adults (18-69 years) were recruited via convenience sampling from universities, workplaces and personal contacts. These participants rated selected interviews/cross-examinations from our child witnesses dataset on a series of 7-point scales, reflecting how they appraised the credibility of that individual witness. Study 1 (n=120) - ratings were made of interviews with children who had autism. Two children with autism provided interviews and half of the participants rated each video. Further, participants were divided into three groups, randomly assigned to receive: (1) no information about the child's autism diagnosis; (2) information that the child had a diagnosis of autism; or (3) information that the child had a diagnosis of autism together with a summary of the key characteristics of autism. Study 2 (n=60) – ratings were made of two videos of children with autism; one child received a standard police interview and the other child was supported by a registered intermediary. Participants rated one video and were randomly allocated to one of the two video conditions. Study 3 (n=80) - ratings were made of interviews and cross-examinations of four typically developing children: two of these children were supported by a registered intermediary and two of these children received a standard police interview. In each pair of children, one child was 'higher' ability and one child was 'lower' ability and these pairs were matched across interview conditions. Participants each rated one interview and were randomly allocated to one of the four conditions.