Cross-examination may be more detrimental to repeated-event children than single-event children

Cross-examination is detrimental to the consistency and accuracy of children's reports and a re-direct interview may rehabilitate accuracy. We compared the effects of cross-examination on reports provided by single-event and repeated-event children. Children participated in one or five magic shows. One week later they were interviewed in a supportive manner (Interview 1). Next, a different interviewer cross-examined half the children or asked the other children all questions again (Interview 2). Finally, the initial interviewer re-directed the children by re-asking questions in a supportive manner (Interview 3). When defined narrowly (the instance children were asked to describe), cross-examination was more detrimental to single-event children and the re-direct interview rehabilitated correct responses for all children. When defined broadly (experienced details), cross-examination was more detrimental to repeated-event children and the re-direct did not rehabilitate correct responses for repeated-event children. Therefore when performance was off the floor, cross-examination was more detrimental to repeated-event children. The changes that repeated-event children make under cross-examination are explained by cognitive factors and social influences Ost et al., [2016]. Recall, verbatim memory and remembered narratives. In G. Oxburgh (Ed.), Communication in investigative and legal contexts: Integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement (pp. 39-54). Wiley Blackwell).