Perceptions of Children's Credibility in Sexual Assault Cases1

Children's testimony often plays a central role in prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, research on jurors' perceptions of the credibility of child sexual assault victims remains limited. In three experiments, we examined mock jurors' reactions to children's testimony about sexual abuse. Participant jurors were exposed to videotaped or written scenarios of child sexual abuse trials and then rated victim credibility and defendant guilt. Analyses indicated that: (a) victim age was either inversely related or unrelated to perceptions of victim credibility, (b) women were more likely than men to find child victims credible, (c) corroborating testimony from a child victim increased the credibility of another child victim, and (d) exposure of participants to past criminal acts and other negative defendant character evidence heightened perceived victim credibility and defendant guilt. Implications for understanding jurors' reactions to child witnesses are discussed.

[1]  G. Goodman,et al.  Testifying in criminal court: emotional effects on child sexual assault victims. , 1992, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[2]  Robert W. Holt,et al.  Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. , 1976 .

[3]  Robert W. Holt,et al.  The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. , 1975 .

[4]  M. Gwynn,et al.  The Effects of Expert Testimony concerning Rape on the Verdicts and Beliefs of Mock Jurors , 1991 .

[5]  E. Aronson,et al.  Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. , 1973, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  Reactions to child (Versus adult) eyewitnesses , 1989 .

[7]  Dennis H. Nagao,et al.  Some implications of temporal drift in social parameters , 1980 .

[8]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  The Influence of Eyewitness Nonidentifications on Mock‐Jurors' Judgments of a Court Case1 , 1985 .

[9]  W. Cornish,et al.  JURORS AND THEIR VERDICTS , 1973 .

[10]  L. A. McArthur.  The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. , 1972 .

[11]  S. Penrod,et al.  Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence , 1990 .

[12]  J. Hyde,et al.  Effects of sex of defense attorney, sex of juror, and age and attractiveness of the victim on mock juror decision making in a rape case , 1983 .

[13]  E. Borgida,et al.  Do child sexual abuse experts hold pro-child beliefs?: A survey of the international society for traumatic stress studies , 1993 .

[14]  J. Goodwin,et al.  Knowledge and management strategies in incest cases: a survey of physicians, psychologists and family counselors. , 1985, Child abuse & neglect.

[15]  E. Borgida.  Character Proof and the fireside induction , 1979 .

[16]  G. Wells,et al.  The Perceived Credibility of Child Eyewitnesses: What Happens When They Use Their Own Words? , 1989 .

[17]  E. Lind,et al.  Theory testing, theory development, and laboratory research on legal issues , 1979 .

[18]  P. Isquith,et al.  The Credibility of Children as Witnesses in a Simulated Child Sex Abuse Trial , 1989 .

[19]  C. K. Waterman,et al.  Child Molesting: Variables Relating to Attribution of Fault to Victims, Offenders, and Nonparticipating Parents , 1984 .

[20]  G. Koocher,et al.  Professional judgment and child abuse reporting in sexual abuse cases , 1991 .

[21]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  Children on the Witness Stand: A Communication/Persuasion Analysis of Jurors’ Reactions to Child Witnesses , 1987 .

[22]  C. Struckman‐Johnson,et al.  Forced sex on dates: It happens to men, too. , 1988, Journal of sex research.

[23]  S. Diamond,et al.  A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm , 1979 .

[24]  G. Goodman,et al.  Determinants of the Child Victim’s Perceived Credibility , 1989 .

[25]  W. Wagner,et al.  Child sexual abuse: who is to blame? , 1988, Child abuse & neglect.

[26]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Information salience as a weighting factor in impression formation. , 1974 .

[27]  M. Haith,et al.  When a child takes the stand , 1987 .

[28]  D. R. Shaffer,et al.  Another look at the impact of juror sentiments toward defendants on juridic decisions. , 1985, The Journal of social psychology.

[29]  J. Luginbuhl,et al.  Rape and responsibility: How and how much is the victim blamed? , 1981 .

[30]  E. Borgida,et al.  Videotaped versus in-court witness testimony: Does protecting the child witness jeopardize due process? , 1993 .

[31]  M. Dewey,et al.  Attitudes of health professionals to child sexual abuse and incest. , 1987, Child abuse & neglect.

[32]  N. Spaños,et al.  The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial , 1993 .

[33]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  Eyewitness persuasion : how and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults' and children's memory reports ? , 1992 .

[34]  G. Zellman.  The impact of case characteristics on child abuse reporting decisions. , 1992, Child abuse & neglect.

[35]  J. Brigham,et al.  The Opinions and Practices of Criminal Attorneys Regarding Child Eyewitnesses: A Survey , 1989 .

[36]  Sheila R. Deitz,et al.  Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. , 1982, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  M. Koss,et al.  The Sexual Abuse of Boys , 1987 .

[38]  C. Muehlenhard,et al.  Men's self-reports of unwanted sexual activity. , 1988, Journal of sex research.

[39]  M. Myers.  Rule Departures and Making Law: Juries and Their Verdicts , 1979 .

[40]  J. Shepherd,et al.  Sex Differences in the Perception of Rape Victims , 1989 .

[41]  H. S. Feild.  Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape , 1978 .

[42]  M. Hawley,et al.  Social cognitions about adult male victims of female sexual assault. , 1988, Journal of sex research.