Developmental differences in the function and use of anatomical dolls during interviews with alleged sexual abuse victims

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Volumn 73, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1125-1134

  Thierry, Karen L ^a   Lamb, Michael E ^b   Orbach, Yael ^c   Pipe, Margaret Ellen ^c  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomical dolls; Child abuse; Forensic interviews; Memory; Sexual abuse

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL DOLL; ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CHILD; CHILD BEHAVIOR; CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE; PLAY; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VERBALIZATION; VICTIM;

AGE FACTORS; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; INTERVIEW, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MALE; PLAY AND PLAYTHINGS; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 31544466499     PISSN: 0022006X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1125     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ackil, J. K., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1995). Developmental differences in eyewitness suggestibility and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 57-83.
2. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Francoeur, E. (2000). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination: Developmental and gender comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 74-83.
3. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Francoeur, E., & Renick, A. (1995). Anatomically detailed dolls do not facilitate preschoolers' reports of a pediatric examination involving genital touching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 95-109.
4. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (2001). Reliability and credibility of young children's reports: From research to policy and practice. In R. Bull (Ed.), Children and the law: The essential readings. Essential readings in developmental psychology (pp. 87-123). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
5. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. D., & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 304-320.
7. Dale, P. S., Loftus, E. F., & Rathbun, L. (1978). The influence of the form of the question on the eyewitness testimony of preschool children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7, 269-277.
8. Davies, G. M. (1991). Research on children's testimony: Implications for interview practice. In C. R. Hollin & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims (pp. 93-115). Chichester, England: Wiley.
9. DeLoache, J. S. (1995). Early understanding and use of symbols: The model model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 109-113.
10. DeLoache, J. S., & Marzolf, D. P. (1995). The use of dolls to interview young children: Issues of symbolic representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 155-173.
11. Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 18, 41-51.
12. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of major doll uses and related criticisms. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 113-129.
13. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (2002). The utility of anatomical dolls and drawing in child forensic interviews. In M. L. Eisen, J. A. Quas, & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 383-408). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Goodman, G. S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Development, 61, 1859-1871.
15. Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Riddlesberger, M. M., & Kuhn, J. (1997). Children's reactions to and memory for a stressful event: Influences of age, anatomical dolls, knowledge, and parental attachment. Applied Developmental Science, 54-75.
16. Greenhoot, A. F., Ornstein, P. A., Gordon, B. N., & Baker-Ward, L. (1999). Acting out the details of a pediatric check-up: The impact of interview condition and behavioral style on children's memory report. Child Development, 70, 363-380.
17. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
18. Lamb, M. E., & Fauchier, A. (2001). The effects of question type on self contradiction by children in the course of forensic interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 483-491.
19. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Boat, B., & Everson, M. D. (1996). Investigative interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims with and without anatomical dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 1251-1259.
20. Leventhal, J. M., Hamilton, J., Rededal, S., Tebano-Micci, A., & Eyster, C. (1989). Anatomically correct dolls used in interviews of young children suspected of having been sexually abused. Pediatrics, 84, 900-906.
21. Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 733-752.
22. Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (2001). The relationship between within-interview contradictions and eliciting interviewer utterances. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 323-333.
23. Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24. Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). Reducing child witnesses' false reports of misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 117-140.
25. Salmon, K., Bidrose, S., & Pipe, M.-E. (1995). Providing props to facilitate children's event reports: A comparison of toys and real items. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 174-194.
26. Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). Children's memories of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 682-691.
27. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2001). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children's responses to free recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 997-1005.
28. Vizard, E., & Tranter, M. (1988). Helping young children to describe experiences of child sexual abuse: General issue. In A. Bentovim, A. Elton, J. Hildebrand, M. Tranter, & E. Vizard (Eds.), Child sexual abuse within the family: Assessment and treatment (pp. 84-104). Bristol, England: John Wright.