Supportive or suggestive: Do human figure drawings help 5- to 7-year-old children to report touch?

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Volumn 75, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 33-42

  Brown, Deirdre A ^a   Pipe, Margaret Ellen ^b   Lewis, Charlie ^a   Lamb, Michael E ^c   Orbach, Yael ^d  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

Body maps; Children; Drawing; Eyewitness testimony; Forensic interviews; Physical contact touching

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CHILD; DRAWING; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVIEW; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RECALL; RELIABILITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOUCH;

CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES; QUESTIONNAIRES; SUGGESTION; TOUCH;

EID: 33846953230     PISSN: 0022006X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.1.33     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Aldridge, J., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Bowler, L. (2004). Using a human figure drawing to elicit information from alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 304-316.
2. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1990). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children. Chicago: Author.
3. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1997). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children (Rev. ed.). Chicago: Author.
4. Bjorklund, D., Bjorklund, B., Brown, R., & Cassel, W. (1998). Children's susceptibility to repeated questions: How misinformation changes children's answers and their minds. Applied Developmental Science, 2, 99-111.
5. Blahauvietz, S. (2005, January). Forensic use of anatomical dolls. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Professional Society on Child Abuse, San Diego, CA.
6. Borkowski, J. G., Milstead, M., & Hale, C. (1988). Components of children's metamemory: Implications for strategy generalisation. In F. E. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Memory development: Universal changes and individual differences (pp. 73-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Brown, D. A., & Pipe, M. E. (2003a). Individual differences in children's event memory reports and the narrative elaboration technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 195-206.
8. Brown, D. A., & Pipe, M. E. (2003b). Variations on a technique: Enhancing children's recall using narrative elaboration training. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 377-399.
9. Bruck, M., Melnyk, L., & Ceci, S. J. (2000). Draw it again Sam: The effect of drawing on children's suggestibility and source monitoring ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 169-196.
10. Butler, S., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1995). The effect of drawing on memory performance in young children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 597-608.
11. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 401-439.
12. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13. Ceci, S. J., Powell, M. B., & Principe, G. F. (2002). The scientific status of children's memory and testimony. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 2, pp. 144-205). St. Paul, MN: West.
14. Cederborg, A.-C., Lamb, M. E., & Laurell, O. (in press). Delay of disclosure, minimization, and denial when the evidence is unambiguous: A multivictim case. In M.-E. Pipe, M. E. Lamb, Y. Orbach, & A.-C. Cederborg (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71, 329-338.
16. DeLoache, J. S. (2004). Becoming symbol minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 66-70.
17. DeLoache, J. S., & Marzolf, D. P. (1992). When a picture is not worth a thousand words: Young children's understanding of pictures and models. Cognitive Development, 7, 317-329.
18. DeLoache, J., & Marzolf, D. P. (1995). The use of dolls to interview young children: Issues of symbolic representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 155-173.
19. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of the major uses and criticisms of the dolls in child sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 139-153.
20. Everson, M. D., & Boat, B. W. (2002). The utility of anatomical dolls and drawings 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.
21. Fivush, R., Peterson, C., & Schwarzmueller, A. (2002). Questions and answers: The credibility of child witnesses in the context of specific questioning techniques. In M. L. Eisen, J. A. Quas, & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 331-354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Gee, S., & Pipe, M.-E. (1995). Helping children to remember: The influence of object cues on children's accounts of a real event. Developmental Psychology, 31, 746-758.
23. Greenstock, J., & Pipe, M.-E. (1996). Interviewing children about past events: The influence of peer support and misleading questions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 69-80.
24. Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1998). Drawing facilitates children's verbal reports of emotionally laden events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 163-179.
25. Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1999). Drawing facilitates children's verbal reports after long delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 265-283.
26. Gross, J., Hayne, H., & Poole, A. (2006). The use of drawing in interviews with children: A potential pitfall. In J. R. Marrow (Ed.), Focus on child psychology research (pp. 119-144). New York: Nova.
27. Home Office. (2002). Achieving the best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, including children. London: Author.
28. Krackow, E., & Lynn, S. J. (2003). Is there touch in the game of Twister? The effects of innocuous touch and suggestive questions on children's eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 589-604.
29. Kurtz, B. E., & Borkowski, J. G. (1984). Children's metacognition: Exploring relations among knowledge, process, and motivational variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 335-354.
30. Lamb, M. E., & Brown, D. A. (2006). Conversational apprentices: Helping children become competent informants about their own experiences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 215-234.
31. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Hershkowitz, I. (2002). The effects of forensic interview practices on the quality of information provided by alleged victims of child abuse. In H. L. Westcott, G. M. Davies, & R. Bull (Eds.), Children's testimony: Psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 131-146). New York: Wiley.