Crying Equals Honesty : Crying Equals Honesty How Different Emotions Influence the Perceived Credibility of a Child Witness

4 Crying equals honesty: How different emotions influence the perceived credibility of a child witness . 7 Different emotions expressed during disclosure . 9 General beliefs concerning child witnesses‟ emotional behavior . 10 Children‟s perceived credibility and gender difference . 11 Displayed emotions and effects on perpetrators‟ guilt and length of sentence . 12 The present study . 13 Method . 14 Participants . 14 Materials . 14 The video tapes. 14 The interview and protocol and manuscript. 15 Credibility and the general questionnaire. 15 Procedure . 16 Results . 17 The Impact of Emotional Expression Upon Credibility and Reliability . 17 Credibility. 17 Reliability. 19 Probability of Guilt and guilt verdicts . 20 Rated probability of guilt. 21 Guilty verdicts. 22 Regression analysis. 23 Length of punishment . 24 Crying Equals Honesty: Emotional Expression Affects A Child Witness‟ Credibility 6 Discussion . 27 Credibility and Reliability . 27 Guilt Questions . 29 Suggested Length in Prison . 31 Conclusion . 34 Implications . 35 Limitations . 36 References . 38 Appendix . 43 The interview . 43 The questionnaire . 43 Crying Equals Honesty: Emotional Expression Affects A Child Witness‟ Credibility 7 Crying equals honesty: How different emotions influence the perceived credibility of a child witness One of the major problems in cases involving child sexual abuse (CSA) is the lack of concrete evidence. In many cases, the only evidence available is statements from the defendant and the victim. A child‟s statement is often used as the central piece of evidence in cases of CSA. The content of the child‟s statement has been, and is still, to some degree, considered the most influential factor when it comes to jurors‟ decisions about guilt and sentencing in cases concerning CSA (Shaw, Garcia, & McClure, 1999). But, there are indications to suggest that a child‟s demeanor (i.e., facial expression, tone of voice, and emotional expression) may have a larger impact on juror‟s decisions than the content itself (Golding, Fryman, Marsil, & Yozwiak, 2003). This points to a widespread expectation among jurors and laypeople, that children ought to cry and/or show negative emotions when they disclose maltreatment (especially CSA). Studies have shown that children‟s credibility may be questioned if they do not display emotions which accord with these expectations (Golding, et al., 2003; Regan & Baker, 1998). Studies from real forensic interviews have shown that children express a wide range of emotions, ranging from sad and neutral emotional states, to expressing anger, anxiety, confusion, shame, guilt, and even positive emotions (Goodman et al., 1992). These expectations that abused children should display negative, sad emotions are held by laypeople (Regan & Baker, 1998) and even by professionals (Coolbear, 1992). The same pattern is found when it comes to adult victims. Previous studies have shown robust effects when assessing how different emotional expressions alter the credibility of an adult witness who had been sexually abused (Bollingmo, Wessel, Sandvold, Eilertsen, & Magnussen, 2009; Bollingmo, Wessel, Eilertsen, & Magnussen, 2008; Kaufmann, Drevland, Wessel, Overskeid, & Magnussen, 2003; Wessel, Drevland, Eilertsen, & Magnussen, 2006). The victim‟s expressed emotional behavior made a significant difference when the victim‟s credibility was rated. Sad and crying behavior elicited a higher credibility rating among lay persons than happy and neutral behavior. The question of the perpetrator‟s guilt and length of their sentencing was also affected by different emotions expressed by the victim. The perpetrator was judged to be guilty more frequently and given a significantly higher prison sentence when sad behavior was expressed by the victim. Adult victims are also rated as more trust worthy and receive more sympathy when they display “correct” emotional behavior Crying Equals Honesty: Emotional Expression Affects A Child Witness‟ Credibility 8 (Rose, Nadler, & Clark, 2006; Tsoudis & Smith-Lovin, 1998). Different judgments of credibility due to different emotions expressed persist despite instructions to the jury regarding this, and were even present in police officers‟ judgments of the credibility of an alleged rape victim (Baldry, Winkel, & Enthoven, 1997; Bollingmo, et al., 2009; Bollingmo, et al., 2008). Studies have shown that the appropriateness of emotions displayed in different situations can be explained by display rules (i.e., meaning rules) (Ekman, 1993). These rules shape social expectations and regulate judgment of people. The display rule for which emotion corresponds to which social setting is fundamental and is also found in social and forensic settings, where judgment of credibility is affected by these rules (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Hess, Blairy, & Kleck, 2000; Hess et al., 2000; Rose, et al., 2006; Shields, 2005). These expectations of specific and “appropriate” emotions in response to abuse may represent a serious threat to the child‟s legal protection, since the statement and behavior make up a major part of the evidence. Perceptions of the child‟s emotional behavior and the impression they make are of great value when it comes to considering the child‟s credibility and reliability. There seems to be a widespread expectation that children resort to crying when disclosing cases of sexual abuse and children‟s testimonies are graded as more credible when they cry (Regan & Baker, 1998; Wood, Orsak, Murphy, & Cross, 1996). However, researchers have foundafter reviewing authentic police questionings and interrogations of childrenthat it is as common for a child to express „flat‟ emotional behavior when talking about abuse as it is for them to express negative behavior (Sayfan, Mitchell, Goodman, Eisen, & Qin, 2008). This suggests that the common expectation that the child will cry may damage or alter the child‟s credibility and affect the sentencing of the perpetrator. Recent research has shown that the behavior of the child may even alter the way the investigator asks or directs questions to the child to a much larger extent than previously thought (Melinder & Gilstrap, 2009). Children are vulnerable and investigators may be inclined to exacerbate and misinterpret children‟s abilities, competence, and emotional expression as witnesses (Goodman & Melinder, 2007). As the literature reviewed above suggest, the relationship between how the child wit