of the communicative effects of the rapport phase, and the collaborative play rapport approach. Acknowledgements There are a great number of people who have supported me, either personally or professionally, during the course of my PhD. First of all I would like to thank the ESRC for funding my research and therefore providing the financial support without which the current project would not have been possible. Next I would like to thank all of the police officers, social workers, children and schools who took the time to participate in my research. A special thank you goes to my supervisors Dr Martin Doherty and Professor Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon for their support. Martin took me on as his PhD student during my second year when Gwyneth moved to Northumbria University, and I am extremely appreciative of his thoroughness and attention to detail when evaluating my work. He has also finally taught me the fine art of how to write concisely! Despite her move to another University Gwyneth has remained a constant source of support and her dedication and hard work never fails to amaze me. She has been my inspiration throughout my undergraduate and postgraduate studies and I hope that our collaboration on this project will not be our last. Thank you also to Victoria Plant, Kayleigh Atkinson, Rebecca Duffield and Stacey Mitchell who were my research assistants during data collection for studies three and four. They kindly allowed me to dress them as pirates which created the event for the children to recall.
List of Figures Page Figure 2.1 Relative importance of the three components of rapport from early to late interactions 43 Figure 3.1a Screen print of the initial open codes (n = 71) 87 Figure 3.1b Screen print of the initial open codes (n = 71) 88 Figure 3.2 Screen print of categories after reduction in the constant comparison stage of analysis 89 Figure 3.3 Screen print of a sample of the relationships created in NVIVO during the axial coding stage of analysis 92 Figure 3.4 Screen print of a memo from the constant comparison stage of analysis 93 Figure 3.5 A screen print of an early model generated in the final stage of analysis 95 Figure 3.6 Final model of ‘the relationship between the rapport phase and children’s communication in investigative interviews’ 96 Figure 4.1 Relationship between total information and expressivity rating 174
1.4 Suggestibility This introductory chapter now moves on to discuss a particular aspect of children’s communication during forensic interviews that is greatly influenced by both cognitive and social factors. A large body of research in this field has looked at the suggestibility of children i.e. the ways in which children’s reports can be affected by information from their adult interviewer (e.g. Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Ceci & Bruck, 1993). Although not purposefully executed by the interviewer, this can occur because of preconceived ideas that alter the content and structure of the questioning (White, Leichtman, & Ceci, 1997). Also, as mentioned above, the cognitive overload experienced during the interview, can confuse the interviewer and lead to a misconstruction of events (Ceci et al., 1987). This misinformation can then be conveyed to the child during the questioning, and because of poor memory ability and the social demand characteristics of the interview, the child may fail to correct the interviewer and can even incorporate the incorrect information during subsequent recall. 1.4.1 Suggestibility and development Cognitive factors Of particular importance is the general finding that there exists a developmental difference in the suggestibility of children, with younger children being especially susceptible. One of the key underlying reasons for this effect is young children’s poorer memory performance. As mentioned previously, they can find the process of retrieval particularly problematic, and demonstrate more success with recognition based memory tasks (specific-closed and forced choice questions) than free recall (free narrative prompts/open questions, Saywitz & Lyon, 2002). Overall, researchers have consistently found that with pre-school aged children interviewers must rely more heavily on direct
Category Definition Age differences Differences in the approach and impact of rapport building on communication that are based on the age of the children. Comfortable The rapport phase makes the child feel at ease, or more at ease, which reduces their anxiety and facilitates communication. Individual basis The interviewer’s approach to rapport is based on the child’s individual presentation. The child’s presentation also gives the interviewer valuable information about how to conduct the remainder of the interview in terms of communication. Axial coding The categories generated up until this point were then further refined and reduced. This was achieved by analysing the excerpts from each category in detail and discovering redundancies, links and relationships between categories. As this point a ‘coding paradigm’ was adopted that centred on viewing the data from the perspective of the research aim, i.e. ‘facilitation of communication’. Coding paradigms are used to ensure that the researcher maintains focus relating to the research question, and begins to view the data in a more abstract and conceptual way (Payne, 2007). Consequently, rather than constantly describing
level of communication as it involves sharing a fantasy world with others. This activity is thought to enhance children’s understanding of other minds (Dunn, 1988), and occurs most frequently in preschool when children are developing a theory of mind (Fein, 1986). Piaget highlighted that play is a fun and relaxing activity, and this therefore provides the ideal forum for children to practise their developing cognitive skills. This perspective was also shared by Vygotsky (1962) who saw play as an important facilitator for cognitive development, especially during children’s pre-school years. He believed children are able to extend their current cognitive and social development when interacting with others. They can rehearse their own skills, as well as learn from their play mates. Additionally, through play, children can practise their developing motor skills. Play often involves physical activity, e.g. running and skipping, and it also incorporates fine motor skills, e.g. colouring in and drawing. Subsequently, learning in pre-school and early school years involves a substantial amount of play activity (Lifter, Foster-Sanada, Arzamarski, Briesch & McClure, 2011). Policy makers in education recognize that a large amount of learning can be achieved when playing, and it facilitates the process of comprehension in a variety of academic skills (Lifter et al., 2011). Types of play Parten (1932) was one of the first theorists to produce elaborate play classifications. These were as follows: unoccupied play, solitary play, onlooker play, parallel play, associative play and cooperative play. These types of play are understood with respect to the behaviour that occurs during each. For example, in solitary play the child is focused on their own activity and doesn’t notice or involve other children, whereas in parallel play the child copies other children’s play behaviour but doesn’t join in. This framework for play behaviour was, for many years, conceptualised with children’s social development (Bergen, 1988). However, recent research has shown that
than solitary play. The effect of Gender approached significance, F (1, 42) = 3.9, p= .054, ηp2 = .09 with females being more expressive than males. Age had no significant effect, F (2, 42) = .21, p> .05, ηp2 = .01, and there were no significant interactions between the factors (p’s >.05, refer to Table 4.1 for means and standard deviations). Table 4.1 Mean Expressivity Rating Across Rapport Type, Age and Gender Rapport type Age group and Gender Total 6-7 8-10 12-14 Males Collaborative play 4.53 (0.94) 5.04 (1.08) 4.80 (1.49) 14.37 (3.51) Solitary play 3.68 (1.83) 4.93 (0.71) 3.92 (0.88) 12.53 (3.42) Females Collaborative play 6.55 (1.84) 5.54 (1.03) 5.48 (1.62) 17.57 (4.49) Solitary play 4.16 (1.05) 4.42 (0.75) 4.85 (1.03) 13.43 (2.83) Total 18.92 (5.66) 19.93 (3.57) 19.05 (5.02) 57.90 (14.25) Note. Standard deviations for each score are in the brackets. Neither Rapport Type, F (1, 42) = 1.12, p> .05, ηp2 = .03 (M collaborative play = 5.43;M solitary play = 5.15); Age, F (2, 42) = 2.3, p> .05, ηp2= .01 (M 6-7 = 4.91; M 8-10 =
Table 4.3 Mean Spontaneous Information Elicited Across Rapport Type, Age and Gender Rapport type Age group and Gender Total 6-7 8-10 12-14 Males Collaborative play 113.75 (15.37) 73.40 (23.34) 115.80 (59.10) 302.95 (97.81) Solitary play 37.00 (26.43) 78.00 (27.87) 88.80 (50.05) 203.80 (104.35) Females Collaborative play 117.00 (15.64) 139.80 (61.25) 114.00 (47.74) 370.80 (124.63) Solitary play 70.00 (30.04) 89.80 (27.69) 116.50 (16.28) 276.30 (74.01) Total 337.75 (87.48) 381.00 (140.15) 435.10 (173.17) 1153.85 (400.80) Note. Standard deviations for each score are in the brackets. 4.3.3 Relationship between information elicited and expressivity There were significant positive correlations between total units of information and expressivity, r = .32, N = 54, p < .05, r2 = 0.10; and between spontaneous information and expressivity, r = .33, N = 54, p < .01, r2= 0.11 (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
In Scene 2 the child was asked to beat the drum with the sticks and sing a pirate song with the pirate. They then put on the pirate waistcoat and wrote their name in the pirate note book. In Scene 3 the child sat down at the table with the pirate. They both then coloured in the treasure map with the pens, and placed the map in the magic box. The child was told that the magic box would turn the coloured map into a real treasure map that they could use to find the hidden treasure. The pirate then put the box under the table. In Scene 4 the child read a pirate poem from a scroll and then fed the parrot the seed using the seed scoop. The pirate then asked the child to use the telescope to look around the classroom for 5 interesting things and to report back to the pirate. Whilst the child was doing this the pirate went back to the magic box and swapped the map they had coloured in for a real treasure map. This was to create the impression that the magic box had turned the child’s coloured map into the real treasure map. In Scene 5 the pirate and child looked back in the magic box to see if it had turned into a real treasure map. They then used the new map to find the barrel with the treasure chest in it. The map matched the layout of the room so that the child could easily use it to follow the trail to the treasure. The child then dug into the barrel filled with the polystyrene chips and found the treasure chest. Inside the chest were gold coins and jewellery, as well as a pirate certificate that stated the child was now a pirate and was fit to sail the seven seas. The child was told by the pirate not to tell anyone about the activities they had done that day and that they must keep it a secret. This was to make the child more reticent during the interview a week later. Finally, in Scene 6 the child filled out the state version of the with the help of the pirate and was then taken back to their classroom. The entire event lasted no longer than 15 minutes.
other significant interactions (all p’s > .05). For the means and standard deviations for the different age groups and rapport types please refer to Table 5.1 below. Accuracy of reports A second MANOVA was carried out with the same independent variables as before (Age group, Gender & Rapport type) with total accurate units of information given, and accurate information produced in the free narrative phase as the dependent variables. Table 5.2 Accurate Units of Information Given in the Free Narrative Phase Following the Different Rapport Protocols and Across Age Groups 5-7 8-10 Total Play 28.60 (17.70) 51.06 (16.51) 79.66 (34.21) Open 28.50 (20.14) 47.60 (18.98) 76.10 (39.12) Control 32.06 (13.83) 33.50 (17.23) 65.56 (31.06) Total 89.16 (51.67) 132.16 (52.72) 221.32 (104.39) Note. Standard deviations for each score are in the brackets. The MANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of Age group, F (2, 80) = 22.96, p < .001, ηp2 = .37. Subsequent univariate analyses revealed 8-10 year olds (M = 173.22) gave significantly more accurate information in total than the 5-7 year old age group (M = 114.98), F (1, 81) = 46.33, p < .001, ηp2 = .36. Additionally, the 8-10 year olds (M =
There were no other significant interactions (all p’s > .05). Please refer to Table 5.2 for means and standard deviations for the different age groups and rapport types. A third MANOVA was conducted looking at the effects of the independent variables on the number of total inaccuracies provided by the children and inaccuracies given in response to the free narrative phase. There were no main effects for Age group F (2, 80) = 1.62, p = .21, ηp2 = .04; Gender F (2, 80) = .12, p = .89, ηp2 = .003; or Rapport type F (4, 162) = .92, p = .45, ηp2 = .02. The MANOVA revealed no significant interactions (all p’s > .05, please refer to table 9.1 for means and standard deviations). Table 5.3 Total Inaccurate Units of Information and Inaccurate Information Given in the Free Narrative Phase Following the Different Rapport Protocols and Across Age Groups 5-7 8-10 Total Total Inaccurate Information Play 7.33 (6.86) 15.76 (15.38) 23.09 (22.24) Open 9.56 (7.28) 10.73 (7.96) 20.29 (15.24) Control 8.94 (4.77) 7.33 (6.48) 16.27 (11.25) Total 25.83 (18.91) 33.82 (29.82) 59.65 (48.73) Free Narrative Inaccurate Information Play 0.13 (0.35) 2.18 (4.08) 2.31 (4.43) Open 0.94 (1.88) 0.93 (2.63) 1.87 (4.51) Control 0.81 (1.38) 1.50 (3.37) 2.31 (4.75) Total 1.88 (3.61) 4.61 (10.08) 6.49 (13.69) Note. Standard deviations for each score are in the brackets.
communicative dynamic. This is related to the seminal work by Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs (1986). They found that during conversation individuals collaborate to determine the communicative structure of the interaction. The content of the communication is jointly constructed and carried on until individuals reach an agreement on an accepted version of communication. The children and interviewer in the present study therefore, may have scaffold and jointly constructed an interactional style that conveys to the children their role as valuable contributors. This may have increased the children’s understanding of their expected contribution which extended to the substantive phase of the interview. Future research should manipulate and measure children’s contribution to the play task to validate and investigate this idea further. Suggestibility and empowerment An interesting finding was that the children in the play rapport condition were more resistant to misleading questions than children in the open condition, but that neither rapport conditions produced suggestibility benefits over the control condition. This does not fit with the effects found for richness and accuracy of information. If social support improves cognitive processing, through reduced anxiety or communicative scaffolding, then why have the same pattern of results not been found for suggestibility? Perhaps the suggestibility effects in this study are affected by some other psychological mechanism. Suggestibility resistance is possibly more of a social task than a cognitive one. Correction of an adult authority figure requires confidence from a child (Doherty-Sneddon & McAuley, 2000). As mentioned in chapter 1, there exists a power asymmetry in interactions (Davies & Bottoms, 2002a, b). Perhaps play rapport reduced the power imbalance as the children and interviewer work together to complete the task. The children’s contribution would perhaps change their perception of the adult as an authority figure, and give them the confidence to correct the interviewer should they say something
6.3.2 Effects of Rapport protocol, Age and Gender on changes in anxiety A three-way analysis of variance was carried out with Rapport Type (play vs. open vs. control), Age group (5-7 vs. 8-10) and Gender as the independent variables. Heart rate Analyses revealed no significant effects for Rapport type, F (2, 58) = .26, p = .77, ηp2= .01; Age group, F (1, 58) = 1.56, p = .22, ηp2= .03; or Gender, F (1, 58) = 2.10, p = .15, ηp2= .15. There were no significant interactions (all p’s > .05). For the Age group and Rapport type means and standard deviations please refer to Table 6.1 below. STAI-C There were no significant main effects found for Rapport type, F (2, 77) = .84, p = .44, ηp2= .02; Age F (1, 77) = 3.22, p = .08, ηp2= .04; or Gender, F (1, 77) = .02, p = .90, ηp2< .001. There were no significant interactions (all p’s > .05). For Age group and Rapport type means and standard deviations please refer to Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 Changes in Heart Rate Variability (bpm) and State Anxiety Across Age Groups and Rapport Protocols 5-7 8-10 Total Heart Rate Play 0.44 (3.85) -3.45 (4.72) -3.01 (8.57) Open -0.51 (3.25) -1.91 (3.52) -2.42 (6.77) Control -2.37 (2.55) -1.26 (4.89) -3.63 (7.44) Total -2.44 (9.65) -6.62 (13.13) -9.06 (22.78) State Anxiety Play -0.41 (2.92) 0.33 (3.48) -0.08 (6.40) Open -0.40 (2.82) 0.57 (3.84) 0.17 (6.66) Control 0.19 (3.17) 2.00 (2.92) 2.19 (6.09) Total -0.62 (8.91) 2.90 (10.24) 2.28 (19.15) Note. Standard deviations for each score are in the brackets.
6.3.3 Relationship between changes in anxiety, recall and suggestibility Heart rate There were no significant relationships found between changes in heart rate variability and total units of information, r = -.02,N = 70, p = .86, r2 = .0004; information given in the free narrative phase, r = .01, N = 70, p = .95, r2 = .0001; total accurate information, r = -.02, N = 70, p = .85, r2 = .0004, or correct answers to misleading questions, r = .01, N = 70, p = .94, r2 = .0001. STAI-C No significant relationships were found between changes in anxiety score and total units of information given by the children, r = .04, N = 89, p = .74, r2 = .0016; information given in the free narrative phase, r = -.01, N = 89, p = .95, r2 = .0001; total accurate information, r = .11, N = 89, p = .31, r2 = .01; or correct answers to misleading questions, r = .04, N = 89, p = .71, r2 = .001. 6.3.4 Relationship between changes in anxiety and rapport levels There was no significant relationship found between changes in heart rates and rapport levels, r = -.16, N = 70, p = .19, r2 = .02. In addition, there was no significant relationship between changes in state anxiety and rapport level, r = .05, N = 89, p = .63, r2 = .002. 6.4 Discussion 6.4.1 Summary Overall, according to the heart rate data, the children’s arousal levels were reduced between the pirate event and the interview phases of the experiment. No difference was found however when measured by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al.,
happen?’, ‘is there more you can tell me?’ The interviewer appears supportive and demonstrates active listening throughout, e.g. head nods or verbal facilitators such as ‘uh huh’. Phase three: Questioning Questions are used to assist further recall when the child’s account has been exhausted in the free narrative phase. There are various types of questions employed and their use is based upon how directive the interviewer needs to be. The questions used should be primarily open-ended followed by specific-closed questions. Forced choice and leading questions should only be used if deemed necessary. Open-ended questions These types of questions tend to elicit better quality information from children (see chapter 1 for a further detailed theoretical explanation). Open-ended questions are structured in such a way that the content and flow of information is controlled by the child and the responses are unrestricted. In addition, they pick up on information given by the child during the free narrative phase to permit further elaboration, e.g. ‘you said that he took you to the shopping centre, tell me more about that’ (Home Office, 2011). Specific-closed questions These questions allow a narrower range of responses and should only be used to further explore information described in the free narrative phase or in response to questions. These questions permit a greater level of control by the interviewer, but they provide the opportunity for the child to be passive when answering and subsequently the child may reduce their efforts during recall. These tend to be ‘what’ ‘when’ ‘who’ and ‘where’ type questions, e.g. ‘what colour was his shirt?’ Forced choice questions
Participant: uh huh, uh huh. Interviewer: and you felt as though you were conveying that you were interested in what she had to say? Participant: yeah. Interviewer: okay, that’s fair enough. In your experience, this is always a really difficult question to word (laughs), I always stumble over this question, I’m interested in how rapport, what impact rapport may have on communication for the whole interview, right? Could you speak about that for a minute if you, please be honest and say no if you don’t think it has an impact but if it does or whatever …? Participant: well it does but it’s not always ehm, it does but it’s different in every interview, I would say and sometimes your rapport isn’t a phase at the start it’s an as you go through thing because sometimes the child’s not interested in, y’know they know why they’ve come to speak to you and they’re really not interested in, particularly I would say, well not even particularly. I’ll do it in two parts, if you get older children and teenagers and they know why they are speaking to you generally and if you yes you’ll have a chat at the start but you’re not going to spend ages talking about their interests and their hobbies or whatever because they are just like “well what am I here to speak to you about? I know what I’m here to talk to you about …” It’s quite embarrassing for them or whatever. It’s more about how you speak to them I think and sometimes it’s as you go through you get a bit of rapport with them cos you’ll be chat about, they’ll be chatting about things that have happened around about things you’re going to be asking them. Sometimes I think the rapport, it’s always important because if they don’t think you are interested in them then they are just going to tell you nothing, they are not going to give you any account and I think also sometimes you can’t do it at the beginning with little kids, you have to watch what you are doing because they would, if you never get to the point then they would go on
2. How much did you enjoy the (name of task)? I really, really enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. I sometimes enjoyed it. I did not enjoy it. I really, really did not enjoy it. 3. How much did you like the (name of task)? I really, really liked it. I really liked it. I sometimes liked it. I did not like it. I really, really did not like it.
4. How much would your friends like to do the (name of task)? They really, really would like to do it. They would like to do it. They would sometimes like to do it. They would not like to do it. They really, really would not like to do it. 5. How difficult was the (name of task)? It really, really was not difficult. It was not difficult. It was sometimes difficult. It was difficult. It was really, really difficult.
6. How much do you like Christmas? I really, really like Christmas. I like Christmas. I sometimes like Christmas. I do not like Christmas. I really, really do not like Christmas. 7. How much would you like to do the (name of task) again? I would really, really like to do it again. I would like to do it again. I would sometimes like to do it again. I would not like to do it again. I would really, really not like to do it again.