Matching Items (2)
Description
When questioning children during courtroom testimony, attorneys are instructed to use questions that are short and simple to address children’s cognitive abilities; however, this typically leads to anaphora. Anaphora occurs when a word is substituted for a previously mentioned word, phrase, or concept. For example, the pronoun “he” in “Bill is moving to New York. He is very excited.” indicates an anaphora since the word “he” replaces the name Bill. When asked a question that includes a pronoun-specific anaphora, the respondent must use cognitive skills to refer back to the initial referent. This likely means that as the number of conversational turns between the initial referent and the end of the reference increases, there will be more probable miscommunications between children and attorneys in cases of alleged Child Sexual Abuse (CSA). In this thesis, I analyzed 40 testimonies from cases of alleged child sexual abuse (5-10 years old, 90% female), located attorney use of pronoun anaphora, backward reference distances, and identified probable misunderstandings. I identified 137 probable misunderstandings within 2,940 question-answer pairs that included pronoun anaphora. Attorneys averaged 4.1 questions before clarifying the referent (SD = 10.14), sometimes extending up to 146 lines, leading to considerable backwards referencing. The distance between the anaphora and referent had a significant effect on misunderstandings, where each additional Q-A pair made misunderstandings more likely to occur. To reduce misunderstanding, attorneys should avoid pronoun anaphora of excessive length that require children to backward reference.
ContributorsRuiz-Earle, Ciara Aisling (Author) / Stolzenberg, Stacia (Thesis advisor) / Fine, Adam (Committee member) / Yan, Shi (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
When allegations of sexual abuse are tried in criminal court, children are questioned about the abuse that occurred, including questions about the sexual body parts involved in the abuse. Miscommunication is likely to occur between the child and the attorney due to unsupportive questioning techniques and child’s developing understanding of sexual body terms. Given this, we examined how body term type, body term consistency, and attorney-type contributed to miscommunications. We found that children most often used Colloquially Understood-Vague terms (e.g., privates), less often used Colloquially Understood-Specific (e.g., pee-pee) and Anatomically Correct terms (e.g., penis), and least often used Unique terms (e.g., cookie). We had so few miscommunications (N = 19) and defense attorneys asked so few questions about body terms (N = 12) that we were unable to accomplish our original research aims. Instead, we conducted exploratory analyses on age and gender. Younger children (5-8) used Colloquially Understood-Vague terms significantly more often, while older children (9-12) used Colloquially Understood-Specific terms significantly more often. Boys were significantly more likely to use Colloquially Understood-Specific terms than girls but less likely to use Anatomically Correct and Unique terms. The findings of this study can be used to support a shift in educational practices for child sexual body terms towards specific anatomical terms and lead prosecutors to use body mechanic questions rather than open-ended ones.
ContributorsRuiz-Earle, Ciara (Author) / Stolzenberg, Stacia (Thesis director) / Sullivan, Colleen (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor)
Created2022-12