Do children really mean what they say? The forensic implications of preschoolers' linguistic referencing

This study compared younger (M = 53 months) and older (M = 90 months) children's use of linguistic referential devices to make a positive identification. Children were shown a 4-minute video that concluded with a wrongful act. They were interviewed 24 hours later and asked to identify the perpetrator of the wrongful act with open-ended and directive questions. Younger children were significantly more likely to fail to provide any pertinent information (p < .001) or employ a restrictive modifier to accomplish singular definite reference to a specific perpetrator (p < .001). When children made an initial ambiguous reference, but failed to respond to directive questions by appropriately restricting their reference, a false suggestion was presented by the interviewer to resolve the ambiguity. Ultimately, 42% of the younger and 91% of the older children made an identification, with 13% and 62% correct, respectively. The implications of these findings for forensic interviewers are discussed.

► Younger children exhibit pragmatic deficits relative to older children when questioned.
► A developmental pattern in the use of the restrictive relative clause is demonstrated
► Younger and older children have equal error rate in identifying an unfamiliar person
► Older children show greater facility responding to other-initiated repair requests