![]() Empirical evidence confirms that repeated open-ended questions can lead to changes in what children recount, even though the information often remains accurate (for a review, see Pipe, Lamb, Orbach, & Esplin, 2004). Potentially more problematic is that, when questions are repeated within an interview, children may assume that their earlier answers were incorrect and completely change their previously correct responses (e.g., Poole & White, 1991). For instance, children may assume that if a question is repeated, the interviewer would like to know information not already reported, leading to changes over time in the content of information reported ( Fivush & Schwarzmueller, 1995). However, considerable controversy exists concerning the effects of question repetition on children’s accuracy. In legal contexts, exposure to repeated questions and interviews is common for many child witnesses (e.g., Garven, Wood, Malpass, & Shaw, 1998 Goodman et al., 1992 Malloy, Lyon, & Quas, in press). Finally, it is unknown as to whether maintaining that lie affects children’s ability to report other information unrelated to the lie.Įffects of Repeated Questions on Accuracy, Consistency, and Deception Thus, although young children have some intentional deceptive capabilities, it remains unclear as to whether they are similarly competent when asked to lie about an entirely false action (i.e., touch when none occurred, a personal event that has potential relevance to legal cases) and are repeatedly asked about it. Also, the children were not asked repeatedly about the lie. The lie simply required that children alter specific event details. Of note, in these studies, children engaged in activities related to the lie (drank juice, had stickers placed on their clothes). Not only were the children able to follow the instructions, but, to adults serving as mock jurors, the children’s lies were indistinguishable from statements provided by children who told the truth about having stickers placed on their bare skin. Orcutt, Goodman, Tobey, Batterman-Faunce, and Thomas (2001) had 7- to 9-year-olds lie during a mock forensic interview and say that stickers were placed on their bare skin (rather than clothing) during a prior play session. Feldman, Jenkins, and Popoola (1979), for instance, found that first graders could, when instructed, both falsely claim that sour juice tasted sweet and engage in brief appropriate behaviors (e.g., fake smiles) to support the lie. Extant findings, however, suggest that young children can, at least in some contexts, also maintain brief lies of commission. Yet, omitting information to keep a simple secret is different from creating an intentional false report, and only a paucity of studies has investigated this latter type of deception. Moreover, by age 6, children can provide false statements to back up their secrets ( Tye, Amato, Honts, Devitt, & Peters, 1999). For instance, by age 3, children can keep simple secrets, both spontaneously and when asked to do so by an adult (e.g., Bottoms, Goodman, Schwartz-Kenney, & Thomas, 2002 Talwar & Lee, 2002 Wilson & Pipe, 1989). ![]() (0.5, 0.5) (0.5, 0.Although relatively few studies have systematically examined children’s ability to maintain a coached lie about a fictitious event, studies have found evidence for basic deceptive abilities even in relatively young children. What is the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium of this game? The strategies are stated as follows: (probability that Player 1 plays T, probability that Player 1 plays B) (probability that Player 2 plays L, probability that Player 2 plays R). If the game is instead repeated infinitely and both players follow a grim reaper strategy, what minimum amount does $1 in period 2 have to be worth today in order for (NC, NC) to be an equilibrium? **A. In this prisoner's dilemma game, (C, C) is the unique Nash equilibrium when the game is played only once.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |