The belief that props help children report abuse has fostered the widespread use of
anatomical dolls and body diagrams in forensic interviews. Yet studies involving
alleged abuse victims, children who have experienced medical examinations, and
children who have participated in staged events have failed to find consistent
evidence that props improve young children’s ability to report key information
related to bodily contact. Because props elevate the risk of erroneous touch reports,
interviewers need to reconsider the belief that props are developmentally appropriate
in forensic interviews, and researchers need to explore new approaches for eliciting
disclosures of inappropriate touching.
AldridgeJ.LambM.E.SternbergK.J.OrbachY.EsplinP.W.BowlerL. (2004). Using a human figure drawing to
elicit information from alleged victims of child sexual abuse.
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72,
304–316.
2.
BoatB.W.EversonM.D. (1996). Concerning practices of
interviewers when using anatomical dolls in child protective services
investigations. Child Maltreatment,
1, 96–104.
3.
BrownD.A.PipeM.-E.LewisC.LambM.OrbachY. (2007). Supportive or suggestive: Do
human figure drawings help 5- to 7-year-old children to report
touch?. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 75,
33–42.
4.
BruckM. (2009). Human figure drawings and
children’s recall of touching. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 15,
361–374.
5.
BruckM.CeciS.J.FrancoeurE. (2000). Children's use of anatomically
detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination: Developmental
and gender comparisons. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 6,
74–83.
6.
BruckM.LandauB. (2009, May). Children’s reports
of touching experiences. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Association for Psychological Science, San
Francisco.
7.
DeLoacheJ.S. (2000). Dual representation and young
children’s use of scale models. Child
Development, 71,
329–338.
8.
DeLoacheJ.S.MarzolfD. P. (1995). The use of dolls to interview
young children: Issues of symbolic representation. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 60,
155–173.
9.
DickinsonJ.J.PooleD.A.BruckM. (2005). Back to the future: A comment on
the use of anatomical dolls in forensic interviews.
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5,
63–74.
10.
MalloyA.McKayK.SalmonK.PipeM.-E. (2010). Do dolls and human figure diagrams
increase the effectiveness of a protocol-guided interview in eliciting touch
reports from young children?Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
OrbachY.ShiloachH.LambM.E. (2007). Reluctant disclosers of child
sexual abuse. In PipeM.-E.LambM.E.OrbachY.CeberborgA.-C. (Eds.), Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and
denial (pp. 115–134). New
York, NY:
Routledge.
12.
PooleD.A.DickinsonJ.J. (2010). Evidence supporting restrictions on uses
of body outlines in forensic interviews. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
13.
PipeM.-E.SalmonK. (2009). Dolls, drawings, body diagrams,
and other props: Role of props in investigative interviews. In
KuehnleK.ConnellM. (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A
comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony (pp.
365–395). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
SaywitzK.J.GoodmanG.S.NicholasE.MoanS.F. (1991). Children's memories of a physical
examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual
abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59,
682–691.
16.
StewardM.S.StewardD.S. (with FarquharL.MyersJ.E.B.ReinhartM.WelkerJ.JoyeN.DriskillJ.MorganJ.). (1996). Interviewing young children
about body touch and handling. Monograph of the Society
for Research in Child Development (Serial No. 248,
Volume 61, Nos. 4–5).
17.
TeohY.-S.YangP.-J.LambM.E.LarssonA.S. (2010). Do human figure diagrams help
alleged victims of sexual abuse provide elaborate and clear accounts of physical
contact with alleged perpetrators?. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 24,
287–300.
18.
ThierryK.L.LambM.E.OrbachY.PipeM.-E. (2005). Developmental differences in the
function and use of anatomical dolls during interviews with alleged sexual abuse
victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73,
1125–1134.
19.
WillcockE.MorganK.HayneH. (2006). Body maps do not facilitate
children's reports of touch. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 20,
607–615.
20.
WolfnerG.FaustD.DawesR.M. (1993). The use of anatomically detailed
dolls in sexual abuse evaluations: The state of the science.
Applied & Preventive Psychology, 2,
1–11.
