Law and Human Behavior

Manuscript version of

Children’s Performance on Ground Rules Questions: Implications for Forensic

Interviewing
Jason J. Dickinson, Sonja P. Brubacher, Debra A. Poole

Funded by:
• National Science Foundation

© 2015, American Psychological Association. This manuscript is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors’ permission.
The final version of record is available via its DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000119

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Running head: CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 1

Children’s Performance on Ground Rules Questions:

Implications for Forensic Interviewing

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 2

Abstract

Ground rules, also called interview instructions, are included in investigative interviews with

children around the world. These rules aim to manage the expectations of children who are

typically unaccustomed to being questioned by adults who are naïve to the children’s

experiences. Although analog research has examined the efficacy of ground rules instruction, a

systematic analysis of children’s ability to respond appropriately to each of the rules has not been

reported. In the current study, we scored the accuracy of children’s (N = 501, 4 to 12 years)

responses to five ground rules practice questions (for example, “What is my dog’s name?”) and

two questions that asked whether they would follow the rules, and then assigned inaccurate

responses to one of several error categories. Few children answered every question correctly, but

their performance on individual questions was encouraging. As expected, there were marked

differences in children’s understanding across ground rules questions (especially among the

younger children), with “Don’t guess” and “Tell the truth” rules being the easiest to comprehend.

Together with evidence that ground rules instruction takes little time to deliver (typically 2 to 4

minutes) and is associated with improved accuracy in previous research, these findings support

the use of ground rules in investigative interviews of children 4 years and older.

Keywords: ground rules, interview instructions, forensic interviewing, children

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 3

Children’s Performance on Ground Rules Questions: Implications for Forensic Interviewing

In everyday conversations, adults often question children about known or shared

experiences and scaffold conversation in ways that give children’s stories structure and content

(Wang, 2013). For example, adults encourage children to speculate in the face of difficult

questions and typically provide prompts that signal which events and details should be reported

(Principe, DiPuppo, & Gammel, 2013; Kelly & Bailey, 2013). During forensic interviews, this

narrative history may limit children’s ability to navigate the demands of being sole informants

about their experiences (Cordón, Saetermoe & Goodman, 2005; Hershkowitz, Lamb, Orbach,

Katz, & Horowitz, 2012; Lamb & Brown, 2006). More so than adults, children tend to guess

when the answer is unknown (Poole & White, 1993), respond to questions they do not

understand (Pratt, 1990), and fail to correct interviewers who say something wrong (Hunt &

Borgida, 2001). The extent to which children display these behaviors has been linked to

numerous factors, including meta-cognitive awareness (Roebers & Schneider, 2005), verbal

ability (Waterman & Blades, 2013), perceived situational demands (Howie & Dowd, 1996), and

the assumption that interviewers already possess knowledge of target events (Lamb, Orbach,

Warren, Esplin, & Hershkowitz, 2007; Mulder & Vrij, 1996; Waterman, Blades, & Spencer,

2004).

To prepare children for the unique challenges of a forensic interview, some interview

guidelines include ground rules (also called interview instructions; see Achieving Best Evidence

in Criminal Proceedings, Ministry of Justice, 2011; the National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development [NICHD] Protocol, Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin, & Horowitz,

2007). Ground rules can serve a number of functions, including (a) orienting children to the

interview (i.e., explaining the interviewer’s role and the purpose of the interview; Roberts, Lamb
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 4

& Sternberg, 2004; Sternberg, Lamb, Davies, & Westcott, 2001; Teoh & Lamb, 2010), (b)

assessing testimonial competence (that is, determining whether children can distinguish the truth

from a lie and will promise to tell the truth; Evans & Lyon, 2012; Klemfuss & Ceci, 2012); (c)

establishing conversational conventions to help prevent guessing, speculation, and

misunderstandings (by instructing children to not guess and granting permission to correct the

interviewer; Roebers, Moga, & Schneider, 2001); and (d) inoculating children against leading

questions (Endres, Poggenpohl, & Erben, 1999; Saywitz & Moan-Hardie, 1994).

Research on the efficacy of ground rules has yielded mixed results, with instruction

sometimes—but not always—improving the quality of children’s testimonies. Overall, ground

rules prove more effective when children are given opportunities to practice responding to

instructions (rather than simply hearing the rules; Gee, Gregory, Pipe, 1999; Krackow & Lynn,

2010; Nesbitt & Markham, 1999; Saywitz & Moan-Hardie, 1994). For example, Peterson and

Grant (2001) manipulated whether children received simple instructions to say “I don’t know”

prior to an interview about a previously-experienced event and found no effect of instruction on

children’s response patterns to yes-no and multiple choice questions. Other studies have

produced more encouraging results by explicitly training children to identify and refute

misleading or unanswerable questions using context-based examples. For instance, Saywitz and

Moan-Hardie (1994) significantly reduced children’s acquiescence to misleading questions by

providing extensive preinterview instructions and practice (the children practiced answering

misleading questions about a training video while receiving feedback from an assistant), and

Saywitz, Snyder, and Nathanson (1999) found that similar strategies significantly increased the

likelihood that children would signal when they did not understand incomprehensible and

complex questions. (For reviews, see Lyon, 2010, and Saywitz, Camparo, & Romanoff, 2010.)
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 5

Despite some optimistic findings, there is considerable variability in the number, content,

and placement of ground rules across interview protocols. In the NICHD protocol, for example,

interviewers guide children through a series of practice questions and provide corrective

feedback when necessary (“If I ask you a question and you don’t know the answer, say ‘I don’t

know.’ For example, what is my sister’s name?”; see Lamb et al., 2007). The newly developed

CornerHouse Forensic Interview ProtocolTM includes “orienting messages” and instructions prior

to substantive questioning (“If I get something wrong, you can tell me.”; Anderson, 2012, p. 4)

but does not explicitly call for interviewers to deliver practice questions. Other protocols do not

include a distinct ground rules phase at all. The RATAC® protocol (Anderson et al., 2010) and

Step-Wise Interview Guidelines (Yuille, Cooper, & Hervé, 2009; a revision to the Step-Wise

Interview; Yuille, 1990) do not require instructions but rather suggest that interviewers reinforce

rules when children spontaneously admit lack of knowledge, correct interviewer mistakes, or

indicate lack of understanding (for example, by saying “Good job. Thank you for telling me you

don’t understand.”).

The rationale for down-playing or omitting ground rules instruction is fourfold. First is a

belief that given children’s limited attention spans, time is better spent eliciting case relevant

information (Anderson et al., 2010). Second, helping-professionals worry that an inability to

answer ground rule questions could damage children’s credibility and call their testimonial

competence into question (see Evans & Lyon, 2012; Klemfuss & Ceci, 2012). Third, as noted

previously, research on the efficacy of ground rules has produced mixed results. Finally,

skeptics have raised concerns that ground rules instruction is too abstract and includes practice

questions that are not developmentally appropriate for young children (who find them difficult to

answer when presented in a formal interview phase; Yuille et al., 2009). (See also Geddie, Beer,
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 6

Bartosik, & Wuensch, 2001.)

Regarding this latter concern, research has yet to systematically map developmental

trends in children’s ability to respond appropriately to common ground rule questions—which is

arguably a prerequisite for efficacy. To explore this concern, we examined children’s ability to

answer five practice questions representing frequently recommended and researched ground

rules (Lamb et al., 2007; Brubacher, Poole, & Dickinson, 2014) and two questions that asked

children to confirm they would use those rules during a subsequent interview. Importantly,

interviewers gave some children additional instruction after incorrect answers, which allowed us

to determine whether further training improved performance. Finally, we cataloged the types of

errors commonly made by children and calculated the time it took interviewers to deliver these

questions in a formal interview phase.

Method

Participants

During two eyewitness projects conducted in our laboratories, interviewers had delivered

rapport-building questions, a practice interview (about a typical day at school), and a ground

rules phase to each child prior to questions about the target events (Poole & Dickinson, 2011,

2014). For the current study, we revisited the interview transcripts from these projects to analyze

how the children had responded to the ground rules questions. The first sample consisted of 218

children who were 5 to 12 years of age when they returned to our laboratories for a follow-up

interview (Mage = 8.78 years) approximately 1 or 2 years after exposure to a target event (Poole

& Dickinson, 2011). Ground rules instruction during their first laboratory experience was

minimal, however, with interviewers asking only if they would tell the truth and would say when

they did not understand (without practice questions). The second sample consisted of 283
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 7

children who were 4 to 9 years of age when they were interviewed for an in-progress eyewitness

project (Mage = 6.60 years). Both samples included data collected at two research sites (one in a

small Midwestern town and one in the New York metropolitan region). From the original

transcript sets, we selected only interviews of children who spoke English in their homes.

The combined sample of 501 children (46.9% female) was predominantly Caucasian

(82.9%), with 4.2% of the children identified by their parents as African American; 4.2% as

Asian; and 8.6% as Native American, Pacific Islander, mixed race, or other (7.1% were

ethnically Hispanic). In addition to English, 7.8% of families said that another language was

also spoken in the home.

Procedure

Assistants for the first sample began each session by obtaining parental consent followed

by child assent (for children less than 7 years) or consent (for children 7 years or older). They

then escorted individual children into a room to experience a second eyewitness event

immediately before the interview (see Poole & Dickinson, 2014). Assistants for the second

sample began sessions by greeting children and escorting them into the interviewing room. (The

consent process had been completed a week earlier, before the staged eyewitness event.) Forms

for both samples included a family demographics questionnaire (completed by a parent) and

debriefing consent forms that each child and parent signed after the interview.

Ground Rules Protocol

For both samples, interviewers (N = 23) introduced themselves, delivered a rapport-

building phase, and asked each child to describe a typical school day. Interviewers then

transitioned to the ground rules phase (“Now that I know you better, I want to talk about some

rules we have in this room. . .”) and delivered seven questions regarding instructions (a) not to
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 8

guess, (b) to inform the interviewer when they did not understand a question and (c) when the

interviewer said something wrong, and (d) to tell the truth. The wording of initial practice

questions was identical across samples, and all interviewers were instructed to try to elicit correct

answers by delivering additional explanations of ground rules when necessary. However,

because some interviewers for the first sample found it difficult to improvise after wrong

answers, particularly during “Don’t guess,” “Tell me when you don’t understand,” and “Tell me

when I say something wrong” instruction, the interview protocol for the second sample included

guidance about how to proceed after wrong answers to these questions, as described in Table 1.

Data Coding

The length of each ground rules phase was computed from time codes on the interview

recordings. To score each child’s answers to individual questions, two assistants assigned letters

that identified the content of the child’s first answer, last answer (if the first answer was not the

desired response and the interviewer redelivered the question one or more times), and the

number of follow-up prompts (not counting the initial question) delivered before the child’s final

answer. The assistants ignored dialog in which interviewers delivered unauthorized leading

questions to prompt a correct response (e.g., “So running is a lie, right?”) and scored children’s

answers to the earlier authorized question.

The letter codes identified first and last answers as missing (when the interviewer skipped

or inappropriately reworded the question), the desired response (for example, “I don’t know” in

response to “What is my dog’s name?”), or some other response. Nine codes described these

other responses: (a) no verbal or nonverbal response, (b) the child’s last response was a

clarification question, (c) “yes” and (d) “no” responses when these were not the desired

responses (e.g., Interviewer: “While we are talking today, will you tell me when you don’t
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 9

understand?” Child: “No.”), (e) “I don’t know,” (f) “I don’t understand” or “What/Huh?”(when

this was not the desired response), (g) incorrect but answering the question (e.g., Interviewer:

“For example, what is my dog’s name?” Child: “Buddy?”), (h) irrelevant (e.g., Interviewer:

“Will you tell me when you don’t understand?” Child: “My brother picks, picks his boogers.”),

and (i) other. Unlike irrelevant responses, “other” responses were clearly related to the question

topic. For example, coders recorded “other” whenever children made a comment about a dog in

response to “What’s my dog’s name?” and when they began narrating true events in response to

“Will you tell me the truth today?”

Agreement for coding children’s first answers as the desired response or another response

ranged from 95.3% to 99.4% for the individual ground rules questions, Cohen’s kappas = .89 to

.98. Agreement for coding final answers (correct first answers and last answers following

redelivery of questions) ranged from 93.7% to 99.2%, Cohen’s kappas = .73 to .92. Agreement

for sorting undesired errors into the various error categories ranged from 87.8% to 97.0%,

Cohen’s kappas = .82 to .97. Finally, agreement on the exact number of prompts required to

elicit the final answer ranged from 96.4 to 99.6%, intraclass correlations = .83 to .99. Each

disagreement was resolved by discussion after the coders jointly reread the transcript.

Accuracy Scoring

Children’s responses were computer rescored as accurate when they provided desired

responses to the “Don’t guess” (any response meaning “I don’t know”), “Tell me when you don’t

understand” (any response indicating the child did not understand, including “huh?” and

“what?”), “Will you tell me when you don’t understand?” (yes), “Tell me when I say something

wrong” (any answer indicating that the interviewer misspoke or that the child was not the

erroneous age), and “Will you tell me the truth today?” (yes) prompts. The “true or not true
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 10

(truth)” question was scored two ways: Conservative scoring accepted only “true” or the

equivalent, whereas lenient scoring accepted either “true” or “yes.” The “true or a lie (a lie)”

question was also scored two ways: Conservative coding accepted only “a lie” or the equivalent,

whereas lenient coding accepted either “a lie” or “no.”

Results

Time to Deliver Ground Rules Instructions

The duration of instruction ranged from 1.15 to 6.10 minutes, with 98% of interviews

containing ground rules instruction lasting 4 minutes or less (M = 2.06 minutes, SD = .70). The

duration of instruction shortened as age increased, r = -.49, p < .001.

Performance on Individual Ground Rules

Preliminary analyses. To evaluate whether performance on the individual questions

was comparable across samples, we compared the percentages of 5- through 8-year-olds who

answered each question accurately with separate binomial logistic regressions, controlling for

age and sex. There were no significant differences across samples among children’s first

responses to the seven questions (using the conservative scoring of truth/lie questions, p values

adjusted using the False Discovery Rate method, Benjamini & Hockberg, 1995). Comparable

analyses on the accuracy of final answers (which sometimes followed additional instruction from

interviewers) yielded one significant difference: A higher percentage of children in the second

sample correctly answered the “Tell me when I say something wrong” question (unadjusted p <

.001). This finding was likely due to the fact that the interview protocol for the second sample

told interviewers what to say when children erred. To simplify data presentation, we collapsed

over samples to report performance on all questions except “Tell me when I say something

wrong.”
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 11

Because preliminary analyses found age trends on some questions even among older

children, we did not collapse over older age groups to describe children’s performance. For

example, there was a significant correlation among children 8 and older between age and

accuracy, controlling for sex, for first responses to the “Tell me when you don’t understand”

question, r = .16, p = .03, and “I am sitting. Is that true or a lie?”, r = .15, p = .03.

Accuracy of first and final responses. Table 2 lists the accuracy of children’s first

responses (i.e., the percentage of correct responses following the first delivery of each question;

left column) and their final performance (i.e., accurate first responses combined with final

responses after redelivery of questions; middle column). Because interviewers sometimes failed

to deliver additional instruction after wrong answers (or asked unscored leading questions), we

also computed the accuracy of children who either answered correctly in response to the first

delivery of a question or received additional instruction and redelivery of the question after a

wrong answer (right column). Point-biserial correlations at the bottom of each column report the

strength of relationships between age and accuracy, controlling for sex. (Data from the two

samples are presented separately for “Tell me when I say something wrong,” and performance

on the truth/lie questions is reported for both the conservative and lenient scoring methods.)

From the right column of Table 2, notice that few children failed to say “I don’t know”

after “Don’t guess” instructions, only the 4-year-olds erred more than 15% of the time in

response to “Tell me when I say something wrong,” and performance was also above 90% for all

age groups on questions that asked children to label statements as true or a lie. The 4- and 5-

year-olds were confused by instructions to tell interviewers when they didn’t understand, but

over 90% of the children in all age groups agreed to do so in response to “Will you tell me when

you don’t understand?” Finally, only the 4-year-olds were frequently confused by “Will you tell
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 12

me the truth today?”, although even the 5- to 8-year-olds often required additional explanation to

comprehend this request.

We were curious whether more than two attempts to elicit correct answers paid off,

especially for the younger children. Therefore, we examined whether accuracy remained near

zero or improved for children who erred on the first and second delivery of the question (using

the conservative scoring of truth/lie questions) but then received additional instruction. For the

six questions with cases meeting these criteria (the number of such cases for each question is in

parentheses), many children eventually passed the ground rule: Don’t guess (83.3% correct, n =

6), Tell me when you don’t understand (20.0%, n = 10), Will you tell me when you don’t

understand? (77.8%, n = 9), Tell me when I say something wrong (65.2%, n = 23), True or not

true (truth)? (50.0%, n = 2), and Will you tell me the truth today? (70.4%, n = 27). Furthermore,

even the youngest children benefitted from more effort on the part of interviewers. For example,

all three of the 4-year-olds who needed multiple tries to say “I don’t know” eventually did so,

and 37.5% of the 8 4-year-olds who had difficulty correcting the interviewer eventually

succeeded.

Typical Errors

The errors children produced provide insight into how they sometimes interpret ground

rules, which can suggest better procedures for delivering instructions. To this end, Table 3

reports the percentage of errors in response to the first delivery of each question that represented

the various error categories (top panel), along with the percentage of all first responses (accurate

and inaccurate) representing each error category (bottom panel). Frequent errors were as

follows:

Don’t guess. Children rarely guessed in response to this question (only 2.8% of the
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 13

current sample did), but inappropriate guessing was the most frequent type of

error when interviewers asked about something the children did not know.

“Other” responses were also a common type of error and typically involved

comments about dogs (e.g., “I don’t have a dog”).

Tell me when you don’t understand. Children who erred most often answered “I don’t

know” when interviewers used a word they did not understand (rather than

correctly saying “I don’t understand”), but 40.0% of errors involved attempts to

answer the question. “Will you tell me when you don’t understand?” tended to

elicit no response or expressions of confusion from children who did not say

“yes,” suggesting the need to test alternative versions of this question.

Tell me when I say something wrong. Among children who failed to grasp this ground

rule, “How do you like being (wrong age) years old?” frequently elicited an

answer (e.g., “Um… I don’t”) or simply “I don’t know.”

Tell the truth. Most children provided desired responses to the truth-lie discussion, but

there was one recurring confusion: In response to “Will you tell me the truth

today?”, many children (over a third of those who made errors) responded by

narrating things that were true (e.g., “Hmm… You’re sitting”).

In sum, performance was good when interviewers delivered additional instruction after

errors, with high pass rates among children 7 years and older on all questions (right column of

Table 2). The 6-year-olds also did remarkably well, struggling only with “Tell me when you

don’t understand” (erring on about 15% of these questions). The 4- and 5-year-olds performed

noticeably poorer, but even this age group typically said “I don’t know” after instruction to do

so, corrected interviewer mistakes, and correctly labeled statements as true or a lie. The most
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 14

challenging questions involved telling the interviewer when they did not understand a question

(with the majority of 4-year-olds and almost 35% of 5-year-olds failing this ground rule even

when interviewers gave them a second attempt) and, for the 4-year-olds, agreeing to tell the truth

(with about 27% of failing to complete this request even with an additional prompt to do so).

Overall Performance of Children and Interviewers

The perception among some forensic interviewers that children have difficulty answering

ground rules questions (e.g., Yuille et al., 2009) is not strongly supported by children’s

performance on the individual questions in Table 2. However, this perception may be based on

children’s ability to successfully complete an entire set of questions. Of course, the proportion

of children who pass all ground rules questions will vary across different question sets and ways

of wording these questions. Nonetheless, we can get a sense of what interviewers might face by

looking at the percentage of children who passed every question. To provide this information,

for each age group we computed the percentage of children in the second sample whose final

answers correctly answered all questions, using the lenient coding of truth/lie questions and

combining 8-year-olds with the few 9-year-olds. These percentages, from 4 to 8-9 years of age,

were 7.1%, 29.4%, 50.9%, 54.2 and 61.0%, respectively. Thus despite the fact that the children

as a group performed well on individual questions, individual children frequently erred on at

least one.

For most questions and age groups, interviewer errors did not have a large impact on

accuracy rates. (In Table 2, sample size differences between the leftmost and rightmost columns

represent sessions in which interviewers did not deliver at least one prompt after a wrong

answer.) Over all age groups, the percentage of sessions in the second sample in which

interviewers should have prompted after the first incorrect answer but did not ranged from only
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 15

4% to 8% for “Don’t guess,” “Will you tell me when you don’t understand?,” “Tell me when I

say something wrong,” “True or not true (truth)?” “True or a lie (lie)?” and “Will you tell me the

truth today?” Interviewers made more mistakes delivering “Tell me when you don’t

understand.” For this question, they moved on prematurely during 23% of sessions, with most

mistakes (86%) occurring when children responded “I don’t know” and interviewers accepted

that answer. (In the field, “I don’t understand” prompts interviewers to clarify questions,

whereas “I don’t know” could lead to a loss of information.) Knowledge of this pattern, along

with the other errors reported in Table 3, can be used to script future instructions that better help

interviewers anticipate and respond to the typical answers children provide to ground rules

questions.

Discussion

This study produced the first systematic characterization of developmental differences in

children’s responses to five of the most frequently researched ground rule interview questions.

Overall, the greatest differences were observed between the 4- and 5-year-olds and between

these younger groups and children 6 years and older. Importantly, giving children additional

opportunities to respond increased accurate responses and reduced the magnitude of the

relationship between age and accuracy for all but the “Tell me when you don’t understand” rule.

Although these results do not mean that children who receive additional training will

demonstrate improved testimonial accuracy, opportunities to practice appear to enhance

children’s understanding of the rules.

Performance on Individual Ground Rules

Examining performance on individual questions leads to a relatively optimistic

impression of children’s abilities and demonstrates clear links between performance and the
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 16

cognitive complexity of the question. For example, over 80% of the youngest children in the

sample answered the “Don’t guess” question accurately on the first attempt, with no other

interview instruction producing such high accuracy. When children did err in response to this

question, it was most often by guessing (e.g., a dog’s name), thereby providing interviewers with

opportunities to correct this behavior. (Most children who initially erred—75%—correctly said

“I don’t know” in response to interviewers’ second attempt at this question.) The fact that nearly

all of the children in our sample answered correctly after more than one attempt supports the

practice of instructing children to not guess. (See Gee et al., 1999, and Saywitz & Moan-Hardie,

1994, for instructions that reduce unwanted “I don’t know” responses.)

Following the “Don’t guess” practice question, the truth and lie questions were arguably

the easiest for children to comprehend. The marked difference between the 4- and 5-year-olds,

and again between 5-year-olds and older children, was evident for initial responses. After further

attempts by some interviewers, however, at least 90% of all children could say what was true and

what was a lie. This finding is not surprising given that most children can make the truth/lie

distinction by 4 years of age (for a review, see Talwar & Crossman, 2012). That improvements

were observed among younger children from the first to the last response is likely associated

with their ability to comprehend the purpose of the questions, rather than earlier failures to

distinguish between truth and lie (for further discussion of “identification” questions, see Evans

& Lyon, 2012). Examining children’s errors reveals that, for the truth question, the bulk of their

erroneous responses (60.7%) with conservative scoring were a result of saying “yes” to the

question “I’m sitting right now, is that true or not true?”, and more than a quarter of the errors to

the lie question were “no” responses (i.e., “You are running right now, is that true or a lie?”).

Only 17% of the errors to the lie question were indications of confusion (i.e., “Huh?” or “I don’t
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 17

know.”).

Despite good performance on the truth/lie questions, asking children if they would tell the

truth failed to elicit a “yes” response from over a quarter of 4-year-olds, and some older children

also did not reply appropriately. Evidently, children often interpreted the question as a request to

say things that were true rather than a request to agree to tell the truth. For example, when one of

the authors asked this question in an unrelated project, the child instantly (and self-consciously)

admitted that a statement he had made minutes earlier had not been entirely accurate, and he

proceeded to correct his previous statements. Although such linguistic confusions can be

resolved by additional explanation, it would be helpful to identify the best way to elicit this

promise. Lyon and Dorado (2008) found that “can you” questions (“Can you promise that you

will tell me the truth?”) often elicited “yes” or “no” (rather than a narrative) and that using this

question prior to an interview increased true disclosures of transgressions without increasing

false disclosures. A subsequent study of children’s ability to comprehend the words commonly

used to elicit an oath suggested a straightforward alternative: “Do you promise that you will tell

the truth?” (Lyon & Evans, 2014) .

Instructions about failures in comprehension and interviewer errors were challenging for

children. When they erred on the “don’t understand” question (“Is my shirt gridelin?”), most of

the time they said they did not know, thus failing to explicitly tell interviewers that a

comprehension failure had occurred. In addition, 40% of errors were problematic from a

forensic perspective (a “yes” or “no” response). “Tell me when I say something wrong” elicited

an undesirable response just over one-third of the time. Again, “don’t know” (28.3%) and

implicit indications of confusion (14.5%) were common, suggesting that children recognized the

disruption in communication but had trouble verbalizing it (see Flavell, Speer, Green, & August,
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 18

1981, for other examples of implicit indications of comprehension failures). As we explain next,

there are two likely reasons why these questions were the most developmentally-challenging of

the set: (a) There are no obvious strategies for producing consistently accurate answers that

bypass the need for a firm grasp of theory-of-mind along with continuous meta-cognitive

monitoring, and (b) more advanced language skills are needed to understand and correctly

respond to these questions.

Cognitive Development and the Ability to Understand Ground Rules

The basic theory-of-mind skills that are relevant to ground rules understanding (e.g., the

awareness that knowledge and memories are gained via experience, and the understanding that

others can hold different beliefs or perspectives than oneself; see Wellman & Liu, 2004, for task

descriptions and developmental trajectories) develop between the ages of 4 and 6 years of age

(Peterson, Wellman & Slaughter, 2012; Wellman & Liu, 2004). Correlations among

performance on various theory-of-mind tasks and the ability to understand each of the ground

rules have not been reported, but our findings of clear improvements between 4 and 6 years on

many rules suggest that these should be positively related.

Responding appropriately to particularly difficult instructions, such as flagging errors

made by the interviewer and explaining that a miscommunication has occurred, likely relies on

more sophisticated metacognitive skills (Gee et al., 1999; Saywitz et al., 1999). In both

situations, children must first attend to the erroneous or ambiguous component of the question,

compare it to their memory or knowledge base, and then alert the interviewer to the problem;

therefore, explicitly-controlled processing is required (Schneider & Pressley, 2013). Why, then,

is the “Don’t guess” ground rule easier, given that it also requires that children reflect on the

quality of their memories in order to decide whether questions can be answered on the basis of
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 19

knowledge or experience?

There two plausible reasons why this question was answered accurately in our sample

and in other research (e.g., Endres et al., 1999; Moston, 1987). First, children can use a

familiarity-based heuristic to reject a question when an answer does not come quickly to mind,

even if they do not follow the rule strategically. Indeed, several experiments in which children

were trained to say “don’t know” found that an increase in this response was coupled with both

decreased errors and decreased accuracy (e.g., Gee et al., 1999; Saywitz & Moan-Hardie, 1994).

The second reason involves question format. In our study, the “Don’t guess” practice question

was posed in the “wh-“ format, and children are more likely to provide accurate “don’t know”

responses to these rather than yes/no questions (Waterman & Blades, 2011; Waterman, Blades,

& Spencer, 2001).

The practice question for our “mistake” ground rule (“How do you like being [wrong age]

years old?”) was also posed as a wh- question but evidenced poorer performance than the “Don’t

guess” rule. Aside from the metacognitive challenges associated with the “mistake” rule, this

rule may have been difficult due to linguistic complexity. “How” is among the last wh- words to

be acquired (along with “when,” due to late development of temporal concepts; Ervin-Tripp

1970; Tyack & Ingram 1977). Indeed, our impression was that this question confused children

more than the follow-up prompt did, which did not commence with “how” (“What did you do at

the water park today?”). The initial question for this ground rule could also have been

interpreted as a hypothetical question (i.e., “How would you like to be [older wrong age]?” or an

inquiry about the past (“How did you like being [younger wrong age]?”). This caveat further

highlights the need for a careful and systematic analysis of the linguistic format of ground rules

questions. It would be beneficial for future research to directly compare question formats for
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 20

each ground rule to determine which is most effective at (a) conveying the purpose of the

question (and thus eliciting a correct response during the introductory phase) and (b) yielding

greater benefit in the substantive phase of the interview.

Are Ground Rules Useful for Forensic Interviews?

Individuals who are unenthusiastic about ground rules may argue that well-trained

interviewers avoid asking poor questions, rendering ground rules instruction unnecessary. Yet

even interviews comprised of a high proportion of open-ended prompts also include specific

questions (e.g., Sternberg et al. 2001), and it is often necessary to ask some specific questions of

younger children (Hershkowitz et al., 2012), who are the most vulnerable to the negative effects

of these questions.

Taken together, our results, along with evidence that ground rules practice questions can

improve children’s testimonial accuracy (Cordón et al., 2005; Gee et al., 1999; Krackow &

Lynn, 2010; Saywitz & Moan-Hardie, 1994; Saywitz et al., 1999), suggest that children are more

likely to comprehend ground rules and keep them in mind when extra effort is made to ensure

they can demonstrate competence. That is, simply telling children what to do is not particularly

effective (Ellis, Powell, Thomson, & Jones, 2003), and even older children may not respond

correctly to all rules on the first try.

Because ground rules instruction with follow-up practice can be delivered in just 2 to 4

minutes for most children, and scripting this interview phase reduces the burden on interviewers,

we believe this is time well-spent. (See Lamb et al., 2007, for discussion of the value of scripted

protocols.) Relatedly, when children are engaged in responding to practice rules (rather than just

passively listening to them), additional opportunities for rapport-building are naturally created

(Hershkowitz, 2011). Consistent with several protocols, we advise interviewers to take

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 21

advantage of opportunities to also reinforce ground rules later in the interview (e.g. Anderson,

2010; Yuille et al., 2009), as an interviewer in one of our projects recently did:

I: I see you understand what the truth is. It is important to tell me the truth—what really

happened. Will you tell me the truth today?

C: I don’t understand that. Like, tell you what happened today?

I: Yeah, so when I ask you questions in the interview will you say, will you tell the truth

when you answer them?

C: Yes.

I: Okay, good. And thank you for telling me you didn’t understand.

This example illustrates the logical problem with permitting interviewers to bypass an

initial ground rules phase and only address concepts as they come up: Interviewers would never

know when children did not know an answer or did not understand a question unless the children

did something to raise a concern. Therefore, as long as the evidence shows that children benefit

from initial instruction, and instruction takes a minimal amount of time (as we have shown), it

makes sense to deliver a ground rules phase.

Conclusions

The techniques caregivers use to encourage children’s emerging narratives (e.g., co-

construction) are in direct contrast to the demands of a forensic interview. To empower children

to respond accurately, most experts now recommend including a ground rules phase (e.g., Lamb

et al, 2007; Saywitz et al., 2010). Further efficacy research is needed to resolve questions about

the optimal number and placement of ground rules in interview protocols, and we hope that

future best-practice standards include recommendations tailored for children of different ages

and levels of cognitive ability. As a preliminary step toward stronger evidence-based practice,
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 22

our data provide the first characterization of developmental differences in children’s ability to

understand ground rules and highlight the importance of providing children with multiple

practice opportunities when they display confusion about individual rules.

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 23

References

Anderson, J. (2012). Reflecting on emerging issues. Retrieved from

www.cornerhouse.org/images/Protocol_Stage_Purpose_Approach.pdf

Anderson, J., Ellefson, J., Lashley, J., Miller, A. L., Olinger, S., Russell, A., Stauffer, J., &

Weigman, J. (2010). The CornerHouse forensic interview protocol: RATAC®. Thomas M.

Cooley Journal of Practical and Clinical Law, 12, 193-331.

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and

powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,

57, 289–300. doi:10.2307/2346101

Brubacher, S. P., Poole, D. A., & Dickinson, J. J. (2014). The use of ground rules in interviews

with children: A synthesis and call for research. Manuscript under review.

Cordón, I. M., Saetermoe, C. L., & Goodman, G. S. (2005). Facilitating children’s accurate

responses: Conversational rules and interview style. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19,

249-266. doi: 10.1002/acp.1090

Ellis, L. M., Powell, M. B., & Thomson, D. M., & Jones, C. (2003). Do simple “groundrules”

reduce preschoolers’ suggestibility about experienced and nonexperienced events?

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10, 334-345. doi: 10.1375/132187103322742167

Endres, J., Poggenpohl, C., & Erben, C. (1999). Repetitions, warnings, and video: Cognitive and

motivational components in preschool children’s suggestibility. Legal and

Criminological Psychology, 4, 129-146. doi: 10.1348/135532599167725

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1970). Discourse agreement: How children answer questions. In R. Hayes (Ed.),

Cognition and language learning (pp. 79-107). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Evans, A. D., & Lyon, T. D. (2012). Assessing children’s competency to take the oath in court:
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 24

The influence of question type of children’s accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 36,

195-205. doi: 10.1037/h0093957

Flavell, J. H., Speer, J. R., Green, F. L., & August, D. L. (1981). The development of

comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the

Society for the Research in Child Development, 46 (5, Serial No. 192).

Geddie, L. F., Beer, J., Bartosik, S, & Wuensch, K. L. (2001). The relationship between

interview characteristics and accuracy of recall in young children: Do individual

differences matter? Child Maltreatment, 6, 59-68. doi: 10.1177/1077559501006001006

Gee, S., Gregory, M., Pipe, M.-E. (1999). ‘What color is your pet dinosaur?’ The impact of pre-

interview training and question type on children’s answers. Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 4, 111-128. doi: 10.1348/135532599167716

Hershkowitz, I. (2011). Rapport building in investigative interviews of children. In M.E. Lamb,

D. La Rooy, L.C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A Handbook of

psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 109-128). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Katz, C., & Horowitz, D. (2012). The development of

communicative and narrative skills among preschoolers: Lessons from forensic

interviews about child abuse. Child Development, 83, 611-622. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2011.01704.x

Howie, P. M., & Dowd, H. J. (1996). Self-esteem and the perceived obligation to respond:

Effects on children’s testimony. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1, 197-209. doi:

10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00318.x

Hunt, J. S., & Borgida, E. (2001). Is that what I said? Witnesses’ responses to interviewer

modifications. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 583-603. doi: 10.1023/A:1012754207074

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 25

Kelly, K. R., & Bailey, A. L. (2013). Dual development of conversational and narrative

discourse: Mother and child interactions during narrative co-construction. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 59, 426-460. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2013.0019

Klemfuss, J. Z., & Ceci, S. J. (2012). Legal and psychological perspectives on children’s

competence to testify in court. Developmental Review, 32, 268-286. doi:

10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.005

Krackow, E., & Lynn, S. J. (2010). Event report training: An examination of the efficacy of a

new intervention to improve children’s eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 24, 868-884. doi: 10.1002/acp.1594

Lamb, M. E., & Brown, D. A. (2006). Conversational apprentices: Helping children become

competent informants about their own experiences. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 24, 215-234. doi: 10.1348/026151005X57657

Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured

forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative

interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview

Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1201-1231. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021

Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Warren, A. R., Esplin, P. W., & Hershkowitz, I. (2007). Enhancing

performance: Factors affecting the informativeness of young witnesses. In M. P. Toglia,

J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology

(Vol. 1):Memory for events (pp. 429 - 451). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lyon, T. D. (2010). Investigative interviewing of the child. In D. N. Duquette & A. M.

Haralambie (Eds.) Child welfare law and practice (2d ed.) (pp. 87-109). Denver, CO:

Bradford.
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 26

Lyon, T. D., & Dorado, J. S. (2008). Truth induction in young maltreated children: The effects of

oath-taking and reassurance on true and false disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32,

738-748. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.08.008

Lyon, T. D., & Evans, A. D. (2014). Young children’s understanding that promising guarantees

performance: The effects of age and maltreatment. Law & Human Behavior, 38, 162-

170. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000061

Ministry of Justice (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on

interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. Retrieved

from http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victims-and-witnesses/vulnerable-

witnesses/achieving-best-evidence-criminal-proceedings.pdf

Moston, S. (1987). The suggestibility of children in interview studies. First Language, 7, 67-78.

doi: 10.1177/014272378700701904

Mulder, M. R., & Vrij, A. (1996). Explaining conversational rules to children: An intervention

study to facilitate children’s accurate responses. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 623-631.

doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(96)00050-6

Nesbitt, M., & Markham, R. (1999). Improving young children’s accuracy of recall for an

eyewitness event. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 449-459. doi:

10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00027-1

Peterson, C., & Grant, M. (2001). Forced-choice: Are forensic interviewers asking the right

questions? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 118-127. doi:

10.1037/h0087134

Peterson, C. C., Wellman, H. M., & Slaughter, V. (2012). The mind behind the message:

Advancing theory-of-mind scales for typically developing children, and those with
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 27

deafness, autism, and Asperger syndrome. Child Development, 83, 469-485. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01728.x

Poole, D. A., & Dickinson, J. J. (2011). Evidence supporting restrictions on uses of body

diagrams in forensic interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 659-669. doi:

org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.004

Poole, D. A., & Dickinson, J. J. (2014). Comfort drawing during investigative interviews:

Evidence of the safety of a popular practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 192-201.

doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.04.012

Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1993). Two years later: Effect of question repetition and retention

interval on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology,

29, 844-853. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.5.844

Pratt, C. (1990). On asking children—and adults—bizarre questions. First Language, 10, 167-

175. doi: 10.1177/014272379001002905

Principe, G. F., DiPuppo, J., & Gammel, J. (2013). Effects of mothers’ conversation style and

receipt of misinformation on children’s event reports. Cognitive Development, 28, 260-

271. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.012

Roberts, K. P., Lamb, M. E., & Sternberg, K. J. (2004). The effects of rapport-building style on

children’s reports of a staged event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 189-202. doi:

10.1002/acp.957

Roebers, C. M., Moga, N., & Schneider, W. (2001). The role of accuracy motivation on

children’s and adults’ event recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 78, 313-

329. doi: 10.1006/jecp.2000.2577

Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2005). Individual differences in young children’s

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 28

suggestibility: Relations to event memory, language abilities, working memory, and

executive functioning. Cognitive Development, 20, 427-447. doi:

10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.05.006

Saywitz, K., Camparo, L. B., & Romanoff, A. (2010). Interviewing children in custody cases:

Implications of research and policy for practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28,

542-562. doi: 10.1002/bsl.945

Saywitz, K. J., & Moan-Hardie, S. (1994). Reducing the potential for distortion of childhood

memories. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 408-425. doi: 10.1006/ccog.1994.1023

Saywitz, K. J., Snyder, L., & Nathanson, R. (1999). Facilitating the communicative competence

of the child witness. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 58-68.

doi: 0.1207/s1532480xads0301_7

Schneider, W. & Pressley, M. (2013). Memory development between 2 and 20 (2nd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

State of Michigan Governor’s Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect and Department of

Human Services. (2011). Forensic interviewing protocol. Lansing, MI: Author.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Davies, G. M., & Westcott, H. L. (2001). The memorandum of

good practice: Theory versus application. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2, 669–681. doi:

10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00232-0

Talwar, V., & Crossman, A. M. (2012). Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child

witness testimony. Developmental Review, 32, 337-359. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.004

Teoh, Y. -S., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). Preparing children for investigative interviews: Rapport-

building, instruction, and evaluation. Applied Developmental Science, 14, 154–163. doi:

10.1080/10888691.2010.494463
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 29

Tyak, D., & Ingram, D. (1977). Children’s production and comprehension of questions. Journal

of Child Language, 4, 211-224. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900001616

Wang, Q. (2013). The autobiographical self in time and culture. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Waterman, A. H., & Blades, M. (2011). Helping children correctly say “I don’t know” to

unanswerable questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 396-405.doi:

10.1037/a0026150

Waterman, A. H., & Blades, M. (2013). The effect of delay and individual differences on

children’s tendency to guess. Developmental Psychology, 49, 215-226.

doi: 10.1037/a0028354

Waterman, A. H., & Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (2000). Do children try to answer nonsensical

questions? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 211-225. doi:

10.1348/026151000165652

Waterman, A. H., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (2001). Interviewing children and adults: The effect

of question format on the tendency to speculate. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 521-

531. doi: 10.1002/acp.741

Waterman, A. H., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (2004). Indicating when you do not know the

answer: The effect of question format and interviewer knowledge on children’s ‘don’t

know’ responses. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 335-348. doi:

10.1348/0261510041552710

Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75,

523-541. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x

Yuille, J. C., Cooper, B. S., & Hervé H. F. (2009). The step-wise guidelines for child interviews:
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 30

The new generation. In M. Casonato & F. Pfafflin (Eds.), Pedoparafile: Psychological

perspectives, forensic psychiatric (published in Italian). Italy: Franco Angeli.

Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse

cases. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses:

Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 95-115). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Running head: CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 31

Table 1

Instructions for the Seven Ground Rules Questions

Question Instructions

Don’t Guess. Now that I know you better, I want to talk about some rules we have in this room.
One rule is that we don’t guess. If I ask a question and you don’t know the answer,
just say, “I don’t know.” For example, what is my dog’s name?

Right: That’s right; you don’t know my dog’s name, so “I don’t know” is
the right answer.

Wrong: Do you really know my dog’s name? If you don’t know the answer,
just say, “I don’t know.” Let’s try again. What is my sister’s name?

Tell me when you don’t understand. Another rule is that if I say something you don’t understand, you should tell me
you don’t understand. For example, is my shirt gridelin?

Right: Thank you for telling me you didn’t understand. I’ll ask a different
way. What color is my shirt? (Wait for response.) Good.

Wrong: Do you know what gridelin is? Actually, it is a color. If I say

something you don’t understand, just tell me you don’t understand.
Let’s try another one. Is my shirt burnet? (Wait for response.)
Thank you for telling me you didn’t understand. I’ll ask a different
way. What color is my shirt? (Wait for response.) Good.

Will you tell me when you don’t While we are talking today, will you tell me when you don’t understand?
understand?
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 32

Tell me when I say something. Sometimes people say something wrong by mistake. I want you to tell me if I say
wrong. something wrong. For example, how do you like being (wrong age) years old?

Right: That’s right−you’re not (wrong age) years old, so I’m glad you told
me.

Wrong: But you are not (wrong age) now, right? I made a mistake when I
called you (wrong age; slap head). It’s okay to tell me if I say something
wrong. Let’s try another one. What did you do at the water park today?
(Wait for response.) That’s right, you didn’t go to a water park today, so
I’m glad you told me.

True or not true (true)? It is also very important to tell the truth today. First I need to make sure you know
what the truth is. I’m sitting down right now. Is that true or not true? (Wait for
response.) That’s right; I am sitting down, so sitting down is the truth.

True or a lie (a lie)? You are running right now. Is that true or a lie? (Wait for response.) That’s right,
you are not running, so running is a lie.

Will you tell me the truth today? I see you understand what the truth is. It is important to tell me the truth—what
really happened. Will you tell me the truth today?

Note. Scripted instructions for how to proceed after wrong answers did not appear in the protocol for the first sample. Adapted
from State of Michigan Governor’s Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect and Department of Human Services (2011).
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 33

Table 2

Percentage Correct by Age and Ground Rules Question

First Final Final prompted

Age n question 95% CI question 95% CI n questiona 95% CI

Don’t guess: “What is my dog’s name?”

4 48 83.3 [70.4, 91.3] 97.9 [89.1, 99.6] 48 97.9 [89.1, 99.6]

5 71 87.3 [77.6, 93.2] 98.6 [92.4, 99.8] 71 98.6 [92.4, 99.8]
6 90 92.2 [84.8, 96.2] 100.0 [95.9, 100.0] 90 100.0 [95.9, 100.0]
7 96 97.9 [92.7, 99.4] 99.0 [94.3, 99.8] 95 100.0 [96.1, 100.0]
8 92 97.8 [92.4, 99.4] 98.9 [94.1, 99.8] 91 100.0 [95.9, 100.0]
9 39 97.4 [86.8, 99.6] 100.0 [91.0, 100.0] 39 100.0 [91.0, 100.0]
10 35 100.0 [90.1,100.0] 100.0 [90.1, 100.0] 35 100.0 [90.1, 100.0]
11-12 29 96.6 [82.8, 99.4] 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0]

rage accuracy, sex .17*** .05 .08

Tell me when you don’t understand: “Is my shirt gridelin?”

4 49 14.3 [7.10, 26.7] 18.4 [9.98, 31.4] 35 25.7 [14.2, 42.1]

5 71 39.4 [28.9, 51.1] 45.1 [34.0, 56.6] 49 65.3 [51.3, 77.1]
6 90 60.0 [49.7, 70.0] 65.6 [55.3, 74.6] 69 85.5 [75.3, 91.9]
7 96 76.0 [66.6, 83.5] 77.1 [67.7, 84.4] 76 97.4 [90.9, 99.3]
8 92 73.9 [64.1, 81.8] 76.1 [66.4, 83.7] 71 98.6 [92.4, 99.8]
9 39 74.4 [58.9, 85.4] 74.4 [58.9, 85.4] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0]
10 35 88.6 [74.0, 95.5] 88.6 [74.0, 95.5] 31 100.0 [89.0, 100.0]
11-12 29 89.7 [73.6, 96.4] 89.7 [73.6, 96.4] 26 100.0 [87.1, 100.0]

rage accuracy, sex .40*** .37*** .50***

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 34

“Will you tell me when you don’t understand?”

4 44 65.9 [51.1, 78.1] 77.3 [63.0, 87.2] 37 91.9 [78.7, 97.2]

5 66 65.2 [53.1, 75.5] 84.8 [74.3, 91.6] 62 90.3 [80.4, 95.5]
6 88 80.7 [71.2, 87.6] 93.2 [85.9, 96.8] 84 97.6 [91.7, 99.4]
7 95 82.1 [73.2, 88.5] 96.8 [91.1, 98.9] 92 100.0 [96.0, 100.0]
8 91 94.5 [87.8, 97.6] 96.7 [90.7, 98.9] 89 98.9 [93.9, 99.8]
9 39 84.6 [70.3, 92.8] 97.4 [86.8, 100.0] 38 100.0 [90.8, 100.0]
10 35 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 100.0 [90.1,100.0] 35 100.0 [90.1, 100.0]
11-12 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 100.0 [88.3,100.0] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0]

rage accuracy, sex .28*** .23*** .17***

Sample 1: Tell me when I say something wrong: “How do you like being [wrong age] years old?”

4
5 14 42.9 [21.4, 67.4] 50.0 [26.8, 73.2] 9 77.8 [45.3, 93.7]
6 33 72.7 [55.8, 84.9] 75.8 [59.0, 87.2] 27 92.6 [76.6, 97.9]
7 36 61.1 [44.9, 75.2] 63.9 [47.6, 77.5] 26 88.5 [71.0, 96.0]
8 36 83.3 [68.1, 92.1] 91.7 [78.2, 97.1] 33 100.0 [89.6, 100.0]
9 35 91.4 [77.6, 97.0] 91.4 [77.6, 97.04] 32 100.0 [89.3, 100.0]
10 35 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 34 100.0 [89.8, 100.0]
11-12 29 89.7 [73.6, 96.4] 89.7 [73.6, 96.4] 27 96.3 [81.7, 99.3]

rage accuracy, sex .34*** .31*** .19*

Sample 2: Tell me when I say something wrong: “How do you like being [wrong age] years old?”

4 49 30.6 [19.5, 44.5] 71.4 [57.6, 82.2] 45 77.8 [63.7, 87.5]

5 57 38.6 [27.1, 51.6] 80.7 [68.7, 88.9] 53 86.8 [75.2, 93.5]
6 57 63.2 [50.2, 74.5] 91.2 [81.1, 96.2] 54 96.3 [87.5, 99.0]
7 60 81.7 [70.1, 89.4] 91.7 [81.9, 96.4] 57 96.5 [88.1, 99.0]
8 56 91.1 [29.2, 54.1] 96.4 [87.9, 99.0] 54 100.0 [93.4, 100.0]
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 35

9 4 50.0 [15.0, 85.0] 100.0 [51.0, 100.0] 4 100.0 [51.0, 100.0]

10
11-12

rage accuracy, sex .44*** .24*** .27***

True or not true (true): “I’m sitting down right now. Is that true or not true?” (“True” = correct)

4 49 57.1 [43.3, 70.0] 57.1 [43.3, 70.0] 31 90.3 [75.1, 96.7]

5 71 78.9 [68.0, 86.8] 81.7 [71.1, 89.0] 60 96.7 [88.6, 99.1]
6 90 91.1 [83.4, 95.4] 92.2 [84.8, 96.2] 85 97.6 [91.8, 99.4]
7 96 97.9 [92.7, 99.4] 97.9 [92.7, 99.4] 94 100.0 [96.1, 100.0]
8 92 92.4 [85.1, 96.3] 93.5 [86.5, 97.0] 86 100.0 [95.7, 100.0]
9 39 94.9 [83.1, 98.6] 97.4 [86.8, 100.0] 38 100.0 [90.8, 100.0]
10 35 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 34 100.0 [89.8, 100.0]
11-12 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0]

rage accuracy, sex .29*** .30*** .16***

True or not true (true): “I’m sitting down right now. Is that true or not true?”
(“True” or “Yes” = correct)

4 49 75.5 [61.9, 85.4] 75.5 [61.9, 85.4] 39 94.9 [83.1, 98.6]

5 71 91.5 [82.8, 96.1] 93.0 [84.5, 97.0] 68 97.1 [89.9, 99.2]
6 90 97.8 [92.3, 99.4] 98.9 [94.0, 99.8] 89 100.0 [95.9, 100.0]
7 96 100.0 [96.1, 100.0] 100.0 [96.1, 100.0] 96 100.0 [96.1, 100.0]
8 92 97.8 [92.4, 99.4] 98.9 [94.1, 99.8] 91 100.0 [95.9, 100.0]
9 39 100.0 [91.0, 100.0] 100.0 [91.0, 100.0] 39 100.0 [91.0, 100.0]
10 35 100.0 [90.1, 100.0] 100.0 [90.1, 100.0] 35 100.0 [90.1, 100.0]
11-12 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.00] 100.0 [88.3, 100.00] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.00]

.25*** .25*** .13**

CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 36

True or a lie (a lie): “You are running right now. Is that true or a lie?” (“A lie” = correct)

4 48 68.8 [54.7, 80.0] 77.1 [63.5, 86.7] 38 97.4 [86.5, 99.5]

5 71 85.9 [76.0, 92.2] 88.7 [79.3, 94.2] 64 98.4 [91.7, 99.7]
6 90 94.4 [87.6, 97.6] 96.7 [90.7, 98.9] 87 100.0 [95.8, 100.0]
7 96 95.8 [89.8, 98.4] 96.9 [91.2, 98.9] 93 100.0 [96.0, 100.0]
8 92 95.7 [89.3, 98.3] 97.8 [92.4, 99.4] 90 100.0 [95.9, 100.0]
9 39 94.9 [83.1, 98.6] 94.9 [83.1, 98.6] 37 100.0 [90.6, 100.0]
10 35 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 100.0 [90.1, 100.0] 35 100.0 [90.1, 100.0]
11-12 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0]

rage accuracy, sex .24*** .21*** .09

True or a lie (a lie): “You are running right now. Is that true or a lie?” (“A lie” or “No” = correct)

4 48 77.1 [63.5, 86.7] 85.4 [72.8, 92.8] 42 97.6 [87.7, 99.6]

5 71 90.1 [81.0, 95.1] 93.0 [84.5, 97.0] 66 100.0 [94.5, 100.0]
6 90 94.4 [87.6, 97.6] 96.7 [90.7, 98.9] 87 100.0 [95.8, 100.0]
7 96 97.9 [92.7, 99.4] 99.0 [94.3, 99.8] 95 100.0 [96.1, 100.0]
8 92 96.7 [90.8, 98.9] 98.9 [94.1, 99.8] 91 100.0 [96.0, 100.0]
9 39 97.4 [86.8, 99.6] 97.4 [86.8, 99.6] 38 100.0 [90.1, 100.0]
10 35 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 100.0 [90.1, 100.0] 35 100.0 [90.1, 100.0]
11-12 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0]

.21*** .19*** .11*

“Will you tell me the truth today?”

4 49 36.7 [24.7, 50.7] 61.2 [47.2, 73.6] 41 73.2 [58.1, 84.3]

5 70 62.9 [51.1, 73.2] 87.1 [77.3, 93.1] 66 92.4 [83.5, 96.7]
6 90 74.4 [64.6, 82.3] 94.4 [87.6, 97.6] 86 98.8 [93.7, 99.8]
7 96 76.0 [66.6, 83.5] 92.7 [85.7, 96.4] 90 98.9 [94.0, 99.8]
8 92 88.0 [79.8, 93.2] 97.8 [92.4, 99.4] 91 98.9 [94.0, 99.8]
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 37

9 39 97.4 [86.8, 99.6] 100.0 [91.0, 100.0] 39 100.0 [91.0, 100.0]

10 35 97.1 [85.5, 99.5] 100.0 [90.1, 100.0] 35 100.0 [90.1, 100.0]
11-12 29 93.1 [78.0, 98.1] 100.0 [88.3, 100.0] 29 100.0 [88.3, 100.0]

rage accuracy, sex .37*** .30*** .26***

Note. Sample sizes are not equivalent across questions (left column) due to missing data from interviewer
errors. a Percentage correct in response to final prompted questions represents the percentage of accurate
responses among children who responded correctly the first time the question was delivered and those who
received at least one redelivery of the protocol question (i.e., omitting inaccurate children who did not receive
the question again). Correlations report the association between age and accuracy with sex controlled.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 38

Table 3

Percentage of Errors in Each Error Category by Ground Rules Question (First Delivery of the Question)

Don’t
understand/
Undesired No I don’t Huh? Asks a
Question (undesired response) response response Yes No know What? Irrelevant question Other

Percentage of inaccurate responses

Don’t guess (guesses a name) 46.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 30.0

Tell me when you don’t undesired undesired correct

understand (“yes” or “no”) 40.0 4.9 response response 54.6 response 0.0 0.0 0.5

Will you tell me when you don’t correct undesired

understand? ( “no”) 4.8 20.2 response response 17.9 29.8 6.0 1.2 20.2

Tell me when I say something

wrong (“good,” etc.) 36.2 9.9 0.0 2.6 28.3 14.5 2.0 0.0 6.6

True or not true? (“not true”) 23.2 1.8 60.7 3.6 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4

True or a lie? (“true”) 41.5 2.4 0.0 26.8 7.3 9.8 0.0 0.0 12.2

Will you tell me the truth today? correct undesired

(“no,” “I don’t want to”) 6.7 14.4 response response 16.1 22.0 4.2 0.0 36.4

Percentage of all responses (accurate and inaccurate)

Don’t guess (guesses a name) 2.8 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 .6 0.0 0.0 1.8
CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON GROUND RULES 39

Tell me when you don’t understand undesired undesired correct

(“yes” or “no”) 14.8 1.8 response response 20.2 response 0.0 0.0 0.2

Will you tell me when you don’t correct undesired

understand? ( “no”) .8 3.5 response response 3.1 5.1 1.0 .2 3.5

Tell me when I say something

wrong (“good,” etc.) 11.0 3.0 0.0 .8 8.6 4.4 .6 0.0 2.0

True or not true? (“not true”) 2.6 .2 6.8 .4 .6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .6

True or a lie? (“true”) 3.4 .2 0.0 2.2 .6 .8 0.0 0.0 1.0

Will you tell me the truth today? correct undesired

(“no,” “I don’t want to”) 1.6 3.4 response response 3.8 5.2 1.0 0.0 8.6

Note. For “True or not true?” and “True or a lie?”, responses of “yes” and “no,” respectively, are categorized as errors to report the
frequency of these responses. For these questions, Table 2 lists the percentage of accurate responses for both a lenient coding method
(which treated “yes” as equivalent to “true” and “no” as equivalent to “lie”) and this conservative coding method.