Talk:Wee Care Nursery School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there a reason this article quotes from an entirely diferent trial at the bottom? The way its written the reader is lead to believe that the interview exerp is from the Wee Care case when its actually from the McMartin case. 149.169.6.124 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV

This is a well-written article, and worth including...but be careful that it doesn't read like an editorial. I've changed the article to remove some of the POV material, and let the facts speak for themselves. See WP:POV -- MisterHand 21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria

the category ties it to the other cases, please leave intact

No problem, article is a lot better now. --MisterHand 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Moved from article temp

[edit] Questions about interview techniques

Michael's defense raised questions about the manner in which the alleged victims were interviewed. Defense lawyers maintained that the children were manipulated, coerced, or encouraged to give testimony that was consistent with the investigators' suspicions.

In an amicus brief in the case of New Jersey v. Michaels, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists identified specific areas of concern with the children's interviews:[1]

  • Effects of interviewer bias. The brief cites research indicating that investigators who come to an interview with preconceived beliefs are more likely to ask leading questions and to interpret answers in a way that supports their hypotheses.
  • Repeated questions. The interviewers tended to repeat and rephrase questions whenever a child denied abuse. The brief cites research showing that children are likely to change their answers to questions that are repeated multiple times, in an effort to please the interviewer.
  • Repeating misinformation across reviews. The brief cites research which found that children who are given incorrect information during questioning are likely to incorporate it into later retellings of their stories. Because the initial interviews with the children were not recorded or transcribed, the brief notes that it is impossible to tell whether events were suggested by the interviewers.
  • Emotional tone of the interviews. The brief takes issue with the 'encouraging' statements given by the interviewers to set the children at ease, arguing that they amounted to pressure to please the interviewer by saying what he wanted to hear. The interviewers also threatened uncooperative children with punishment and rewarded those who participated with toys and police badges. The brief cites an example of inappropriate encouragement:
McGrath: Do you want to sit on my lap? Come here. I am so proud of you. I love big girls like you that tell me what happened -- that aren't afraid because I am here to protect you. Did you ever see what's this right here?...You got such pretty eyes. You are going to grow to be a beautiful young lady. I'm jealous, I'm too old for you.
  • The use of peer pressure in interviews. Interviewers in the case tried to set children at ease by saying that their friends had "already told" everything. The brief cites studies showing that children will change their answers to fit those given by their peer group, even when the answer is clearly incorrect.
  • Interviews were conducted by high-status adults. The brief cites research showing that children are more likely to defer to or try to please interviewers who are perceived as trustworthy or high-status adults, such as uniformed policemen. They are also more likely to incorporate facts suggested by high-status adults into their accounts.
  • Stereotype inducement. The brief notes that interviewers repeatedly referred to Michaels as "a bad girl" who deserved to be punished. The brief cites research showing that children are more likely to interpret actions as benign when they are assured that the actor is a good person, and more likely to interpret actions as threatening when they are told that the actor is a bad person.


From an interview with an 8-year-old male student:

MacFarlane: Mr. Monkey is a little bit chicken, and he can't remember any of the naked games, but we think that you can, 'cause we know a naked games that you were around for, 'cause the other kids told us, and it's called Naked Movie Star. Do you remember that game, Mr. Alligator, or is your memory too bad?
Boy: Um, I don't remember that game.
MacFarlane: Oh, Mr. Alligator.
Boy: Umm, well, it's umm, a little song that me and [a friend] heard of.
MacFarlane: Oh.
Boy: Well, I heard out loud someone singing, "Naked Movie Star, Naked Movie Star."
MacFarlane: You know that, Mr. Alligator? That means you're smart, 'cause that's the same song the other kids knew and that's how we really know you're smarter than you look. So you better not play dumb, Mr. Alligator.
Boy: Well, I didn't really hear a whole lot. I just heard someone yell it from out in the _ Someone yelled it.
MacFarlane: Maybe. Mr. Alligator, you peeked in the window one day and saw them playing it, and maybe you could remember and help us.
Boy: Well, no, I haven't seen anyone playing Naked Movie Star. I've only heard the song.
MacFarlane: What good are you? You must be dumb.[2]

[edit] re: possible merge

I would prefer that the pages stay separate. This case was a fairly large and important one. Abuse truth (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)