Thomas Lyon

Though much is known about children's sexual abuse disclosure, less attention has been directed towards disclosure in other types of youthful victims, especially those who may be reluctant to tell due to either normative development or victims' specific experiences. Trafficked youth, particularly those who are adolescents, represent one such group. Understanding how suspected youth trafficking victims are questioned by authorities, especially with respect to establishing rapport and trust, is important for informing professionals how to effectively question this unique population of victims to overcome their reluctance. We examined transcripts of interviews conducted by federal interviewers ( n = 12,653 question‐answer turns across 33 interviews) and police ( n = 4,972 question‐answer turns across 14 interviews) with trafficked youth between the ages of 12 and 18. Interviews were reliably coded for the length of pre‐substantive questioning, provision of instructions and ground rules, and use of rapport building and supportive strategies. Federal interviewers used pre‐substantive instructions and built rapport with potential victims more often than police did. Also, and although infrequently used overall, supportive interviewing strategies were evident more often by federal interviewers than police. Results provide much‐needed knowledge about how law enforcement investigators interview and elicit disclosures from vulnerable populations of adolescent victims.

The present study examined adults' interpretations of invitations using the word ‘time’. Recent research has demonstrated that children may misunderstand these invitations as solely requesting temporal information (Friend et al., 2022). This study tested whether adults perceive the ambiguity in these invitations and whether they understand the source of children's pseudotemporal errors. We examined 401 adult participants' perceptions of invitations using the word ‘time’, varying the phrasing of the invitation ( about the time vs. what happened ) and whether the participant had exposure to a child's pseudotemporal response. Adults largely interpreted the invitations as requests for what happened during an event, not requests for when an event occurred. They rated the invitations as clear, not difficult and appropriate for elementary‐aged children. However, they were more likely to rate about the time invitations as temporal compared to what happened invitations. Additionally, their perceptions of clarity and age appropriateness decreased when they were exposed to children's overtly pseudotemporal responses. These results suggest that although adults typically fail to identify the ambiguity in invitations using the word ‘time’, they are able to adjust their interpretation of the questions, at least when they are provided clear evidence of children's misinterpretation.