Using Anatomically Correct Dolls in Court: Pros, Cons, and Information to Consider

            The use of anatomically correct dolls for truthful and accurate accounts of child sexual abuse has increasingly been a hot debate since their introduction in the 1980’s. Some believe these dolls are the most important tools in determining child sexual abuse (Shamroy, 1987) while others tend to believe these methods do not facilitate such accurate reporting (Bruck & Ceci, 1997). Issues such as the reliability of childrens’ testimonies, interviewers’ impact on such testimonies, and even the dolls themselves present a rather large question: should the use of anatomically correct dolls be continued in child sexual abuse cases?

Child Testimony

            Getting children to talk about traumatic experiences can be a daunting task for even professionals. Shamroy (1987) states that anatomically correct dolls are not only useful in obtaining testimonies from sexually abused children but especially those sexually abused children “who are embarrassed, young, mentally handicapped, have a short attention span, or do not know the terminology necessary to describe a sexual molestation “(p. 165). What this observation indicates is that anatomically correct dolls present a relatively indirect method of giving information to the interviewer – a method that may be more comfortable to the child, allowing him or her to give a better, more accurate recollection of events that may or may not have actually occurred.

            Who is to say what the child does with the doll is directly relevant to the sexual abuse questions at hand? The questions remains as to whether or not the child’s play is influenced by other factors such as television, or perhaps the child may have even accidentally walked in on his or her parents having sex. The point is, there doesn’t seem to be a for sure way to determine whether or not the child’s use of a doll directly reflects instances of sexual abuse. Bruck and Ceci (1997) point out that the simple novelty of the dolls had a direct correlation as to whether or not the child inserted fingers and other objects into the doll’s cavities. Anyone with children, or who work with children, will know that a child is naturally very curious. It is not uncommon for a child to undress a Barbie or G.I. Joe just to see what’s underneath the clothes, but do these actions directly reflect child abuse in every instance? No. Due to their curious nature, one would assume a child would naturally insert objects into the cavities of an anatomically correct doll simply because they have never done so before.

            A study conducted by Goodman and Aman (1990) found that despite the presence of anatomically correct dolls, children did not provide spontaneous reports of sexual abuse, nor did visual cues or reenactments of events with dolls significantly increase the amount of correct information “verbally recalled” (p. 1868). None of the children in this study were ever sexually abused themselves, but the anatomically correct dolls did not lead them to make false reports of sexual abuse. Do these findings discredit the general curiosity of children? Not exactly. The researchers in the Goodman and Aman study relied on verbal recall of sexual incidences rather than simple play performed by the child. A child simply playing with a doll and a child explicitly telling an interviewer what happened are two different things.

            Perhaps the child does talk with an interviewer but uses terminology for certain things the interviewer is unsure of. For example, perhaps a child uses a completely different term (i.e. doodle) for his penis. How is the interviewer to know what the child is referring to? One of the recommendations for using the anatomically correct doll is to help interviewers in understanding children’s names for body parts (Larson et al., 1994). Aiding an interviewer in labeling body parts could be beneficial in recounting sexual abuse through interviews, but relying solely on doll play could lead to disappointing results in court.

            In the case of Iowa v. Mueller (1983), Mueller was convicted of sexually abusing his three-year-old son. The prosecution relied heavily on the child’s testimony by means of doll use, which ultimately led the court ruling that interpreting sex acts with a doll is considered hearsay and is not admissible in court. The simple question as to whether or not the child was accurate in conveying sexual abuse with the doll granted Mueller a retrial.

            One could argue that the three-year-old son’s testimony in the Mueller case could have been a big factor in deciding a retrial – could it be the son was simply too young to influence the court? In Utah v. Rimmasch (1989), Rimmasch was convicted of multiple offenses for sexually abusing his daughter from ages seven to fourteen. Even though the daughter was seventeen when testifying, the court ruled that the profile evidence was inadmissible because there was a question as to the reliability of the scientific principles that the expert testimony was based (on the anatomically correct doll). Also, the state failed to show that the experts were capable of reliably determining whether the daughter was telling the truth based on the doll. This case shows that even though the child may be old enough to accurately testify in court, basing testimonies on dolls not accepted by the scientific community is a problem.

Impact of the Interviewer

            Shamroy (1987) states “all practitioners who interact with children who are suspected to or have been sexually abused will find anatomically correct dolls helpful” (emphases mine, p. 166). This statement may lead its readers to believe that an interviewer’s use of anatomically correct dolls is quite beneficial; however, if an interviewer suspects that a child has been sexual abused then the issue of interviewer bias arises. Bruck and Ceci (1997) agree “dolls may be suggestive if children have not made allegations but are asked by an interviewer who suspects abuse to demonstrate abuse with dolls” (p. 77). For instance, an interviewer who suspects a child has been sexually abused will most likely generate leading questions implicating such allegations, causing the child to respond in a satisfactory (for the interviewer) but inaccurate way. Interviewer’s uneven and unskilled use of dolls, and the need for multiple interviews makes the child interviewing process problematic (Steward et al., 1996).  If continuously pressed and prompted by an interviewer who suspects child abuse, a child’s false accusations could potentially snowball. Skinner (1996) agrees that the greatest problem when using dolls seems to be the interviewers, themselves.

            However, when interviewing with dolls, Santtila et al. (2004) found that “the number of details elicited by children significantly decreased, while the number of words in the interviewer’s utterances increased” (p. 33). These findings indicate that when using dolls, interviewers are actively prompting children to respond, which, in turn, seems to have an altogether adverse affect on the interviewing process. The question arises: are children simply giving false accusations to satisfy these harassing interviewers? It’s a logical possibility that should not be overlooked. Many children do not have a sound constitution, giving them susceptibility when confronted with pressuring interviewers talking about things children do not have yet a full understanding of.

            On the other hand, Steward et al. (1996) claims that doll assisted direct questions yield significantly more accurate information than open-ended questions alone and/or open-ended questions with dolls. With regards to this study, again, the question arises as to whether the experience these researchers have in interviewing impact their findings. In general, most interviewers do not have the expertise the researchers in the Steward et al. study bring to the table. Yet direct questions can be much more leading and subjective than open-ended questions. If the researcher honestly believes the child will give much more accurate information when using the doll, then could the researcher unconsciously phrase their questions in a way to get those results? Notice, too, not much is said about direct questions without doll play. Quas, Thompson, and Clarke-Stewart (2005) realize that “whether dolls promote accurate or inaccurate accounts appears to depend on the details of how questions are phrased” and not the dolls themselves (p. 442). One has to be very careful when deciding how to phrase questions that are asked to children. Otherwise, those questions could lead to inaccurate information.

Using Anatomically Correct Dolls

            There isn’t a general consensus or set law on how to use anatomically correct dolls. This is a big disadvantage with regards to the scientific community. If a valid method cannot be established and repeated for reliability then what good is it? It’s no wonder many courts are throwing out evidence based on these toys. Larson et al. (1994) agree that guidelines for these dolls need to be developed and taught to all those who interview children, and that “dolls play is not a diagnostic test detecting child sex abuse” (p. 18). As mentioned before, at this point anatomically correct dolls should only be used seriously when trying to determine a child’s vocabulary, not as a direct indicator of sexual abuse.

            Skinner and Berry (1993) point out that there are also no standards for the manufacturing of the dolls and there is considerable variability among them within validation interviews. It is due to variability and the lack of scientific data supporting doll use that Skinner and Berry believe these toys “should not be used as the basis for expert conclusions” (p. 418). It seems rather ignorant for an expert in behavioral sciences to rely on such an unreliable device. Skinner (1996) goes on to insist “more research is necessary before the widespread use and popularity of the dolls are scientifically grounded” (p. 182).

My Thoughts

            Anatomically correct dolls can be useful in some instances, such as determining a child’s terminology in an interview, but not a direct identifier of child sexual abuse. Whether or not parents intend for it to happen, children are often subjected to sex in many different forms, especially via television where sex is becoming increasingly obscene. These experiences, no doubt, can leave lasting impressions on a child, possibly leaving them confused or perhaps even more curious. It’s quite possible that a child who has witnessed sexuality in forms other than sexual abuse may begin talking about what he or she has seen. These children’s interpretations could then be taken falsely as evidence of sexual abuse. Before you know it, the child is in a room with a strange person asking questions and are given a doll that has parts resembling what the child has seen on television – what else is the child going to do but experiment with the various cavities? Of course, this is all a hypothetical situation, but a very plausible one nonetheless. Occurrences such as these should be taken into consideration when handing children novel toys, and everything children show or say regarding sex should not be taken out of context without further proof (aside from the doll).

Children’s testimonies, more specifically children under the age of five, seem to be quite susceptible to their environment, let alone the pressing and leading questions of an unfamiliar interviewer. Everyday children are pressured to behave or act in an otherwise more appropriate way by their parents. Who’s to say interviewers cannot influence children in a similar fashion? For instance, say an interviewer initiates an interview with a supposed sexually abused child using open ended questions (as the interviewer should), but the child is shy or simply refuses to give details – maybe the child doesn’t have details to give because nothing happened! An interviewer, at this point, may get impatient and begin to ask more direct questions, using more detail and perhaps even an anatomically correct doll for reference (i.e. “does your daddy touch you here?”). At first, the child may still deny any instances of sexual abuse, but the interviewer, still determined to uncover the “truth,” remains persistent. After being asked such detailed and direct questions for so long, the child may begin to actually believe something did happen and report sexual instances that never actually occurred, and alas the interviewer finally feels he or she is getting somewhere! But, in reality, the child may have just been brainwashed by the interviewer. Again, this is a hypothetical situation, but research has shown that this tends to happen rather frequently.

If anatomically correct dolls intend to stay around and be helpful then there needs to be some research on their use. Proven methods that work reliably need to be established and taught to everyone interviewing children. Standards need to be set for these dolls to be of any genuine use. At this point, it seems like a free for all out there, and with regards to the scientific community these methods are completely unorthodox. As it is, anatomically correct dolls are mere toys, and until methods of their use are developed and accepted by the scientific community these toys will remain a poor indicator of actual child sexual abuse.

                          

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). The suggestibility of young children. Current Directions in Psychological
             Science, 6(3), 75-79. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182452

Goodman, G. S., & Aman, C. (1990). Children’s use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event.
             Child Development, 61(6), 1859-1871. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130842

Iowa v. Mueller, 344 N.W.2d 262 (1983)

Larson, C. S., Terman, D. L., Gomby, D. S., Quinn, L. S., & Behrman, R., E. (1994). Sexual abuse of
              children: Recommendations and analysis. The Future of Children, 4(2), 4-30. Retrieved from
              http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602521

Quas, J. A., Thompson, W. C., Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2005). Do jurors “know” what isn’t so about child
             witnesses? Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 425-456. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable
             /4499431

Santtila, P., Korkman, J., Sandnabba, N. K. (2004). Effects of interview phase, repeated interviewing,
             presence of a support person, and anatomically detailed dolls on child sexual abuse interviews.
             Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(1), 21-35

Shamroy, J. A. (1987). Interviewing the sexually abused child with anatomically correct dolls. Social
             Work, 32(2), 165-166.

Skinner, L. J. (1996). Assumptions and beliefs about the role of ad dolls in child sexual abuse validation
             interviews: Are they supported empirically? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 167-185.

Skinner, L. J., Berry, B. K. (1993). Anatomically detailed dolls and the evaluation of child sexual abuse
             allegations: Psychometric considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 17(4). Retrieved from
             http://www.jstor.org/stable/1394225

Steward, M. S., Steward, D. S., Farquhar, L., Myers, J. E., Reinhart, M., Welker, J., . . .Ornstein, P. A.
            (1996). Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monographs of the Society
            for Research in Child Development, 61(4/5), i-232. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable
            /1166205

Utah v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (1989)