Reducing maltreated children's reluctance to answer hypothetical oath-taking competency questions

Before allowing child witnesses to testify, courts routinely require childr en to describe what would happen to them if they lied. However, young child ren often refuse to reason hypothetically if they view the premises as impl ausible or undesirable, and might be more willing to discuss the consequenc es of lying if they are asked about another child rather than themselves. O n the other hand, children might view themselves as invulnerable to punishm ent, and therefore believe that whereas other children will be punished for lying, they will not be. In this study, 64 maltreated 5- and 6-year-old ch ildren were asked to describe the consequences of lying to three profession als (a judge, a social worker, and doctor). Participants in the "self" cond ition were asked what would happen to them if they lied, whereas participan ts in the "other" condition were asked to describe what would happen to a s tory child if he or she lied. Asking children about "other" children increa sed responsiveness, and did not reveal perceptions of invulnerability. The results suggest that young children's understanding that they will be punis hed for lying may make them reluctant to discuss the consequences of lying, leading to underestimation of their oath-taking competency.