Volu m e II - Purdue University Calumet

is required, yet does not have the cognitive ability to make logic of the situation, and provide the
interviewer with yet another script. The child’s response is ambiguous, but, in parallel with his previous
response of “run[ning] away in the car,” the child most likely had the first scenario, in which Tommy drives
off in the stranger’s car, in mind—a response reflecting little to no logic.
It is interesting to note that despite his focus on the man and his car, the four-year-old child
participant brings up the dog in the mist of his response. This seemingly random idea may not be random at
all: perhaps the child participant, all along, was describing Tommy’s “escape” in the car with the hope of
finding the lost dog while driving. This possibility demonstrates the child’s cognitive limitations: rather
than processing the danger of the man’s sexual abuse, he focuses on the man being an obstacle to finding the
lost dog. Also, past investigation of similar responses (Burkhardt 1991) suggests that the participant was
answering these questions in such a manner because, again, the child knows that a social response was
required. Yet again, “knowing” is entirely different than understanding.
Because the child participant failed to demonstrate indication that non-compliance was an
alternative, the interview did not progress to the additional questions designed for expanding the idea of
non-compliance.
Young Child #2, a four-year old female, completely fails to recognize the threat in the scenario.
Rather, when prompted to identify the problem, she completely focuses on the stranger’s pet: “Tammy
pasted the puppy.” The pet entirely takes the child’s focus. Likewise, when asked what she thinks Tammy
should do, the child responds: “The man lost his puppy…because he knows where the puppy at.” Her
response implies that the man had originally lost his puppy and realized where he had lost it—suggesting
perhaps that Tammy should involve herself in the case of the “lost puppy.” The incoherence of this response
also echoes the script phenomenon: the child may be scripting a story because, at her stage of cognitive
development, she has no ability to assess the situation with well-rounded logic. Again, when prompted
what she thinks Tammy will do, the pet is the focus of the child’s attention: “Hold him because he loves his
215