Child sexual abuse is common in the United States, with an estimated 27% of girls and 5% of boys reporting experiencing child sexual abuse before the age of 18. Occurrences of sexual abuse are grossly underreported, if at all. Recently, researchers have looked more closely at children’s disclosure of sexual abuse and best practices to optimize the safety and well-being of the child. Identifying and acknowledging the reasons that encourage or discourage child sexual abuse disclosures can help victims disclose sooner, access treatment sooner, prevent additional sexual victimization, and safeguard others from harm. Although research exists on the forensic interview process for reporting child sexual abuse, this dissertation takes a unique approach to study children’s decisions to disclose sexual abuse during investigative interviews. Paper 1 aimed to systematically identify and describe the types of preparatory statements caregivers provided to children before forensic interviews. Paper 2 examined the association between caregivers’ preparatory statements and other factors that may impact disclosure rates. Paper 3 provided and encouraged the widespread adoption of an integrated, feminist-based ecological systems framework that guided this dissertation study from conceptualization to interpretive analysis. A Child Advocacy Center provided 322 child sexual abuse forensic interviews and intake paperwork from children and their caregivers. To meet the inclusion criteria, children had to be between 4 and 17 when they reported being sexually abused, possess language proficiency, and take part in forensic interviews regarding sexual abuse conducted by forensic interviewers between 2015 and 2018. The first paper used content analysis to explore and categorize the types of preparatory statements caregivers provided to children. The second paper used a stepwise regression analysis that integrated the preparatory statement results from Paper 1 and child characteristics. This dissertation's third paper proposed a conceptual framework using feminist and ecological systems theory to approach child sexual abuse research. The main takeaway from this study is that children were more likely to make a formal disclosure if their caregiver provided transparent preparatory statements before a forensic disclosure.

Across three studies and two robust pilot studies, this project addressed issues surrounding prejudicial evidence and jury instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence. Specifically, this project examined a new framework for understanding how people vary in their response to prejudicial evidence, based on the morals they value, and tested the effectiveness of a novel way to phrase jury instructions to debias jurors inspired by moral foundations theory. In two experimental studies, participants read a transcript of a sexual assault (Study 1: n = 544) or an assault and battery criminal case (Study 2: n = 509). In each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read either a case with or without prejudicial evidence. Participants exposed to prejudicial evidence were either given standard jury instructions to disregard the evidence, no instructions, or novel jury instructions inspired by moral foundations theory. Individual differences in moral foundations affected how susceptible people were to prejudicial evidence and case facts in general. This pattern emerged regardless of the type of jury instructions in most cases, suggesting that the moral foundation inspired instructions failed to help jurors disregard prejudicial evidence. The impact of people’s moral foundation endorsement has direct implications for how attorneys may phrase evidence to cater towards these moral biases and select ideal jurors during the voir dire process. To further advance people’s understanding of the effects of prejudicial evidence and jury instructions in legal settings, a third study looked at how attorneys (n = 138) perceived the prevalence and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases and the effectiveness of jury instructions. Over three quarters of the sample (77.54%) reported having experienced prejudicial evidence in their cases and expressed concern that prejudicial evidence is influential to jurors with jury instructions being ineffective. Taken altogether, the results of this project show the potential impact moral foundation endorsement can have on case judgments and how jurors are differently influenced by prejudicial evidence. In addition, data from attorneys showing the perceived prevalent and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases further justifies the need to continue researching safeguards against prejudicial evidence.

Juvenile justice institutions have been slow to adapt their practices to the developmental challenges of adolescence. Traditional probation, which impacts the vast majority of justice-involved youth, is one such institution considering the primary goal is ensuring youth’s compliance with probation terms rather than long-term prosocial change. To better engage youth, jurisdictions are increasingly using graduated response systems that utilize incentives to reinforce desired behaviors in both the short- and long-term. Yet, little is known about what motivates youth. The current study tested three research questions. The first explored what types of incentives would motivate youth to do well on probation. The second tested what parents believe would motivate youth and how it compared to what youth desire. The final question investigated if older youth desired monetary incentives less than younger youth. Youth most desired praise-based incentives followed by privilege-based incentives and monetary incentives. Further, parents’ perceptions aligned with youths’ perceptions. Overall, these findings highlighted praise may be more impactful than previously thought, and further exploration is needed to understand its effect. Privilege and monetary-based incentives could still prove motivational for youth, but to a lesser degree than previously thought.