As in other areas of impression formation and decisionmaking, jurors seem to assess the credibility of a child witness by assessing both the accuracy of the child's testimony and the trustworthiness of the child. However, both theory and research in social psychology suggest that individuals are not passive recipients of information. Therefore, psycholegal researchers must begin to include variables that increase or decrease jurors' motivation or ability to process the evidence presented at child. The authors' research findings support the assumption that expert testimony enhances jurors' ability to evaluate the trial evidence deliberately and carefully and to reduce the effect of the age of the witness on jurors' opinions. However, to determine whether persuasion models can offer useful predictions about juror perceptions of child witnesses, researchers need to include not only outcome measures but also process measures that address routinely expressed legal concerns about the potentially prejudicial effects of procedural innovations on juror decisionmaking. Both expert testimony and measures to protect children from the trauma of testifying in court may be ruled inadmissible if they prejudicially alter the trial process or prejudice the defendant's case. 50 references