Before allowing child witnesses to testify, courts routinely require children to describe what would happen to them if they lied. However, young children often refuse to reason hypothetically if they view the grounds as unlikely or undesirable, and might be more willing to discuss the consequences of lying if they are asked about another child rather than themselves. On the other hand, children might view themselves as invulnerable to punishment. In this study, 64 maltreated 5 and 6 year-old children were asked to describe the consequences of lying to three professionals, (a judge, a social worker, and a doctor). Participants in the “self” condition were asked about the consequences they would suffer should they lie, and participants in the “other” condition were asked about the consequences a story child would suffer if they lie. Asking children about “other” children increased responsiveness, and did not reveal perceptions of invulnerability. The results suggest that young children’s understanding that they will be punished for lying may make them reluctant to discuss the consequences of lying, leading to underestimation of their oath-taking competency. In addition, practitioners need to be sensitive to child witnesses’ unique vulnerabilities and for researchers to be attentive to the effect of their participants’ backgrounds on their performance. References