The effect of response modality on witness statements when using the self-administered interview

Abstract

The Self-Administered Interview (SAI©) elicits comprehensive initial statements from witnesses and can enhance subsequent statements. However, the SAI© requires a written response that may have disadvantages compared to a spoken account. This study tested the effect of SAI©’s response modality and its subsequent impact on a delayed retrieval attempt. After watching a mock crime, participants completed a Spoken-SAI©, Typed-SAI© or no-SAI©. Four days later, participants read a news report with misleading post-event information (PEI) and, after another 3 days, completed a free recall and a recognition test. The Spoken-SAI© required less time to be completed than the Typed-SAI© but elicited accounts with a comparable amount of correct information and accuracy. Providing an initial account using the SAI© (vs. no-SAI©) produced more detailed accounts 1 week later regardless of response modality but did not reduce the susceptibility to misleading PEI. This provides valuable insight for improving the SAI© and its applicability.