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

The Self-Administered Interview (SAI (c)) elicits comprehensive initial statements from witnesses and can enhance subsequent statements. However, the SAI (c) requires a written response that may have disadvantages compared to a spoken account. This study tested the effect of SAI (c)'s response modality and its subsequent impact on a delayed retrieval attempt. After watching a mock crime, participants completed a Spoken-SAI (c), Typed-SAI (c) or no-SAI (c). 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 (c) required less time to be completed than the Typed-SAI (c) but elicited accounts with a comparable amount of correct information and accuracy. Providing an initial account using the SAI (c) (vs. no-SAI (c)) 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 (c) and its applicability.