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

## TL;DR

This study examines how the response modality of a self-administered interview affects witness statements and memory accuracy over time.

## Contribution

The study reveals that using the SAI© improves detailed recall but does not reduce susceptibility to misleading information.

## Key findings

- Spoken-SAI© required less time but provided comparable accuracy to Typed-SAI©.
- Using SAI© led to more detailed accounts a week later regardless of modality.
- Neither modality reduced susceptibility to misleading post-event information.

## 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.