Written vs. spoken eyewitness accounts: does modality of testing matter?

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Forensic Psychology

Background:

• Obtaining accurate eyewitness statements is crucial for legal proceedings.
• The cognitive demands of different response modalities (written vs. spoken) may influence the quantity and quality of recalled information.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether the modality of statement retrieval (written vs. spoken) affects the level of detail and accuracy in eyewitness accounts.
• To explore the cognitive and social factors influencing eyewitness memory recall.

Main Methods:

• 192 participants viewed a staged crime video.
• Participants subsequently provided either a written or spoken description of the event and perpetrator.
• Recall accuracy and detail were assessed for both modalities.

Main Results:

• Spoken eyewitness statements contained significantly more details than written statements.
• No significant difference in overall accuracy was found between spoken and written reports.
• Critical crime and perpetrator details were more extensive and accurate in spoken statements.

Conclusions:

• Spoken eyewitness testimonies may be more beneficial for eliciting comprehensive and accurate details, particularly for crucial information.
• Cognitive load associated with writing may hinder detailed recall compared to speaking.
• Further research should explore social factors influencing modality effects in eyewitness accounts.