How effective is retrieval support for witnesses with different levels of working and source memory?

Krix, Alana C.; Sauerland, Melanie; Gabbert, Fiona; Hope, Lorraine

doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.1003219

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our studies were grouped quite crudely, such that we compared studies that used free recall at Time 2 with those that had used any other type of report at Time 2. This “other” category included one study that used a CI (Hope et al, 2014), two that used a second SAI© (Krix et al, 2014; Krix, Sauerland, Lorei, & Rispens, 2015; Krix, Sauerland, Merckelbach, Gabbert, & Hope, 2015), and two that used cued recall tests (Gabbert et al, 2012, Experiment 2; Mackay & Paterson, 2015). Of course, the retrieval support provided by a cued recall test will depend upon the number of cues that are used—a cued recall test that provides very few prompts will likely produce brief reports that are more comparable to a free recall account than to a structured interview (Fisher, Schreiber Compo, Rivard, & Hirn, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analytic review of the Self‐Administered Interview©: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

Horry

Hughes

Sharma

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Self‐Administered Interview (SAI©) is designed to elicit detailed witness reports in the aftermath of incidents. In two sets of meta‐analyses, we compared the number of correct details reported, the number of incorrect details reported, and the accuracy of reports provided by witnesses in initial reports (SAI© vs. other reporting formats) and in subsequent accounts (initial SAI© vs. no initial SAI©). The number of comparisons ranged from 15 to 19, (N = 722 to 977). For initial accounts, the SAI© was associated with more correct details and more incorrect details than other reporting formats; accuracy was slightly lower for the SAI© than for other reporting formats. Subsequent accounts were more detailed and accurate for witnesses who had completed an initial SAI© than for those who had not. The SAI© is an effective tool for capturing detailed initial accounts and for preserving witness memory until a formal interview can be conducted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analytic review of the Self‐Administered Interview©: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

Horry

Hughes

Sharma

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used two different source monitoring tests (see Unsworth & Brewer, 2010a), which were taken from another study (Krix, Sauerland, Merckelbach, Gabbert, & Hope, 2013). In the picture source recognition test, participants are shown 30 pictures that appear for 1 s one at a time in one of four quadrants on screen.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speaking is silver, writing is golden? The role of cognitive and social factors in written versus spoken witness accounts

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contradictory empirical findings and theoretical accounts exist that are in favor of either a written or a spoken superiority effect. In this article, we present two experiments that put the recall modality effect in the context of eyewitness reports to another test. More specifically, we investigated the role of cognitive and social factors in the effect. In both experiments, participants watched a videotaped staged crime and then gave spoken or written accounts of the event and the people involved. In Experiment 1, 135 participants were assigned to written, spoken-videotaped, spoken-distracted, or spoken-voice recorded conditions to test for the impact of cognitive demand and social factors in the form of interviewer presence. Experiment 2 (N = 124) tested the idea that instruction comprehensiveness differentially impacts recall performance in written versus spoken accounts. While there was no evidence for a spoken superiority effect, we found some support for a written superiority effect for description quantity, but not accuracy. Furthermore, any differences found in description quantity as a function of recall modality could be traced back to participants' free reports. Following up with cued open-ended questions compensated for this effect, although at the expense of description accuracy. This suggests that current police practice of arbitrarily obtaining written or spoken accounts is mostly unproblematic.

show abstract

“…Research suggests that the SAI, but not FR, has the potential to preserve memory (Hope et al, 2014;Krix et al, 2014, Experiment 2). Overall, the SAI can be considered a reliable eyewitness tool that is often to be preferred to FR (but see Krix, Sauerland, Merckelbach, Gabbert, & Hope, 2015;Maras et al, 2014, for possible exceptions regarding certain witness populations).…”

Section: Sai Recall Performance Under Stressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Krix

Sauerland

Raymaekers

et al. 2015

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

show abstract

How effective is retrieval support for witnesses with different levels of working and source memory?

Cited by 7 publications

References 58 publications

A meta‐analytic review of the Self‐Administered Interview©: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

A meta‐analytic review of the Self‐Administered Interview©: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

Speaking is silver, writing is golden? The role of cognitive and social factors in written versus spoken witness accounts

Eyewitness Evidence Obtained with the Self‐Administered Interview© Is Unaffected by Stress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About