| dc.description.abstract | Following a witnessed event, eyewitnesses are typically asked to give their report of the event. However, depending on the crime, witnesses may be interviewed differently. Previous research suggests that the way in which an individual is interviewed can impact the quantity and quality of the details reported. Research investigating different types of interviews suggests that having witnesses talk or write about an event can lead to different report qualities. Thus, one goal of the present study is to investigate how different types of interviews impact memory reports. Additionally, being tested on previously learned information has been shown to improve memory for that information compared to re-studying that information. Therefore, another goal is to examine how questioning participants at Test 1, compared to a second exposure to the information, impacts the quality of memory reports. Participants watched a short video clip and then were interviewed about its contents immediately, one week and one month later. Participants either wrote or spoke about what happened in the video. In general, writing leads to better quality memory reports compared to speaking and seems to carry over one week later. Therefore, having individuals provide a written compared to spoken report may be more effective in producing more accurate and detailed memory reports. | en_US |
