Question for readers of this post.
It is getting a lot of hits. Does anyone know what is listing/referring/using it? My analytics are not telling me anything. Please tell me by sending me an e-mail, richard(at)zorza.net.
The aim of the current study was to test whether the modality of testing (written vs. spoken) matters when obtaining eyewitness statements. Writing puts higher demands on working memory than speaking because writing is slower, less practiced, and associated with the activation of graphemic representations for spelling words (Kellogg, 2007). Therefore, we hypothesized that witnesses’ spoken reports should elicit more details than written ones. Participants (N = 192) watched a staged crime video and then gave a spoken or written description of the course of action and the perpetrator. As expected, spoken crime and perpetrator descriptions contained more details than written ones, although there was no difference in accuracy. However, the most critical (central) crime and perpetrator information was both more extensive and more accurate when witnesses gave spoken descriptions. In addition to cognitive factors, social factors are considered which may drive the effect. (Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)
Here’s the question: does this mean that document assembly software will collect less detail than would be the case from an attorney or paralegal human interview. If so, (and it is a big if) then we need to think about asking extra questions to get at the detail required. There might also be other strategies for ensuring the information, such as careful wording and testing of questions, use of sample answers, etc.)
It is not hard to imagine some research that would compare the product of traditional questioning with first an online document assembly program already in use, and then an enhanced version of that program using a standard protocol for the enhancement.