Public perceptions of eyewitness interview formats

A heightened awareness of the need for alternatives to face-to-face interviewing, alongside technological advances and research innovations, has increased the possibilities for novel approaches to eyewitness interviewing, such as the Self-Administred Interview© (SAI) and online interviewing. While they can produce statements that are as accurate and detailed as face-to-face interviews, little is known about witnesses’ willingness to be interviewed through non-conventional methods. Participants (N = 577) were presented with one of four vignettes depicting a robbery varied by crime severity (mild vs. serious) and personal involvement (witness vs. victim). Participants then rank-ordered their preference for five types of interview format, from 1 (most preferred) to 5 (least preferred). Face-to-face was the most preferred interview format (mrank = 2.06), followed by telephone (mrank = 2.45), video chat (mrank = 3.10), the written SAI (mrank = 3.61), and the digital SAI (mrank = 3.77). Vignette condition had little effect on this overall trend. Analysis of open-ended questions revealed that a perceived ease of communication was the main reason for preferring face-to-face interviews. Both SAI© options were perceived to be inefficient and to create barriers to communication. Interventions may be required to improve public perception of nontraditional interview formats.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Psychology Crime and Law
Published
2026-07-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2026.2700778
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Public perceptions of eyewitness interview formats

Emelie Ernberg, Elaine Mc Hugh, Erik Mac Giolla
Psychology Crime and Law
Memory Processes and Influences
article

Public perceptions of eyewitness interview formats

Emelie Ernberg, Elaine Mc Hugh, Erik Mac Giolla
article en

Abstract

A heightened awareness of the need for alternatives to face-to-face interviewing, alongside technological advances and research innovations, has increased the possibilities for novel approaches to eyewitness interviewing, such as the Self-Administred Interview© (SAI) and online interviewing. While they can produce statements that are as accurate and detailed as face-to-face interviews, little is known about witnesses’ willingness to be interviewed through non-conventional methods. Participants (N = 577) were presented with one of four vignettes depicting a robbery varied by crime severity (mild vs. serious) and personal involvement (witness vs. victim). Participants then rank-ordered their preference for five types of interview format, from 1 (most preferred) to 5 (least preferred). Face-to-face was the most preferred interview format (mrank = 2.06), followed by telephone (mrank = 2.45), video chat (mrank = 3.10), the written SAI (mrank = 3.61), and the digital SAI (mrank = 3.77). Vignette condition had little effect on this overall trend. Analysis of open-ended questions revealed that a perceived ease of communication was the main reason for preferring face-to-face interviews. Both SAI© options were perceived to be inefficient and to create barriers to communication. Interventions may be required to improve public perception of nontraditional interview formats.

Psychology Crime and Law
Atlantic University (US), Atlantic Technological University (IE), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Konkurrensverket
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Memory Processes and Influences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.