The different reporting styles that we investigate in this study are the monologue, recontextualized and question-answer (Q&A) style. The **monologue style** is written from the perspective of the suspect (in first person). The questions asked or remarks made by the interrogator(s) do not appear in the record. The **recontextualized style** also makes use of the suspect’s perspective and the first person, but at the same time partly shows the interrogator’s questions. This style uses a complicated form in which the officer’s question is told from the perspective of the suspect, for example, “You ask me what I want to state about this. I state to you, that yesterday afternoon I was...etc.”. This style complicatedly demonstrates that the officer asked the question “what do you want to state about this”. The **Q&A style** consists of the police officers’ questions and the suspect’s answers. In other words, the written text follows a question-answer structure. As can be concluded from the description above, there are different dimensions that distinguish the reporting styles from each other. First of all, there is the number of sources that provide the information mentioned in the police record. Whereas the recontextualized and the Q&A style inlude information from both the police office rand the suspect, the monologue style only states information provided by the suspect. Next, the styles differ when it comes to perspective taken in the record. The recontextualized and monologue style records only take the perspective of the suspect, whereas the Q&A style records take the perspective of both the police officer and the suspect. Deriving a score from both of these dimension can be used as indication of the record’s representativeness of the interrogation that took place (see [table][1]). Based on this representativeness score, we expect an Q&A style record to be more credible and reliable than records that use the recontextualized or monologue style. Because the recontextualized style is the most complex (and deviates the most from everyday language), we hypothesize that this style will lead to the least credibility and reliability of the record. Analyses regarding the credibility and reliability of the suspect are explorative in nature. [1]: https://osf.io/j6caz/