The self‐administered interview does not impair identification but distorts its confidence.

Purpose: The self‐administered interview© (SAI©) is a tool used to effectively collect eyewitness information. It has been shown that conducting the SAI immediately after a witnessed event facilitates later recall. However, the effects of the SAI on subsequent identification remain unclear. Therefore, we investigated whether the SAI affects subsequent identification when a lineup is involved. Methods: After 164 undergraduate participants watched a mock crime video, those in the SAI condition described the recalled objects and aspects of the video using the SAI. Meanwhile, in the control condition, participants did not describe the recalled objects or aspects but wrote about what they had learned in regular psychology classes. Afterwards, the participants made identifications and answered a few questions. Results: The results showed that conducting the SAI did not alter the subsequent identification rates in the lineup, but the metacognition for description—participants' thoughts on how the description task affected identification—was more positive in the SAI condition than in the control condition. Moreover, when participants made a false identification in the target‐present lineup, their confidence in the SAI condition was greater than that in the control condition. Conclusions: The results suggest that the SAI can be used for witnesses with the potential to make identifications later because it does not interrupt identification itself. However, the confidence levels in identifications made by eyewitnesses answering questions in the SAI should be carefully assessed. This is because the SAI may distort the metacognition for description and increase false confidence levels in the identifications made by eyewitnesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]