Variations of Salient Rejection Options: Does One Work Best for Adolescents and Adults?
Adolescents (15- to 17-years, N = 366) and adults (18- to 57-years, N = 345) were shown a videotaped theft and following a brief delay were presented with a target-present or target-absent simultaneous lineup that contained one of four variations of a “not here” graphical representation or a control with no graphical representation. Variations included: “silhouette and question mark box” vs. “silhouette box” vs. “question mark box” vs. “not here box” vs. no box (i.e., control). Lineup instructions for each option included a statement that the perpetrator may or may not be present. Participants were more likely to make an accurate identification when presented with a target-present lineup compared to a target-absent lineup. Including some form of graphical representation of “not here” did not increase the correct identification or correct rejection rates compared to when no representation was presented with the lineup. Adolescents and adults provided a comparable number of perpetrator descriptors; however, overall, adolescents produced a higher proportion of accurate responses. Participants who reported more perpetrator descriptors also were more likely to make a correct identification or correct rejection in the subsequent identification task.
KeywordsEyewitness Adolescent Young adult Identification abilities Perpetrator descriptors
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Blakemore S-J, Choudhury S (2006) Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 47:296–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x
- Brewer N, Weber N, Semmler C (2005) Eyewitness identification. In: Brewer N, Williams K (eds) Psychology and law: an empirical perspective. Guilford Press, New York, pp 177–221Google Scholar
- Davies G, Tarrant A, Flin R (1989) Close encounters of the witness kind: children’s memory for a simulated health inspection. Br J Psychol 80:415–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02333.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perreault S, Brennan S (2010) Criminal victimization in Canada, 2009. Juristat. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, p 30Google Scholar
- Pozzulo JD, Reed J, Pettalia J & Dempsey J (2015) Simultaneous, sequential, elimination, and wildcard: a comparison of lineup procedures. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9168-3
- Sauer JD, Brewer N (2015) Confidence and accuracy of eyewitness identification. In: Valentine T, Davis JP (eds) Forensic facial identification: theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites, and CCTV. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 185–208Google Scholar
- Statistics Canada (2008) Children and youth. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2008000/pdf/children-enfants-eng.pdf
- U.S. Department of Justice (2012) Violent crime against youth, 2004–2010 (NCJ 240106). Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf
- Wells GL, Windschitl PD (1999) Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 25:1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992512005