Variations of Salient Rejection Options: Does One Work Best for Adolescents and Adults?

Abstract

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.