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

Pica, Emily; Thompson, Lauren E.; Pozzulo, Joanna; Dempsey, Julie; Pettalia, Jennifer

doi:10.1007/s11896-018-9307-8

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While this was insufficient for computing significance tests, the reported weighted hit rates (young adults: 46%; adolescents: 48%) and correct rejections rates (young adults: 48%; adolescents: 44%) across these studies were similar. This aligns with two recent experiments that reported no differences in identification performance between adolescents (15-17 years) and adults (Pica et al, 2020;Sheahan et al, 2017). In another experiment, children (7-10 and 11-13 years), adolescents (14-16 years), and young adults (18-36 years) made three identification decisions from a perpetrator lineup that included a thief (targetpresent) or a bystander (target-absent), a witness lineup with clothing bias, and an unbiased victim lineup (Brackmann et al, 2019).…”

Section: Age and Identification Performancesupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification performance across the life span: Lineups and the reaction time-based Concealed Information Test

SAUERLAND,

Wiechert,

Czarnojan

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive and social factors can deteriorate eyewitness identification performance in children and older adults. An identification procedure that mitigates the effect of such factors could be beneficial for child and older adult witnesses. In a field experiment, we mapped identification performance in a large community sample (N = 1,239) across the lifespan (ages 6-79 years) for two different identification procedures: classic lineups and reaction time-based Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT). Visitors of a science museum or science fair witnessed a recorded mock theft and then took either a classic lineup, or the RT-CIT. As expected, young adults (18-45 years) consistently outperformed younger age groups in lineup performance. The RT-CIT showed a moderate capacity to diagnose face recognition and absence of recognition in the target-absent condition. Importantly, age did not affect identification with the RT-CIT. Thus, lineup performance was more vulnerable to age effects than the RT-CIT. However, this did come with a considerably lower utility (i.e., exclusion rate of more than 40%). These findings suggest that the RT-CIT might be considered an alternative identification procedure for children, offering protection for innocent suspects.

show abstract

Section: Age and Identification Performancesupporting

confidence: 92%

“…and adults (Pica et al, 2020;Sheahan et al, 2017), at least when the lineup was unbiased (Brackmann et al, 2019). In biased lineups, however, adolescents were previously more prone to misidentify a bystander or a filler in a lineup with clothing bias (Brackmann et al, 2019).…”

Section: Age and The Cit Effectmentioning

confidence: 98%

Identification performance across the life span: Lineups and the reaction time-based Concealed Information Test

SAUERLAND,

Wiechert,

Czarnojan

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…( 2020 ) combined the elimination procedure with the wildcard and found that this method was the most effective in reducing false identifications. While the ‘elimination with wildcard’ procedure seems to be a promising technique to further improve children’s identification accuracy on TA lineups, other researchers have argued that the wildcard may be interpreted more along the lines of a ‘not sure’ response rather than a definitive ‘not there’ response, and it has been suggested that the lineup should contain both ‘not sure’ and ‘not there’ options (Pica et al., 2020 ; Wells et al., 2020 ). An updated review of guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures in the United States has recommended that in addition to including an explicit statement that the target may or may not be present in the lineup, the lineup should also contain clearly marked ‘not there’ and ‘do not know’ options beneath the array of faces (Wells et al., 2020 ).…”

Section: Role Of Familiaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of experimenter familiarity in children’s eyewitness identification

Calderwood

Ballantyne

Slee

2023

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Child eyewitnesses show a high false identification rate on target-absent (TA) lineups despite good performance on target-present (TP) lineups. One explanation is that children feel a social pressure to choose when presented with a TA lineup. We investigated whether experimenter familiarity would reduce social pressure and improve accuracy on TA lineups. Children (5–7 years, N = 120) watched a short video of a staged theft; 1–2 days later they completed a TP or TA lineup with a familiar or unfamiliar experimenter. Experimenter familiarity had an impact on lineup response in TA lineups only, with more correct ‘not there’ and fewer ‘not sure’ responses when the children were familiar with the experimenter. The results provide further evidence to support the social aspect of eyewitness identification decisions in children and provide a possible strategy to improve identification accuracy for those working with children in the criminal justice system.

show abstract

“…In the condition where the lineup rejection option was displayed, a lineup rejection could be made by selecting "0" on the computer keyboard. Using both adult and adolescent samples, Pica, Thompson, Pozzulo, Dempsey, and Pettalia (2018) compared identification outcomes across the presentation of several types of lineup rejection options (e.g., a silhouette and/or a question mark representing target-absence, a "not here" box). They reported that the lineup rejection options did not affect identifications relative to a control condition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of explicit “Not Present” and “Don't Know” response options on identification decisions in computer‐administered lineups

Lucas

Brewer

Michael

et al. 2020

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitness researchers recommend that "not present" and "don't know" response options should be presented with police lineups. Although it is important that witnesses-most of whom are unlikely to be familiar with the identification task-are fully cognizant of all response options available to them, an understanding of how explicit non-identification options affect performance is lacking. Across four experiments, including 3,633 participants and 8 different stimulus sets, we tested the effects of including non-identification options in computer-administered lineups. When explicit non-identification options were presented, target-present and-absent choosing decreased. This decrease in choosing was characterized by a shift from filler identifications to lineup rejections. ROC analyses revealed that there was no overall difference in discriminability between guilty and innocent suspects depending on response option condition. On balance, the findings suggest that, in addition to informing witnesses about acceptable responses, displaying non-identification response options does not undermine identification performance.

show abstract

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 49 publications

Identification performance across the life span: Lineups and the reaction time-based Concealed Information Test

Identification performance across the life span: Lineups and the reaction time-based Concealed Information Test

The role of experimenter familiarity in children’s eyewitness identification

The effects of explicit “Not Present” and “Don't Know” response options on identification decisions in computer‐administered lineups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About