Researchers investigating the accuracy of eyewitness accounts staged and made a video of a crime, and showed it to test subjects. A lineup of “suspects,” none of whom was the person playing the criminal in the video, was then shown to the subjects. When the subjects were not told that the suspect might not be in the lineup, 78 percent of them misidentified one or another of the persons in the lineup as the criminal. Only 38 percent of the subjects made misidentifications when they were told that the suspect might not be in the lineup.

Summary
Researchers staged a crime and showed a video of it to test subjects. A lineup of “suspects” was then shown to the test subjects. The person playing the criminal in the video was not in this lineup. When the test subjects were not told the suspect may not be in the lineup, most of them misidentified a person in the lineup as the criminal. When the test subjects were told that the suspect may not be in the lineup, less than half of them misidentified a person in the lineup as the criminal.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
The more likely people expect to see something, the more likely people are to think they see something not actually there.

A
Eyewitnesses are no more likely to accurately select a suspect from a lineup than are people who are given an accurate verbal description of the suspect.
This answer is unsupported. There was not a test group in the stimulus where people were given a vernal description of the suspect.
B
People tend to want to satisfy the stated expectations of those who ask them for information.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the researchers stated to the test subjects that they expected them to identify the suspect in the lineup.
C
When specifically directed by a person of authority to say that something is among a group of things when it is not, most people will comply.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the researchers specifically directed the test subjects in this way.
D
People fail to recognize the physical similarities among a group of people unless they are given information in addition to visual clues.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the test subjects failed to recognize any similarities between people.
E
People are less likely to think they see something that is not actually present the less they expect to see it.
This answer is strongly supported. This would explain the effect of the amount of misidentifications decreasing after the information told to the test subjects by the researchers.

4 comments

Professor: During election years, voters often feel that they are insufficiently informed about election issues. And studies have revealed the surprising fact that regular subscribers to the few newspapers that do provide extensive coverage of election issues are no better informed about election issues than subscribers to newspapers that have very little coverage of these issues.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Subscribers to newspapers that cover election issues are no better informed than subscribers to newspapers that don’t cover election issues.

Objective

The right answer will be a hypothesis that gives us information about people who subscribe to newspapers covering election issues. This information must explain how these subscribers aren’t more-informed than people who subscribe newspapers that don’t cover election issues. The explanation will likely be that the people who read election coverage are confused by multiple perspectives, or that the subscribers don’t bother reading the election coverage that these newspapers run.

A
The newspapers that provide extensive coverage of election issues have a smaller circulation, on average, than the newspapers that provide very little coverage of these issues.

It doesn’t matter how many subscribers these newspapers are reaching. We need to know about the people who subscribe to them.

B
Many newspapers that once provided extensive coverage of election issues now provide very little coverage of these issues.

These newspapers would fall into the “not covering election” category. We need to know why people who subscribe to newspapers that do cover election issues aren’t more-informed than people who subscribe to other newspapers.

C
Most regular subscribers to the newspapers that provide extensive coverage of election issues rarely read the articles about these issues.

Rather than reading the election coverage, these subscribers do the crossword. They’re no better informed than the other subscribers because they don’t even read the coverage that these newspapers offer.

D
Many of the voters who feel that they are insufficiently informed about election issues do not subscribe to newspapers.

We care about people who do subscribe to newspapers.

E
Most voters get the majority of their information about election issues from sources other than newspapers.

We don’t care where most voters get their information from. We care about the ones who subscribe to newspapers.


1 comment