Self-study
In an experiment, volunteers witnessed a simulated crime. █████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██████████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██████ ██████████████████
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the witnesses who gave relatively fewer inaccurate details at first end up giving relatively more inaccurate details later?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why witnesses who gave relatively accurate accounts when prompted to give inaccuracies ended up giving relatively inaccurate accounts when prompted to answer accurately. We don’t know whether these witnesses' testimonies actually got less accurate the second time around, or if it was the rest of the group who amended their erroneous details. But a hypothesis that points to either of these ideas would help explain the situation.
21.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████████
a
These witnesses were ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████
This would explain why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. But why would that lead to relatively more inaccuracies when they gave their testimonies a second time? This doesn't reconcile the apparent conflict.
b
These witnesses had ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████
This explains why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. But it still doesn't help us to explain why their testimonies were relatively inaccurate the second time.
c
These witnesses were ████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████
This means that while these witnesses were less susceptible to inaccuracy in the first round, they also weren’t as easily led towards accurate details the second time. This would explain the apparent conflict.
d
These witnesses were ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████████
This could be true, but it doesn’t reconcile the fact that these witnesses were more accurate than others the first time around and less accurate the second. If anything, it makes it more confusing why this group was relatively less accurate the second time.
e
These witnesses tended ██ ████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████
It doesn’t matter how detailed their testimonies were. We need to know why those details were relatively more accurate in the first examination and relatively less accurate in the second examination.