#17 - Studies of the reliability of eyewitness

[8scn]

Hello, I chose A based on elimination because the other answers didn’t sound right, but why is A correct? The stimulus says that confidence doesn’t affect accuracy and that they are not correlated, so what does it matter if the witness’s confidence level is affected by what other people claim?

[Steve Stein]

The author provides that witness confidence can be affected by certain factors; the author concludes that witnesses should not be allowed to hear what other witnesses are saying.

What can we draw from this? The author must be saying that hearing the testimony of others is among those factors that might increase or undermine a witness' confidence. This is the principle provided by correct answer choice A.

Let me know if this clears things up--thanks!

[moshei24]

Why is (A) the correct answer?

Is it because the stimulus only says that certain factors will affect the witness without altering the accuracy of the identification, but when it concludes and says that police officers shouldn't allow suspect lineups where people can hear each other, it's assuming that that is a case that isn't included in certain factors? Certain factors only includes certain things, and this case wouldn't be one of the cases where the factors don't alter their accuracy? So this would be a case where affecting confidence would affect accuracy?

Basically, the premise that is stated right before the conclusion isn't proving the conclusion? The conclusion is the exception to that premise?

Then again, without the assumption included in (A), there is no way for the conclusion to be true. (A) gives us one of the assumptions necessary for the conclusion to be true, but they would still need a second one stating that this case is a case where having confidence affected would affect the accuracy of the identification.

Am I on the right track to explaining this question to myself accurately? Can you clear it up, please?

Thanks!

-Moshe

[Dave Killoran]

Yes, you're on the right track with the first sentence of the portion beginning with "Then again, ..."

The stimulus talks about factors affecting witness's confidence, but then jumps right to a conclusion about hearing other people in a police lineup. So, we need something to connect the "hearing one another" and the confidence. Answer choice (A) helps bridge that gap that exists between the broader premise and the more specific conclusion.

Thanks!

[kristinaroz93]

I am having an issue with this stimulus and it sounding a little bit contradictory to me.

First it says that there is little correlation between the accuracy of a given account and the confidence of the witness. But then it concludes that witnesses should be seperated out from one another when identifying suspects. But why? If the stimulus is saying that confidence levels do not really matter when it comes to accuracy in suspect lineups, then why is it so pertinent for police officers to seperate out the witnesses? So what if they influence eachother and affect eachother's confidence levels if the account would still be right?

(And of course I state that all given choice A is the right answer, I did choose A btw, just things in this problem as a whole aren't adding up to me)

And now lets look at it with choosing choice A as the answer: Even if we use A as our principle that confidence is affected when witnesses can hear eachother, how does this allow the conclusion to be drawn that the police should sepearte out the witnesses, given the identificiation will still most likely be accurate since as stated earlier there is little correlation between accuracy and confidence?

Maybe it is 12 am and I am just tired and some things aren't clicking, but this argument genuinely seems contradictory to me in the moment=/

[Robert Carroll]

Kristina,

The identification will be as accurate as it would have been otherwise - this does not mean it will be more (or less) accurate, but if the confidence of the witness is increased by allowing the witness to hear other identification's, you'll get someone saying "I'm sure that's him" rather than "I think that might be him" in a situation where, as you pointed out, the accuracy of the identifications is precisely the same in both cases.

I think part of the issue is that the stimulus claims there is little correlation between accuracy and confidence in part because there are factors that affect confidence without affecting accuracy. If one could minimize those factors, one might be able to improve the correlation in controlled circumstances. Thus, police are advised not to make things worse.

Robert Carroll

[kristinaroz93]

Hi robert,

Thank you for responding. I do understand the first part, I guess it makes people feel better when they hear "I'm sure that's him" rather than "I think that might be him" . I guess if you are going to put someone in jail, you want your witness to tell you something with a more confident attitude than an unsure one.

However, I do not really get your second part of the post. Do you think you can clarify it for me?
Here's how I understood it: Are you saying the issue of small correlation is actually the result of letting witnesses influence eachother? And so if witnesses do not influence eachother people will be more confident with their own answers and so correlation will go up between accuracy and confidence? (Because now it is just the witness trying to remember what they saw exactly versus what they saw and what someone else is saying). Maybe I have it all wrong here and I am overanalyzing too much, please let me know!

[Robert Carroll]

Kristina,

It's not as if the poor correlation is an unsolvable problem - perhaps there could be a better fit between confidence and accuracy if the kinds of things that produced the poor correlation were eliminated. The stimulus suggests doing just one of those things. So it's not as if we just have to accept the poor correlation - the stimulus is saying there is one in point of fact, as an observation of the past, but that doesn't mean it will keep happening in the future is a conscious effort can be made to change it.

Perhaps an example..."Very few people succeed when they try to quit smoking. Researchers have found that the desire to smoke can be influenced by the behavior of one's companions. Thus, people trying to quit smoking should avoid hanging around smokers." Just because trying to quit doesn't work very often (poor correlation between trying and succeeding!) doesn't mean it's hopeless - perhaps it's just an observation that most people don't take the related steps, like changing other aspects of their lifestyles, that might help.

Robert Carroll

[kristinaroz93]

Oh okay, so is this problem trying to resolve the issue of poor correlation esentially, right?

While, I was thinking oh look small correlation so then who cares about separating people out if responses will still be accurate! When the issue was,well why should we even have small correlation at all when it is possible to change it. Is this it?

I think I feel tired today from going through the games bible and so lr is somehow going over my head today=/

[Robert Carroll]

Kristina,

I think you have it now. A poor correlation is not necessarily something that can't be changed.

Robert Carroll