Philisha is very confident that the suspect committed the crime. ...

[sammy]

Philisha is very confident that the suspect committed the crime.
 
  She was able to observe the crime from a
   location in which the culprit was unable to see her, she observed the culprit for 5 minutes; the crime took place
   in a well-lit area; the police used the cognitive interview to question her about the crime; she identified the
   suspect in a sequential lineup. Given this information the jury:
   a) should not take her confidence into consideration because confidence is not a good indicator of memory
   accuracy.
   b) should take her confidence into consideration during their deliberation, based on the idea behind the
   optimality hypothesis.
   c) should take her confidence into consideration because confidence is generally a good indicator of memory accuracy.
   d) should not take her confidence into consideration during their deliberation, based on the idea behind the
   optimality hypothesis.

Question 2

Sandra is a witness to a bank robbery. When asked to identify the culprit in a lineup she brings her friend Tom with her.
 
  After Sandra identified the culprit, her friend Tom says that the guy she identified really stood out; he
   looked meaner and tougher than the rest of the people in the lineup. It seems that perhaps the Sandra's identification could have been tainted by:
   a) photo bias.
   b) by the misinformation effect.
   c) inadequate functional size of the lineup.
   d) the fact that a show-up procedure was used.

[emsimon14]

Answer to Question 1

Answer: b

Answer to Question 2

Answer: c

[sammy]

Gracias!

[meganmoser117]

TYSM