# data[].attributes.body
Made by Arshdeep Kaur, working individually.

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
Ancient wisdom is referred to a red flag where people believe in a process or ritual that has been adapted from the ancient times, which has no relevance or science behind it but is followed just because people believe the people from the old times had more knowledge and information than at present. This is a red flag because with the advanced technology and science, there are better tools present that can be used instead of the ancient processes followed in certain situations. The ancient beliefs followed are based on pseudoscience and have no actual effect related to the purpose they are used for. An example of ancient wisdom is bloodletting.

CONNECTION
The picture attached above shows the process of bloodletting which has been adapted from the ancient times. This is connected to ancient wisdom because back in the ancient times, it was believed that a person's blood can be drained to treat severe illnesses and the disease would drain out with the blood and cure the person. This is scientifically incorrect and cannot be followed through using the scientific method either. This process is based on a false claim but is followed by people who believe in the ancient people having more knowledge that present day doctors who have access to medication and technology. The flaw here is that people believe in ancient practices that were followed decades if not centuries ago and none of these ancient practices can be scientifically proved to be accurate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 - Red Flag - Appeal to Authority 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 - Red Flag - Appeal to Authority 

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
Appeal to authority is a red flag where a person who is believed to have authority or looks like a professional is used as a means of conveying a message which may not actually be supported by professionals. The face/person with authority is used to establish trust with the viewer when promoting a product to make the viewer feel like the product can be trusted even when the person promoting it may not be an actual professional, just someone dressed like one. An example of appeal to authority red flag is people dressed in white coats pretending to be dentists promoting a toothpaste.

CONNECTION
The video attached above is an example of the appeal to authority red flag. In the video a person dressed in a white coat (who appears to be a dentist) is promoting a toothpaste. Because of the professional look of the person promoting, people are more likely to believe in the performance of the toothpaste without doing any actual research about the product itself. The person in the white coat is acting as a medium to make people trust the brand thinking it is recommended by a dentist.
The flaw here is that people are easily convinced by the message given by the person but there is no actual research behind what is being promoted.

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
The mystical energy red flag is currently one of the red flags seen and heard about the most. People believe  in the presence of a mystical energy that cannot be seen, felt or proved using the scientific method. People believe that this energy may be present in people, crystals and objects and some have also made a business out of this in the form of energy reading, aura visualization, crystal sell/purchase etc.

CONNECTION
The picture attached above shows some crystals that are believed to have certain 'special power/energy' attached to them. These are promoted to people as a means of getting an addition to a specific kind of energy in their life. These crystals come in all shapes and sizes and are connected to different aspects of life depending on their size and color. This connects to mystical energy being a red flag as there is no scientific proof or explanation to this energy even existing or about these crystals containing any energy at all. The 'energy' cannot be proved by using the scientific method and there is a lot of skepticism around it. A flaw here is that the energy that is supposedly attached cannot be seen or felt and cannot be explained in a simple manner.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #5 - Red Flag - Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #5 - Red Flag - Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
The red flag correlation with causation is when one thing completely unrelated to the second is correlated and considered the cause of the second thing creating an overall misunderstood conclusion which is inaccurate. The first thing is actually not related to the second but the way in which both of them are presented makes it look like the first thing caused/ resulted in the second. An example of correlation with causation is antivaxxers relating vaccinations to autism.

CONNECTION
The video attached above is an example of an explanation to correlation with causation. Antivaxxers believe that vaccines cause autism in children. Even though this claim is false and this has been proved in multiple reports, people still believe in this because autism is diagnosed in children around the same age as they are vaccinated. Due to the close age timelines, vaccines and autism are correlated  and believed to affect one another even though this claim is completely false. One flaw here is that even after several researches have been conducted proving this claim wrong, people still correlate the two together because of their close timelines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robert DeNiro Debates Autism's Link To Vaccines | TODAY

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
The red flag all natural is another one of the red flags seen a lot lately. This happens when a product is marketed as being 'all natural' but has multiple ingredients which may be harmful to the consumer. Because of the promotion of the product containing the word natural, people quickly trust the product thinking it would benefit them without being bothered to do any research on their own level. Most products marketed as 'all natural' actually contain toxins, which are natural as they are naturally present in the environment but are very harmful if consumed or used externally. The company marketing it cannot be held responsible in case of any incidents as their claim of the all natural product stands too even with the toxic materials present in the product. Examples of all natural products include food and skin care products.

CONNECTION
The picture attached above is an example of how 'all natural' skin care products are marketed. This is related to the all natural red flag as looking at the product and the marketing, the product seems to be super healthy and beneficial but actually contains naturally occurring toxins and sulfates which fall under the category of natural, but are toxic to the skin and body. These toxic ingredients are added in very small quantities but when we combine the amount present in each product a person uses in their lifetime, the amount is more than enough to cause serious harm to the person's health in the longer term. These products do not get highlighted due to their marketing and small quantity of toxins present and that is why the all natural products sell very well globally due to the illusion of good health being related to natural products. The flaw here is that the toxins and toxic materials are overlooked very easily an their effects on long term health and not widely known due to which no investigation is done.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #7 - Reasons for Belief - Unexplained

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #7 - Reasons for Belief - Unexplained

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
'Unexplained' is one of the popular reasons for belief. It can be described as when something cannot be explained due to lack or resources and/or information or due to influence of other factors making something invalid look or feel real. Patternicity adds to the unexplained as certain pattern may resemble to things we don't know enough about, causing us to face a dilemma where we can either believe science or, believe in something we don't know much about. One of the most common situations where unexplained is connected as a reason for belief is situations related to UFO sightings and aliens.

CONNECTION
The picture attached above shows an article which claims to be about a 'UFO sighting' but contains blurs of information due to lack of explanation and resources to confirm the story and sighting. The sighted 'UFO' could be a satellite or a meteor in the earth's outer atmosphere but due to an unclear image (patternicity) along with conspiracies surrounding UFOs and aliens, the article is claiming the image to be of a UFO without being 100% certain about it . The flaw here is that due to lack of knowledge and a proper explanation regarding UFOs and aliens, people claim random pictures that resembles an unknown disc like object to be a UFO flying overhead or aliens watching over the earth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8 - Reasons for Belief - Patternicity  

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8 - Reasons for Belief - Patternicity  

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
Patternicity stems a reason for belief where a certain object or image resembles a pattern that looks like a pre-existing object of a greater significance. An example of patternicity could be a tree or a rock that resembles the shape of an elephant head, which in-turn can be connected to a God in the Hindu religion (Lord Ganesha). If such a rock or tree is found, people following the Hindu religion would worship it, looking upon the tree/rock as a gift from God resembling Lord Ganesha. Patternicity is also greatly related to emotional connection, as the main reason people believe in the pattern in the first place is because of their emotional belief system convincing them to see the pattern and view it as a sign or a gift.

CONNECTION
The above attached image shows patternicity being seen in a tree. The main reason behind this patternicity being noticed in the first place is the emotional connection behind it. The connection of the pattern in the tree to a Hindu god makes it more likely to be seen as something of a hidden meaning, increasing it's significance. The flaw with patternicity is that people may view certain things as something way more meaningful than it actually is just because of the possible pattern they may see in the object or the possible meaning within or behind the object.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9 - Reasons for Belief - Perception and Observation

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9 - Reasons for Belief - Perception and Observation

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION
Perception and observation is another reason for belief that is very inconsistent due to the nature of our memories consistently changing with respect to the information that is fed to us. This reason for belief occurs when we 'observe' something and believe it to be true but our perception of the observation keeps changing with time and circumstances resulting in an inconsistent view of the observation that was first noted. Our observation is not as reliable as we deem it to be and the consistent changes may not even be noticed by us to the point of the initial and final perception being completely different. This is why witnesses to a case cannot be considered to be 100% reliable as their 'observation' of the incident may change over time due to change in questions being asked along with the change in circumstances.

CONNECTION
The website attached above shows how eyewitness testimony is in-turn not reliable at all the perception of an event may change consistently and may not even vaguely resemble the initial observation. This relates with the reason for belief called perception and observation as a person's perception of an observed incident may change with time and cannot be relied upon as trustworthy or scientific evidence. The flaw in this reason for belief is that anyone can claim to have observed something that happened a long time ago but their perception of the incident may be completely different from what was actually observed and, the person may be completely oblivious about the change in perception of the observation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Association for Psychological Science - APS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SUGGESTED LESSON PLAN
Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials (e.g. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). Probably only a suspect's signed confession can further convince a jury about that individual's guilt. That iconic moment when a testifying witness points to the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime is iconic, and has been dramatized often on television and movies. It is easy to understand why it is so convincing. We trust our own perception and experience. "I'll believe it when I see it" isn't just a cliché, it is a statement of the most persuasive form of evidence we allow.

But being convincing isn't the same as being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume. The advent of DNA analysis in the late 1980s revolutionized forensic science, providing an unprecedented level of accuracy about the identity of actual perpetrators versus innocent people falsely accused of crime. DNA testing led to the review of many settled cases. According to the Innocence Project , 358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration. Of those false identifications, 41% involved cross-racial misidentifications (221 of the 358 people were African American). And 28% of the cases involved a false confession.

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness's awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

Why the Myth Persists
So why, despite all the news about misidentifications and wrongful convictions, do people continue to put such profound faith in eyewitness testimony?

Several reasons are likely. First, in popular media and literatary depictions, detectives (for example, Sherlock Holmes) and witnesses possess highly detailed and accurate memories. Second, crimes and accidents are unusual, distinctive, often stressful, and even terrifying events, and people believe those events therefore should automatically be memorable. In fact, stress and terror can actually inhibit memory formation, and memories continue to be constructed after the originating event on the basis of information learned afterward. People underestimate how quickly forgetting can take place. Third, eyewitnesses are often sincere and confident, which makes them persuasive but not necessarily correct. Memory distortion often happens unconsciously. Witnesses truly believe their version of events, no matter how inaccurate they may be.

Finally, confirmation bias is likely at play. People notice the times when they accurately remembered some person or detail in their past, but tend to forget the times when their memory failed them. With the prevalence of video cameras capturing most anything we do, it is easier than ever to check memories against actual recordings of events. You might ask students if they ever compared their memory of an event to an actual recording of the incident and discovered discrepancies. If so, this might reduce confirmation bias.

The Reality
Memory doesn't record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences. The stories are sometimes uncannily accurate, sometimes completely fictional, and often a mixture of the two; and they can change to suit the situation. Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.
Related Myths

People won't confess to a crime they did not commit.

Flashbulb memories, vivid and emotionally compelling memories of the circumstances of learning about a subjectively important event, are more accurately remembered than mundane memories.

Accurate memories can be recovered or enhanced through hypnosis

We repress traumatic childhood memories but these memories can be recovered through therapy and they should be taken as valid and accurate (see the lesson plan on this myth.)

Lie detector tests reliably detect deception

Children make good eyewitnesses

Video Resources
How reliable is eyewitness testimony? National Science Foundation (3:59).
Eyewitness testimony - it's often thought of as solid evidence in criminal cases, but researchers including Iowa State University's Gary Wells have found that our memories aren't as reliable as we think. Sometimes, we can even build false recollections about people we only think we saw.

How reliable is your memory? | A TED talk by Elizabeth Loftus (17:36).
Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It's more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider. Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate

60 Minutes: Eyewitness Testimony Part 1 (13:00)

60 Minutes: Eyewitness Testimony Part 2 (13:06)

A two-part 60 Minutes news story focusing on the case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson, one of the best documented cases of false conviction. Extensive interviews with the people involved in the case as well as Elizabeth Loftus and Gary Wells.
Web Resources
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts. Scientific American Mind

Website of Dr. Gary Wells, who has done extensive research on the validity of police line-ups. His website is a wealth of information, links, and videos.

Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases. Teaching unit for Noba Project by Cara Laney and Elizabeth F. Loftus.

Police Are Changing Lineups to Avoid False IDs. Michael Ollove, Pew Charitable Trust, Posted July 13, 2018.
References:
Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-129. doi: 10.1002/acp.1171

Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(1), 129-134. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057880

Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory, Learning & Memory, 12, 361- 366. 2005 Jul 18. doi: 10.1101/lm.94705

Zaragoza, M. S., Belli, R. F., & Payment, K. E. (2007). Misinformation Effects and the Suggestibility of Eyewitness Memory. In M. Garry & H. Hayne (Eds.), Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom (pp. 35-63). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

DAY 1
An Introduction to Remembering
Assign Activity 1 below before the class meeting. Students may bring responses to class or post them online. Begin by posing the myth, shown on Slide 1 of the accompanying PowerPoint slides.
Eyewitness Testimony slides
Next discuss the assignment. I've summarized the study in Slide 2 and have graphed sample findings in Slides 3 and 4. Have students discuss their responses. It should become clear that people's memories are shaped by their biases and expectations; they are not an objective reflection of what happened. Different people can see the same event and come away with very different memories. Frederic Bartlett, the pioneering cognitive psychologist, talked about "remembering" as an active process as opposed to having a static memory that one stored and retrieved. This is a good entry point to discuss the nature of long-term memory and how it is both constructive (at encoding) and reconstructive (at retrieval). The instructor can discuss work on the misinformation effect and eyewitness testimony here. Schema theory can also be discussed. Slides 5 and 6 review the myth and the reality of memory. Assign Activity 2 (see below) to reinforce today's discussion.

DAY 2
An Overall Introduction to Memory
Go over the results of Activity 2 and see how accurate students' memories of the event were. Remind them that memories can be accurate or inaccurate; the problem is that we can't distinguish between the two. The goal of this day is to give an overview of how memory works. I've provided a concept map of different memory concepts in Slide 7. There are various ways of organizing the memory unit: historically from Ebbinghaus to current models, or focusing on a particular model such as Information processing (almost 50 years out of date, but still a powerful way of organizing concepts). Select an organization that makes it easiest for you to discuss key memory concepts.

DAY 3
Applications of Memory Research
This session can be used to finish the overview of memory that began on Day 2. Use Activity 3 (see below) to show how quickly and easily memory can be distorted. The balance of the class time can be spent discussing applications of memory research. Possible topics are listed in the concept map on Slide 7. All of these topics have important implications. Students often appreciate learning how to leverage memory research to improve their study habits because it directly relates to their current experience. Instructors may want to refer students to my video series on how to study effectively ( www.samford.edu/how-to-study).

Concept Checks
The following formative assessment questions allow both you and the students to gauge their level of understanding of the unit. Be sure to have students respond individually so both you and they can see how well the class understands the concepts. Then they can discuss as pairs or as a class. There are a variety of high tech (clickers) and low-tech (fingers) methods that can be used to administer these concept check questions.

Activity 1

How Bias and Expectations Shape Perception and Memory
For this assignment, you will listen to an excerpt from a podcast that tells the story of the most famous football game in psychology. What makes it famous? You will have to listen to find out, but it is directly relevant to our next unit. Below is the link to the podcast. Start and end at the designated times. Of course, you are welcome to listen to the second half as well if you are interested.

Start at 3:40 minute mark, listen to 15:00 minute mark.

Reflection questions
Write a paragraph in reflection to each question. Bring your reflections with you to class. We will be discussing them.

1. Think of a time when you experienced an event, in sports or any other area, similar to the Dartmouth-Princeton game where two or more groups of people watched the same event with great passion and then came to completely different conclusions about what happened? If you can't think of one from your own experience, describe an event that you know about that is similar.

2. How would the memories of the people in the two groups differ? Could they ever agree on what happened? If asked to give testimony under oath, would the accounts of the various groups agree? What does this say about our ability to objectively remember events?

3. What are the implications of the phenomenon described in the podcast for people trying to find common ground who belong to different cultural or ethnic groups, political parties, or religions? Have you ever had a discussion with someone you disagree with and it seems like you each are talking past each other? If so, describe it.

Activity 2

Eyewitness Memory Activity
This activity introduces students to the challenge of accurate eyewitness testimony and the misinformation effect. The students will watch a video of a bicyclist assisting police in chasing a thief. They will then be asked questions about the video. Some of the questions contain misleading post-event information (MPI). Then, students are asked about the presence or absence of certain details in the video, some of which are present and some of which are absent. Students can see their results, and the class results can also be compiled.

This activity follows a typical misinformation effect paradigm: subjects witness an event, are introduced to a mix of accurate and inaccurate post-event information, then tested for the accuracy of their memories of the event. The MPI is introduced through leading questions. The activity is set up as a 2×2 factorial design. In the post-event information, half the items mentioned were present in the video and half were not. Then during the detailed recall portion, half of the items listed were also listed in the post-event information and half were not. There are four groups:

item present in video/item mentioned in post-event information;

item absent in video/item mentioned in post-event information;

item present in video/item not mentioned in post event information; and

item absent in video/item not mentioned in post-event information.

Each cell contains five items. In addition, there are six filler questions in the post-event information; all refer to details that were present in the video.

The 2×2 factorial design allows teachers to compute hits, misses, false alarms, and correct rejections. A hit would be a yes response to an item present in the video. A false alarm is a yes response to an item that was not in the video. A miss is a no response to an item in the video. A correct rejection is a no response to an item not in the video.

Compare the mean number of yes responses for each of the four categories. False alarms and misses represent faulty memory and inaccurate eyewitness testimony. Did MPI increase the hit rate or the false alarm rate? The findings should be a good discussion starter for the malleability of memory and the difficulty of accurate eyewitness testimony.

Here is the key to the video, post-event information, and the memory test. At the end are the sheets that should be provided to students for the activity. You may want to add filler tasks, like a word search or some other activity, between seeing the video, taking the post-event questionnaire, and taking the detail memory test.
Teacher Instructions and Key to the Activity Overview of Steps in the Activity

1. Students will watch a video of a bicyclist chasing a thief.

2. Students will answer a series of questions about the video. Some of the questions will introduce misleading information by suggesting certain items were in the video that were not actually present

3. Students will take a test of their memory for the video. In this test, there will be four kinds of items: (a) items present in the video and mentioned in the follow-up questionnaire; (b) items present in the video and NOT mentioned in the questionnaire; (c) items NOT present in the video but mentioned in the follow-up questionnaire; and (d) items NOT present in the video and NOT mentioned in the follow-up questionnaire

Step by Step Instructions and Guide
The complete handouts students will use for this activity follows these instructions.

I. Students will watch the video, Helping with a Police Chase, and read the summary

Summary: In this video, a bicyclist comes upon policemen chasing a thief. The cyclist joins the chase down a busy road, through a neighborhood, and into alleyways, catching up to and confronting the thief a couple of times. Eventually, the thief sheds a coat and jumps a wall to escape. The cyclist gathers up clothing and finds the police. He tells the officers the direction the thief took and gives them the clothing.

II. Students will complete the follow-up questionnaire. Here is the Question Set with key. Some items are filler, some refer to items actually present in the video (Present), and some refer to items that were not in the video (Absent). The set of questions without the key that you will give to the students comes after the scoring guide.
Questionnaire about the Video (Key)
For each statement below, Circle Yes if you witnessed it in the video or No if you DID NOT witness it in the video.

1. Did you notice the large bike emblem painted in the middle of the road? (Filler)

2. Did you see "Bus Stop" printed on the road? (Present)

3. Did you see the yellow boxes on the poles? (Filler)

4. Did you notice the dog on a leash that was barking? (Present)

5. Did you see the policeman come back to pick up the flashlight he dropped while running? (Absent)

6. Did you see the woman standing at the bus stop shelter? (Filler)

7. Did you notice the large truck parked on the sidewalk that the thief and the cyclist both passed by? (Present)

8. Did you notice that both officers were wearing vests that identified them as policemen? (Absent)

9. Did you see the cyclist drive past the yellow fire hydrant before turning into the driveway of the house? (Absent)

10. Did you notice the house entrance that the thief ran past with the statues in front? (Absent)

11. Did you see the thief stop and rest against a tree? (Filler)

12. Did you clearly see the face of the thief even though he had the hood of his hoodie pulled up? (Present)

13. Did you hear the cyclist tell the thief to "Give it up, mate?" (Filler)

14. When the cyclist confronted the thief, did you notice the holes in the knees of his blue jeans? (Absent)

15. When the cyclist returned the clothing to the officer, did you notice the iron gate to the park? (Present)

16. Did you hear the policeman thank the cyclist for returning the clothing? (Filler)

III. Students will now answer Yes or No for a list of items. They answer Yes if the item was in the original video and No if it was not. Here is the Key in both list and table format.
Memory for Details (Key)
For each item or detail, circle Yes if you witnessed it in the video or No if you DID NOT witness it in the video.

1. "Bus stop" was printed in road Yes

2. There were crisscrossing lines in the intersection Yes

3. A mom with small child riding a bicycle Yes

4. A flashlight No

5. There was a water bottle in a holder on the bike No

6. A woman in blue jacket held a barking dog on a leash Yes

7. The officers wore vests identifying them as policemen No

8. A large truck parked on the sidewalk Yes

9. Pigeons got out of the way of the thief and cyclist No

10. A yellow fire hydrant No

11. A motorcycle passed by the cyclist chasing the thief No

12. A matching pair of statues in front of a house No

13. The thief was wearing blue jeans No

14. A rear view mirror on the cyclist's bike Yes

15. The thief was wearing a hoodie Yes

16. There was a white shirt on ground Yes

17. The thief had something like a water bottle dangling from his waist Yes

18. There was a red mailbox No

19. There was a man sitting at a table No

20. Iron gate by the park Yes

The student handouts are available here.
Here is a table that shows the condition of the various items and details. The question number is in parentheses. Use this table to determine the number correct in each of the four conditions. Find the average for each condition.

In Post-event Information: Yes

* "Bus stop" printed in road (1)
* Woman in blue jacket with barking dog (6)
* Large Truck parked on the sidewalk (8)
* Thief wearing a hoodie (15)
* Iron gate by park (20)

* Flashlight (4)
* Policemen labeled vests (7)
* Yellow fire hydrant (10)
* Statues in front of house (12)
* Thief wearing blue jeans (13)

In Post-event Information: No

* Crisscrossing lines in the intersection (2)
* Mom with small child on bicycle (3)
* Rear view mirror on bike (14)
* White shirt on ground (16)
* Thief with something dangling from his waist (17)

* Water bottle on the bike (5)
* Pigeons (9)
* Motorcycle (11)
* Red Mailbox (18)
* Man sitting at a table (19)

Activity 3

In-Class Memory Activity
Tell students they will take a memory test. They will listen as you read them a list of 15 words, at a rate of about one word every 5 seconds. They may not write down any of the words as you say them. When you give the signal, the students should write down as many of the words as they can recall in any order.

Now recall all the words you can, in any order

This activity demonstrates several memory concepts. It doesn't matter how many words students remember. You want to check to how many students recalled certain words. For these words, have students raise their hands if they recalled them.

Thread: tests for Primacy Effect

Knitting: tests for Recency Effect

Asteroid: It was a distinctive word that did not fit in with the meaning of the rest of the words. This demonstrates the von Restorff effect.

Needle: You should get a large percentage of the class recalling this word even though it was not on the list. You can show the students the whole list and ask them where they heard it. This is the well-known DRM effect (Roediger & McDermott, 1995) and it demonstrates how quickly and unconsciously memory can be distorted under the right conditions. It also shows the role of schema in guiding recall. (Note: I did not develop this demonstration. A number of variations exist.)

Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803-814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SUGGESTED LESSON PLAN Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials (e.g. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). Probably only a suspect's signed confession can further convince a jury about that individual's guilt.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #10 - Critical Analysis of Patternicity (A reason for belief)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #10 - Critical Analysis of Patternicity (A reason for belief)

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
People look at coincidentally occurring patterns as something of a greater significance even when it is merely a coincidence and has no meaning behind it.

GATHERING INFORMATION
The image attached above shows an example of patternicity - appearance of a face like pattern in a cloud. Even though the face like pattern is clearly visible, there is no scientific evidence as to how or why it happened and there is no meaning or significance behind it. Some people may look at it as 'a message from heaven' but it is a mere coincidence that could happen at any time in any place.

EVALUATING EVIDENCE
The source (google.com/images) is a credible source. The image has not been tampered with or photoshopped to make the pattern visible. However, the results been produced in this image cannot be reproduced s patternicity depends on appearance of a meaningless visual or noise being related to something of significance. The same pattern cannot be created again and this is proved when evaluated using the scientific method.

RECOGNIZING ASSUMPTIONS, EMOTIONS, BIASES
There is an emotion attached to every situation where patternicity is seen which results in the observer being biased towards favoring the concept of patternicity. The emotional connection behind the pattern being seen or noticed is what draws the person into thinking the pattern has a hidden meaning behind it even when it is a meaningless visual or noise. Some people may also assume the pattern to be a message of some sort if their emotional connections links to it.

SYNTHESIZING EVIDENCE, IDENTIFYING ALTERNATIVES
Looking at the evidence attached above (image), two alternatives can be identified in this analysis.
Alternative #1 - The pattern has no meaning or significance and is a mere coincidence occurring in the nature that is being looked upon is a completely different manner due to an emotional connection behind it affecting the perception of the pattern to make it appear of some significance.
Alternative #2 - The pattern actually has a hidden meaning and significance behind it and could actually be of some relevance, conveying a message to the observer about the pattern being seen/observed.

SELECTING THE BEST ALTERNATIVE
The best alternative out of the two stated above is alternative #1. There is no scientific explanation to patternicity other than it being a meaningless visual or noise occurring naturally out of coincidence with no significance behind it. The significance or meaning of patternicity cannot be proved using the scientific method either which takes away any possible meaning that could be attached to it.