Trick Questions Research Articles

An empirical study on differences between self-assessed and measured real risk in online behaviour

As the leading cause of security breaches is human susceptibility to hackers' deception, the riskiness of an individual's online behaviour and low awareness regarding privacy protection significantly influence the overall security of an information system. Thus, this study aimed to compare self-assessed and measured real risk in online behaviour among online users. The additional aim was to modify the questionnaire by replacing the existing trick question about password quality with the new questions on accepting the terms and conditions. An international online Behavioral Cognitive Internet Security Questionnaire (BCISQ), validated in previous studies, was used for data collection. The examinees involved in this study were 278 students from different faculties. The results showed a relatively high level of risk in online behaviour, as 22.7% of examinees revealed their passwords. In comparison, only 10.8% read the consent statement. Students who behave in a riskier manner self-assess themselves as being significantly safer in online behaviour, which is contradictory. They also performed worse in all other examined variables. The new version of the simulation subscale, with improved internal consistency and reliability (Cronbach's Alfa=0.810), consists of only three items, which are questions used in the previous version, without adding any of the two tested trick questions. Generally, this study concludes that, on average, information security awareness is still low among online users and that even the ones realistically acting riskier believe they are acting more safely.

“Why Patients Delay Seeking Dental Treatment - A Survey”?

Introduction: Patients, the world over, neglect their oral health and avoid visiting dentists unless they are faced with severe pain or discomfort. The reasons behind a patient’s procrastination for seeking dental help can be multifactorial and can be narrowed down to a few common fears and beliefs. An early study in the UK inferred that over one-third of dentate adults responded ‘I can’t be bothered really’ as a reason for putting off dental visiting (Todd JE, Walker AM, Dodd P.1978). The present study focuses on analyzing the factors that prevail in governing a patient’s hesitance to seek dental treatment, whether it is their first appointment or a revisit. Materials and Methods: In this study, we are going to use a survey to assess the physical and psychological and socio-economic barriers to oral health care. Methodology: The survey will be made online and distributed over internet websites that people commonly use. The survey will have some trick questions to reduce the number of invalid answers survey Results: The foremost reason why people avoided visiting dentists was that they were too busy. Second most common reason cited was the cost being high. Common beliefs, predominantly amongst female participants, was that dentist don’t listen, try to fool them into certain treatment procedures and demoralize them during visits. Discussion: Within the limitations of this study, we were able to ascertain that the most prevalent reason for avoiding a visit to a dental clinic was the ‘lack of time’ and the second most expressed reason regarded the expense involved. Most of the population examined visited a dentist less than once in two years and it was found that this factor was not governed by education levels or income, where it was seen that amidst our participants even the graduates and the higher income individuals failed to visit a dentist more often. On examining dental and prosthetic statuses, it was seen that most of the patients didn’t have any prostheses in their mouths, yet on checking their dental needs, it was found that they required some form of prosthesis ranging from a single crown to full dental rehabilitation (complete dentures).

Discrepancy of the subjective perception of the nasal appearance between independent individuals and patients undergoing functional rhinoplasty (fRPL)

PurposeSatisfaction with the nasal appearance is a crucial outcome parameter in functional rhinoplasty (fRPL). The visual analogue scale is a suitable instrument not only for the preoperative patient assessment, but also as a patient-reported outcome measure in fRPL. In this study, we analyzed whether a high discrepancy in the preoperative subjective perception of the nasal appearance between patients and other individuals predicts a lower level of satisfaction with the postoperative result and hence a worse outcome of fRPL.MethodsStandardized facial pictures of patients (n = 80) who underwent fRPL were taken preoperatively, 3 and 12 months postoperatively. In addition, patients were asked to complete the German version of the Utrecht Outcome Assessment Questionnaire in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty (D-OAR). The standardized facial pictures of the patients were presented to surgeons as well as to examiners without a medical background, and they were asked to evaluate the patients’ nasal appearance using the visual analogue scale.ResultsThe external evaluation of patient’s nasal appearance was 1.7 points higher in median than the patient’s subjective perception (range −5.7–7.00). A large discrepancy between self- and external estimation significantly correlates with higher D-OAR values (r = 0.539, p < 0.001). Patients with high scores in the D-OAR trick questions, indicating a body dysmorphic disorder, show a significant larger discrepancy between the external- and the self-assessment (2.8 ± 0.5 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3, mean ± SEM, p = 0.017).ConclusionsLarge discrepancies between the self and external assessment of the nasal appearance are associated with a high-perceived influence of the appearance of the nose on the quality of life in patients undergoing functional rhinoplasty. That might be an indicator for unrealistic expectations concerning the postoperative outcome. Knowledge about this factor helps to identify the need for intensive discussion about possibilities and limitations of the planned procedure to avoid postoperative dissatisfaction.

Adults Impact on the Reliability and Suggestibility of Children’s Eyewitness Testimony

The aim of the study was to determine the influence of authority on the susceptibility of child witnesses and the reliability of their testimonies. This study, consisting of experimental and control groups, included 20 girls and 20 boys, totalling 40 children. It took place in two phases; an initial phase (“eyewitness”, “post-event interview”) and, one week later, a final phase (“recall”). In the individual interviews held with the children, a questionnaire consisting of a free narrative question and 18 open-ended questions was used. The free narrative question asked the children to specify the details they remembered about the animated film. The open-ended questions focused on the events and characters in the film. However, 12 of the open-ended questions could be answered correctly since they were about characters and situations in the film that the children had watched, while six of the questions were trick questions that were about characters and situations that were not shown in the film. For data analysis, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to reach the deeper level of perception and memories that children shared about the film. In conclusion, after analysis, it was found that even when the interview takes place immediately after the event, children are significantly affected by the misinformation given by an adult and their knowledge on the event in question is shaped according to this misinformation. It was observed that children create "a new event" based on the information they receive from an adult.&#x0D; Key words: Child, Eyewitness testimony, Reliability, Suggestibility, Suggestive interview, Memory.

‘Let There Be Light!’ Dark Patterns Under the Lens of the EU Legal Framework

Dark patterns can be found both offline and online in various shapes and sizes. They can take the form of aesthetically coloured ‘Accept’ buttons capable of cajoling users into accepting terms and conditions, trick questions and default settings which lure users into sharing more personal data, or even the manner in which supermarkets choose to stack packs of water in their back shelves while displaying sweets in the front at the checkout counter. These practices go by the name of dark patterns, as they systematically and covertly aim to influence individuals into making choices by inhibiting the control of their decision-making. Dark patterns can be considered unethical since they do not take into account the interests of individuals, who, following the deployment of dark patterns become a means to an end. Relying only on ethics or social norms to prevent the use of dark patterns, however, is not effective given the difficulty in enforcing them. Thus, this paper will explore the underlying legal aspects of dark patterns. Chapter 1 sets the scene by introducing the central research question of determining whether the EU legal framework needs a specific law to prevent and sanction the use of dark patterns. The first half of Chapter 2 reveals a taxonomy of dark patterns and further defines this concept before the second half delves into a legal analysis of the laws applicable to dark patterns. From privacy and data protection to consumer protection, media law, competition law or contract law, this legal analysis unveils the existence of a broad legal framework which can protect individuals’ decision-making process against deceptive, manipulative, coercive or excessively persuasive dark patterns. Finally, Chapter 3 reveals the conclusions and recommendations of this paper. While the EU legal framework does not require a specific law to prevent and sanction the use of dark patterns, there is still a lack of awareness and enforcement. The solution, therefore, lies in a three-fold approach (individuals, companies, and authorities), which would leverage the best results in increasing awareness and enforcement in relation to dark patterns.

Invited presuppositions and the pragmatics of trick questions

Abstract Trick questions are a subgenre of puzzles that have undergone little, if any, semantic-pragmatic study, in part because they are often conflated with riddles. While they do share some mechanisms with riddles, they lean much more heavily on pragmatic mechanisms, and how they make use of them is quite different. This paper focuses on three types of invited presuppositions (box, red herring, and rug) that add more weight to the theory that presuppositions are best suited to pragmatic analysis. The lingering question is whether these three types are more or less comprehensive, or if other types might be distilled from other trick questions.

Benefits of a Short, Practical Questionnaire to Measure Subjective Perception of Nasal Appearance after Aesthetic Rhinoplasty

The authors tested a short, practically designed questionnaire to assess changes in subjective perception of nasal appearance in patients before and after aesthetic rhinoplasty. A prospective cohort study was conducted in a group of 121 patients who desired aesthetic rhinoplasty and were operated on by one surgeon. The questionnaire contained five questions (E1-E5) based on a five-point Likert scale and a visual analogue scale (range, 0 to 10). Two questions were designed as trick questions to help the surgeon screen for signs of body dysmorphic disorder. All patients rated the appearance of their nose as improved after surgery. The visual analogue scale revealed a Gaussian curve of normal distribution (range, 0.5 to 10) around a significant improvement (mean, 4.36 points, p = 0.018). Also, question E1, question E2, and the sum of questions E1 through E5 showed a statistically significant improvement after surgery (p = 1.74 × 10, p = 4.29 × 10, and p = 9.23 × 10, respectively). The authors found a linear relationship between preoperative score on the trick questions and postoperative increase in visual analogue scale score. Test-retest reliability could be investigated in 74 of 121 patients (61 percent) and showed a positive correlation between postoperative (1 year after surgery) and repostoperative response (2 to 4 years after surgery). The authors concluded that a surgeon performing aesthetic rhinoplasty can benefit from using this questionnaire. It is simple, takes no more than 2 minutes to complete, and provides helpful subjective information regarding patients' preoperative nasal appearance and postoperative surgical outcome. Therapeutic, IV.

Trick questions: cosmopolitan hospitality

This paper consists of two texts. The first explores the limits of cosmopolitanism in practice, taking as its subject the Life in the UK Citizenship Test, inaugurated under the Labour Government in 2005. It argues that the test exemplifies the predicament of all attempts at cosmopolitan hospitality as unconditional welcoming, through a discussion of the relation between questioning and welcoming the stranger. Establishing the relationship between cosmopolitanism and hospitality as envisaged in Derrida’s reading of Kant it asks what kind of cosmopolitan hospitality is either possible or desirable by exploring what Derrida calls the ‘perversions’ inherent in the structures of hospitality. It focuses on the concept of the ‘trick questions’ that the state asks the foreigner observed by Derrida in his reading of The Apology of Socrates; questions that seem to invite answers but foreclose the possibilities of a free response. The second text asks how this logic that Derrida identifies can be pushed or coaxed into new ways of addressing the perceived threats of ‘unconditional’ hospitality through a reading of ‘unconditional hospitality’ as queer in the work of Tove Jansson

Aha! Trick Questions, Independence, and the Epistemology of Disagreement

We present a family of counter-examples to David Christensen's Independence Criterion, which is central to the epistemology of disagreement. Roughly, independence requires that, when you assess whether to revise your credence in P upon discovering that someone disagrees with you, you shouldn't rely on the reasoning that lead you to your initial credence in P. To do so would beg the question against your interlocutor. Our counter-examples involve questions where, in the course of your reasoning, you almost fall for an easy-to-miss trick. We argue that you can use the step in your reasoning where you (barely) caught the trick as evidence that someone of your general competence level (your interlocutor) likely fell for it. Our cases show that it's permissible to use your reasoning about disputed matters to disregard an interlocutor's disagreement, so long as that reasoning is embedded in the right sort of explanation of why she finds the disputed conclusion plausible, even though it's false.

True Overconfidence in Interval Estimates: Evidence Based on a New Measure of Miscalibration

ABSTRACTOverconfidence is often regarded as one of the most prevalent judgment biases. Several studies show that overconfidence can lead to suboptimal decisions of investors, managers, or politicians. Recent research, however, questions whether overconfidence should be regarded as a bias and shows that standard “overconfidence” findings can easily be explained by different degrees of knowledge of agents plus a random error in predictions. We contribute to the current literature and ongoing research by extensively analyzing interval estimates for knowledge questions, for real financial time series, and for artificially generated charts. We thereby suggest a new method to measure overconfidence in interval estimates, which is based on the implied probability mass behind a stated prediction interval. We document overconfidence patterns, which are difficult to reconcile with rationality of agents and which cannot be explained by differences in knowledge as differences in knowledge do not exist in our task. Furthermore, we show that overconfidence measures are reliable in the sense that there exist stable individual differences in the degree of overconfidence in interval estimates, thereby testing an important assumption of behavioral economics and behavioral finance models: stable individual differences in the degree of overconfidence across people. We do this in a “field experiment,” for different levels of expertise of subjects (students on the one hand and professional traders and investment bankers on the other hand), over time, by using different miscalibration metrics, and for tasks that avoid common weaknesses such as a non‐representative selection of trick questions. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

Aha! Trick Questions, Independence, and the Epistemology of Disagreement

We present a family of counter-examples to David Christensen's Independence Criterion, which is central to the epistemology of disagreement. Roughly, independence requires that, when you assess whether to revise your credence in P upon discovering that someone disagrees with you, you shouldn't rely on the reasoning that lead you to your initial credence in P. To do so would beg the question against your interlocutor. Our counter-examples involve questions where, in the course of your reasoning, you almost fall for an easy-to-miss trick. We argue that you can use the step in your reasoning where you (barely) caught the trick as evidence that someone of your general competence level (your interlocutor) likely fell for it. Our cases show that it's permissible to use your reasoning about disputed matters to disregard an interlocutor's disagreement, so long as that reasoning is embedded in the right sort of explanation of why she finds the disputed conclusion plausible, even though it's false.

Trick Questions

Trick Questions

True Overconfidence in Interval Estimates: Evidence Based on a New Measure of Miscalibration

Overconfidence is often regarded as one of the most prevalent judgment biases. Several studies show that can lead to suboptimal decisions of investors, managers, or politicians. Recent research, however, questions whether should be regarded as a bias and shows that standard overconfidence findings can easily be explained by different degrees of knowledge of agents plus a random error in predictions. We contribute to the current literature and ongoing research by extensively analyzing interval estimates for knowledge questions, real financial time series, and for artificially generated charts. We thereby suggest a new method to measure in interval estimates which is based on the implied probability mass behind a stated prediction interval. We document patterns which are difficult to reconcile with rationality of agents and which cannot be explained by differences in knowledge as differences in knowledge do not exist in our task. Furthermore, we show that measures are reliable in the sense that there exist stable individual differences in the degree of in interval estimates, thereby testing an important assumption of behavioral economics and behavioral finance models: stable individual differences in the degree of across people. We do this in a field experiment, for different levels of expertise of subjects (students on the one hand and professional traders and investment bankers on the other hand), over time, by using different miscalibration metrics, and for tasks which avoid common weaknesses like a non-representative selection of trick questions.

Book Review: Get through the MRCP Part 2: 360 Best of Fives

Who led the Scottish forces at the Battle of Ancrum Moor? Robert the Bruce Angus William Wallace Bonnie Prince Charlie King James IV This—in case you are wondering—is a best-of-five question. There is a stem with five options, only one of which is correct. The others are distractors which are wrong though plausible. The idea is that you have to have a reasonable grasp of Scottish history to answer the question correctly. Get Through the MRCP Part 2 contains 360 such best-of-five questions. It has six mock papers with 60 questions in each—as in the actual exam. In ‘Membership books’ the introduction often contains dubious tips about how to answer multiple choice questions; for example, always choose the longest answer. Such tips are about as reliable as ones you hear at Cheltenham races. Aruna Dias steers well clear of them and instead lays out how the exam has changed in recent years; for example, negative marking is now a thing of the past. Thus, blind guessing will earn you 20%, but that is unlikely to be enough to get you a framed certificate on your wall. In fact all parts of the Membership have changed a lot in the past few years. The oral exam is long gone: examiners can no longer grill candidates about emergencies, evidence-based medicine and chronic disease management. Instead these topics must be tested in the written paper and Dr Dias has done a good job of including them. And what about the questions and answers themselves? They are excellent. The text has been edited by Eric Beck, former chief examiner of the Royal College of Physicians, and this undoubtedly helped a lot. There are only a few clangers. The author occasionally asks trick questions such as ‘the drug that would not be used to treat this illness is’ and then asking the candidate to choose between five possible options. When you see a patient, you do not start thinking about what treatment you would not give them. So why test juniors’ knowledge in this way? But the bottom line is: will it help people pass the exam and should I recommend it to my juniors? The answer to these questions is yes and yes. In case you are still wondering, the Scottish forces at the Battle of Ancrum Moor were led by Angus. Successfully.

An Empirical Study on the Nature of Trick Test Questions

This study attempted to better define trick questions and see if students could differentiate between trick and not–trick questions. Phase 1 elicited definitions of trick questions so as to identify essential characteristics. Seven components were found. Phase 2 obtained ratings to see which components of trick questions were considered to be most crucial. The intention of the item constructor and the fact that the questions had multiple correct answers received highest ratings from students. Phase 3 presented a collection of statistics items, some of which were labeled on an a priori basis as being trick or not–trick. The analysis indicated that examinees were able to statistically differentiate between trick and not–trick items, but the difference compared to chance was small. Not–trick items were more successfully sorted than trick items, and trick items that were classified as intentional were sorted about as well as nonintentional items. Evidence seems to suggest that the concept of trickiness is not as clear as some test construction textbook authors suggest.

A Review of The Expert Witness

Abstract The Expert Witness is a very basic monograph concerning the conduct of the qualified exPert witness in the courtroom. All areas concerning deposition, courtroom testimony, pretrial preparation (including fees), and determination of a qualified witness are presented in a somewhat general manner with some areas such as “Trick Questions” given a very superficial treatment.

The emergency medicine specialty certification examination (EMSCE)

Summary The concept behind the projected EMSCE, the development schedule, its current status and the organization of the team developing the examination have been presented. The norm-referenced test strategy commonly used in medical certification examinations was compared with the criterion-referenced test strategy being used in the development of the EMSCE. The two test strategies influence the medical content selected for test items well as the method of evaluating professional competencies for purposes of certification. While criterion referenced tests are more expensive to develop, we feel the long run they will be adopted by most medical specialities as the most rational approach to certification and recertification. The objective of this article is best summarized by spontaneous remark made by a member of the Medical Task Force during the recent Item Development Workwhop. My God, he stated, This really is a different type of test than we've ever taken! How will we ever explain to candidates that it's not just a lot of trick questions?

A Taste for Figures

THE phenomenon of arithmetical prodigies has never been explained satisfactorily, although by 1940 about twenty such young calculators had been repeatedly cited in scientific literature. Four of these twenty were Americans, and two of the four were Vermonters. Probably the most celebrated of all was Zerah Colburn of Cabot,Vermont-and so he remains to this day. As the boy said of himself later, he was in the list in the order of time and probably first in extent of intellectual power. Zerah was born September i, 1804, on a farm lying on the road from Cabot to Peacham, the son of poor parents of little education. The youngest of six children, he seemed to his mother and father for some time the most backward. The Colburn parents were to revise this opinion in the fall of 1810, when the child was between five and six years of age. His father, Abia, was at work in the shed when he heard his son, who was playing on the floor behind him, run through a multiplication table. This seemed odd to the father because Zerah had been at school for only about six weeks and could not tell one written figure from another. When he examined the boy in multiplication, Zerah answered the questions quickly and correctly. A neighbor dropped in, was told of this development, satisfied his curiosity with a few questions of his own, and went away to tell the townsfolk. Within a year the word had spread from Cabot to every town and city on the Atlantic seaboard and, through English and French journals, to the educated world of Europe. Leaving the rest of the family behind, Abia took his precocious son first to neighboring Danville, then to Montpelier. Here, either because of the legislators' lack of mathematical sophistication or their desire to test the child's native shrewdness, he was asked a number of trick questions: Which is the most, twice twenty-five or twice five and twenty? Which is 65

What Edison's Trick Questions Tell Him

What Edison's Trick Questions Tell Him