Question

a father was charged with murder after leaving his child in a hot car. the father claims that the tragedy was an accident because he forgot the child was in the car. the prosecution argues that the father had to have known that the child was in the car because the child was within the fathers field of vision. to argue this point, the fathers defense attorneys brought in an expert to discuss the phenomenon of:

• extrasensory perception.
• perceptual constancy.
• inattentional blindness.
• sensory interaction.

Explanation:

• Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves perceiving without normal sensory channels, which is not relevant here.
• Perceptual constancy is about perceiving objects as stable despite sensory changes (e.g., size, shape constancy), not about missing something in view.
• Inattentional blindness is the failure to notice a visible object when attention is focused elsewhere. The father forgot the child was in the car despite the child being in his field of vision, which fits inattentional blindness.
• Sensory interaction is about how different senses interact (e.g., vision and touch), not about missing a visible object.

Answer:

C. inattentional blindness.