Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

The Deception of Perception

Kayla Anderson
University of Kentucky

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

Abstract
In this paper, the perception process in explained and applied to this years Common Reader:
Picking Cotton by Jennifer Thompson-Cannino, Ronald Cotton, and Erin Torneo. An analysis of
how the process is used in the memoir takes place, followed by an examination of the process in
other situations of eyewitness identification. Afterwards, a discussion of how perception affects
society today arises. The ways in which these issues can be resolved are also discussed. The
paper ends with a long-lasting conclusion statement and a list of the references used throughout
the paper.

Keywords: perception, eyewitness identification, Picking Cotton, Jennifer Thompson, Ronald

Cotton

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

The Deception of Perception

I was certain, but I was wrong.
-Jennifer Thompson-Cannino (2000)
Every day we take in an abundance of information. From the time we wake up to the time
that we go to sleep, there are millions of stimuli around us, most of which we do not even notice.
One of our brains major functions is to manage and organize all of this information through a
process called the perception process. This process consists of four equally important stages:
attention and selection, organization, interpretation, and dual processing. Each stage specializes
in a different task in order to allow us to perceive the world around us. As you can imagine,
misconceptions occur quite often due to the amount of information that we are constantly
exposed to. Our brains can trick us, making us believe that we viewed one thing, when, in fact,
we viewed something else. For the most part, this is harmless, but in some cases, such as the one
presented in our common reader, these simple misperceptions can be life changing.
This years common reader Picking Cotton is a memoir that focuses on a young woman
named Jennifer Thompson. She was raped at knifepoint in the middle of the night and, even
through her fear, she made sure to take in every detail of her attacker. When it came time to
identify her rapist during the police lineup, she had no doubt in her mind that it was suspect
number five Ronald Cotton. Cotton was sentenced to life in prison plus fifty-four years. He
served eleven years of his sentence before the truth came out to the world: Jennifer Thompson
had been incorrect. Ronald Cotton was not her rapist. (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton, & Torneo,
2009). This issue with eyewitness identification is extremely common. In fact, eyewitness

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

identifications are wrong at least fifty percent of the time, and [play] a role in seventy percent
of convictions overturned through DNA testing worldwide (Eyewitness Misidentification,
n.d.). This misidentification was due to misperception on Jennifers part, as well as outside
influences such as prejudices and stereotypes. These things, which are responsible for Cottons
downfall, lead me to the purpose of this paper, which is threefold: to analyze how the perception
process was used in the novel, to examine how the process has been used in other situations, and
to determine how perceptions affect our society today.
Each stage of the perception process was used in Picking Cotton, but one stood out above
the rest. Stage two, organization, is the area which Jennifer put the most thought into, but
ironically enough, it is also directly related to her wrongful accusation against Ronald Cotton.
The organization stage breaks down into two parts: simplicity and pattern. Simplicity, the most
prominent in this case, is when the brain simplifies stimuli into some commonly recognized
form (Sprague, Stuart, Bodary, Verderber, Verderber, Sellnow, Glenn, & Gray, n.d.). This took
effect when Jennifer inspected her rapist for features to identify, such as his hairline awful
mouth, almond shaped eyes, and faint shadow ofa mustache (15). His verbal messages
would also fall into this category. She studied every part of him in order to be able to identify
him in the future.
The question is, if Jennifer knew exactly how her rapist looked and spoke, how is it
possible that she could not identify him when the correct time came? Recent research done by
the California Innocence Project claims that it could be due to a myriad of things, the first being
a high amount of stress. When we experience high stress, our ability to take information in and
recall it lessens because we are forced into survival mode. Suggestive identification has also
been proven to have an effect when identifying a suspect. If the police officer makes subtle

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

clues through pauses, hesitations, gestures, or smiles, it influences the victim to pick who the
officer wants him/her to pick (Eyewitness Identification, n.d.). In Jennifers case, Ronald
Cotton was a troubled, black man who was known for dating white women and occasionally
breaking the law. This automatically put the odds against him. Throwing stereotypes and
prejudices into the mix only made matters worse. The officers working with Jennifer had trouble
with Cotton before and had genuinely believed that he was the one who committed the crime.
Their certainness undeniably had an influence on Jennifers final decision.
An example of the perception process being used outside of the novel would be the
infamous case of Sally Clark in November of 1999. Sally Clark lost her first son when he was
three months old, and it was written off as a death by natural causes. Her second son died a year
later at the age of two months. The coroner, who had been around for both deaths, decided that
this was suspicious and had Clark arrested. This coroner used the attention and selection stage
of the perception process. He paid close attention to the information he was given and analyzed
what he could in order to come to a conclusion. He, along with other medical experts, knew that
since there were not any witnesses to confirm or deny Clarks testimony, they would have to look
deeper than that by analyzing the bodies. The autopsy reports led them to deduce that the
children had been murdered by either being smothered or shaken instead of the prior believed
natural causes. Clark was given two life sentences, but eventually appealed and was set free.
Though she was set free, this event still had an enormous effect on her. A few years later, Clark
was found dead in her home due to an alcohol poisoning. It is believed that she resulted to
drinking when no one would take her word for it that she did not commit the murders and
everyone in prison treated her like she was the scum of the earth. As it turns out, she was telling
the truth the entire time. Her children had not be murdered. They had died, along with 400 other

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

infants in the UK, due to what was simply labeled as sudden unexpected deaths in infants
(Convicted on Statistics?, 2009).
In todays society, distorted perceptions have become a serious matter, especially when it
comes to eyewitness identification. Many states are searching for ways to solve this age-old
problem. Some, like attorney Gregory Clarke, suggest that police refrain from showing the all
too familiar six-person lineup to victims. Instead, victims should be shown each suspect
separately. This allows for the victim to actually think about the decision he/she is making and
determine if he/she genuinely recalls seeing the suspect at the crime scene. A study done by
Bruce Behrman and Sherrie Davey of Cal State University-Sacramento showed that witnesses
who viewed conventional lineups and photo displays in 347 California cases picked the wrong
person about half the time, which clearly highlights a flaw in the system (Willing, R. 2002). In
attempt to eliminate this problem, eleven of the fifty states have implemented new policies.
Wisconsins policy, for example, follows Clarkes wishes, and calls for a double-blind procedure
and an individual presentation (Police Lineups Encourage Wrong Picks, Experts Say, 2002).
Nebraskas policy requires law enforcement professionals to attend two training sessions on
eyewitness identification reform (Bahr, J. 2015). Since relying solely on honesty is unrealistic,
these modified policies are the best way to handle the task at hand. As for cases like Sally
Clarks, the only way to ensure that no one is wrongfully convicted is to make sure that all of the
evidence is presented in court, not just bits and pieces.
All in all, the four stages of the perception process are used by humans daily, but no
matter how much we hone in our focus on each, some things still go unnoticed. In Jennifers
situation, she failed to notice her actual rapist when he was right in front of her face. The coroner
is Sally Clarks case overlooked the fact that hundreds of babies were dying sudden deaths in the

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

area in which he lived in. He instead jumped straight to the conclusion that Sally had committed
both murders. Both of these cases ended in wrongful convictions and one, sadly, ended in the
death of an innocent, tortured woman. Thankfully, there are actions being taken in order to
eliminate the problems presented above, such as the new policies that are being put forth by a
number of our states. From this paper, I want readers to understand one thing: our perceptions,
no matter how concrete we think they are, can be extremely deceiving. Things are not always as
they seem.

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION

References
Bahr, J. (2015, May 1). Eyewitness identification policy being implemented. Retrieved from
http://www.theindependent.com/news/local/eyewitness-identification-policy-beingimplemented/article_159fc4d6-f056-11e4-b141-1fd53636caad.html.
Scheurer, V. (2002, October). Understanding uncertainty. Retrieved from
http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/545
Sprague, J., Stuart, D., Bodary, D., Verderber, K., Verderber, R., Sellnow, D., Glenn, C., & Gray,
L. (n.d.). The speaker's handbook, communicate, and Harbrace essentials: 1st edition.
Thompson, J. (2000, June 18). I was certain but I was wrong. The New York Times.
Retrieved

from

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/opinion/i-was-certain-but-i-was-

wrong.html.
Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice
and redemption. New York, New York: St. Martins Press.
Tversky, B. & Fisher, G. (1999). The problem with eyewitness testimony. Stanford Journal of
Legal Studies.
Willing, R. (2002, November 26). Police lineups encourage wrong picks, experts say.
Retrieved from http://www.usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/acovtue.htm.

Running head: THE DECEPTION OF PERCEPTION