Answers Exam 3

1. e a b c a d d d f d

2. acdb, d - - d, b, c, e, b, c

3. u b u b c e c b b c

4. A lack of object permanence means that infants do not have an understanding that objects still exist when they are out of sight. The A-not-B task is done by having an experiment sitting across from an infant at a table with two hidden wells. The experimenter hides a toy in well A and allows the infant to find it. This is repeated several times. The experimenter then hides the toy in well B. Before 9 months of age, infants are likely to reach to well A despite seeing the toy placed in well B. Evidence for object permanence developing at an earlier age comes from 4.5 month olds passing the drawbridge experiment (they expect a drawbridge to be propped up on an object behind it if the drawbridge falls back towards). Also, infants before 9 months are able to pass the A-not-B task when there are fewer trials to well A, indicating that the traditional A-not-B might be demonstrating a lack of inhibitory control for stopping an established motor patter (reach to A). Younger infants are also more likely to pass the A-not-B if there is less time between the experimenter hiding of the toy and when infants are allowed to reach for it, indicating previous failure could be related to poor short term memory capacity.

5. Skinner proposed that language is learned through a stimulus/response model like all other forms of learning. We say something, get feedback, and make the connection to word meaning. Chomsky argued that this model cannot explain how children are able to put together endless combinations of words that they have never heard before. Children are not getting explicit and continuous feedback on what they are saying. We also have an understanding of the underlying structure of language apart from itπs meaning that a behaviorist model canπt explain. He proposed that we are innately equipped with a language acquisition device (LAD) and as a result we have developed a universal grammar from the internal constraints we have for language learning.

6.

a. Children are shown a box that says ≥Smarties≤ on it and asked what is inside. After they say ≥smarties≤, the box is opened to reveal pencils. The box is closed and the child is asked what their friend who has not seen the inside of the box will think is inside. Before age 5, children say their friend thinks that pencils are in the box. This demonstrates that young children lack a ≥theory of mind≤, that is to say they have not mastered the concept that other people have knowledge/feelings/thoughts that are different from their own.

b. Children are seated at a table that has 3 mountains arranged on it such that two are in front of them and one is behind the other two. Children are asked to point to a picture that shows how the mountains look from the perspective of a doll sitting at the other end of the table. Young children (roughly before 5 years) identify the picture that represents their own perspective. This shows that children during the preoperational period have an egocentric perspective, meaning they are unable to understand that other people can have a perspective that is different from their own.

c. Children are shown two identical glasses with an equal amount of liquid in them. One of the glasses is poured into a shorter, wider container in front of the child. They are asked which has more juice. Young children identify the taller glass (with higher level of liquid) as having more despite seeing that when in the same container they were the same height. This demonstrated the idea proposed by Piaget that young children in the preoperational stage show a lack of conservation, meaning they cannot use logic to understand that the quantity of substance stays constant despite changes in arrangement and shape

d. Children are taken to a room and allowed to explore it. They are taken out and shown a small model of the room that has the same furniture and layout. The experimenter points out to the child that everyone in the small room is the same as the large and then hides a miniature bear behind the couch of the small room. They are told that a stuffed bear is hidden in the same place in the large room as the small one and then asked to go find it in the large room. Young children fail this task unless they are convinced that the model of the room is the exact room shrunken by a shrink ray. This supports the idea that children in a preoperational stage are unable to use symbolic representations.

e. Infants are given mittens and toys that have Velcro on them. This allows infants to pick up objects at an earlier age then they could normally due to normal fine motor development. These infants with earlier exposure to manipulation of objects developed an earlier interest in and understanding of object properties. This study supports Piagetπs proposal that during the sensorimotor period object knowledge comes from an infant mastering their reflexive behaviors and learning that their behaviors can have effects on outside objects.

f. Infants are habituated to a picture of a block occluding diagonal rod. They are then shown a continuous rod or one broken in the place where the occluder was. Infants do not show a preference for either. However, when they are habituated to an animation of the rod moving horizontally behind the occluder, they are surprised by the image of the broken way. This has been used as an argument for a core knowledge of objects and physics, meaning that infants innately understand that components that move together belong to the same object.

g. Toddlers were shown a demonstration of an experimenter playing with novel toys. The experimenter attempted to perform a desired action with each toy but failed (attempted to pull two blocks apart, put a rubber band on a peg, insert a peg into a hole). When infants before 14 months are given the opportunity to play with the toys, they demonstrate the failed behavior (mimic the experiments failed attempts), whereas older infants complete the desired action of the experiment. This demonstrated that infants are developing an understanding on the goals and intentions of other humans.

7. In the Milgram study, peopled did not start shocking at high levels all at once. They were lured into doing it in a gradual fashion--first shocking at 15 volts, then 30, then 45 etc. Thus by the time they faced protests of non-responsiveness from the "learner" they had defined themselves as people who thought this activity important or worth doing. (How can I refuse at 450 volts if I shocked at 435 volts is the question they might have asked themselves. If the experiment was important enough or the situation compelling enough (Or, more likely, their self-explanation convincing enough) to get them to do 300 volts over the screams of the person, how can they stop at 315? This is very much based on self perception theory (I define how I feel about things by observing my behavior) and is also reflective of the foot-in-the-door effect where people were much more likely to say "yes" to an outlandish request if they had previously agreed with smaller requests along the same dimension--thus defining themselves as "people who favor safe driving" or in this case, helping with an important experiment or the like. The major finding was that 65% of the people obeyed orders to shock/torture another person when told to do so.

8. Cognitive dissonance theory: if a behavior and an attitude or belief are in conflict (such that one implies the opposite of the other) then we experience a state of discomfort or "dissonance" and are motivated to change one or the other (it's always the attitude/belief that changes). Self perception theory holds that our attitudes and beliefs follow our behaviors; ie. in the initial acquisition (as well as modification) of attitudes, we learn about how we feel in much the same way others learn how we feel. We observe our behavior and make inferences about how we feel. One difference is that self perception theory does not posit a state of conflict or dissonance, but rather that the attitude more or less automatically follows the behavior. An additional diff. is that in self perception theory, the attitude is often initially formed via observation of our behavior, whereas in cog. diss. theory, it is assumed to be pre-existent and changes as a result of conflict.. Experiments: In the Valins studies, people were given feedback (false) about what their heart was doing and it influenced how they felt (which women they found attractive). They thus adopted attitudes based on observing (what they thought was) their own behavior, as self perception theory posits. Dissonance suggests changing an attitude to bring it into line with behavior, but is less applicable to the initial acquisition of an attitude—itπs more attuned to attitude change where self-perception theory can explain both acquisition and change and is thus more broadly applicable to many situations.

9. Schein found that by socially isolating their prisoners, via manipulating their trust for each other by manipulations like getting them to inform on each other, they were able to make them more malleable and could guard them with few soldiers and with no escapes. They did have to isolate about 5% of them who showed potential leadership and were able to resist the manipulation and control by their captors. These soldiers fell into two classes, rebels against authority of any kind, and people who had strongly internalized values, often derived from religious fathers, that they relied on for guidance as to how to act. The inability of soldiers who were isolated (socially not physically) to resist the demands of their captors would apply to the Milgram situation as well where they subjects were facing a situation alone without the ability to check things out with other people. Further experiments of his showed that being with others who resisted going along led subjects to not go along too.

10. You could teach them to use a variety techniques, including lowballing (offering a car at a low price and then increasing it after the deal is made), bait and switch (offering a car at a price that is impossibly low and switching the customers it attracts to a more normally priced car), prestige suggestion (≥The President drives this very same car≤.), reciprocity—doing a favor (offer coffee, to have someone watch the customerπs kids, let them have a fun test drive on their own for a while, etc.) foot in the door---get them to agree with easy statements and then escalate

for ex. ≥Donπt you agree that if money wasnπt the issue youπd like to have a car like this?≤, thatπs not all technique—adding in some sweetener of the deal at the last minute to close it, exclusivity, expertise and/or credibility (≥Consumer reports rated this no. 1 in ashtray quality.≤) . There are many techniques we went thru in class about attitude change.

11. Subjects judged line length, an easy task. When in a group of actors who called some wrong (unanimously) 2/3 of the subjects conformed some or all of the time (about 1/3 of the overall responses or occurrences). If one actor called it right that allowed them to not conform, despite having six or more call it the other way. This non- conformity was normally stressful as evidenced by sympathetic arousal monitoring. The negative consequences of this are that we can't count on peoples' independent judgement--even when there is a group of people making a decision (consider a jury for ex.) We tend to over-conform and do so even when there is little reason for so doing. On the positive side, we can use the knowledge that one person frees people of the pressure to conform by being that one person when we are in a group that seems unanimous with which we disagree, instead of the more common "gee everyone agrees, why should I slow things down or cause trouble?" sort of self explanation we do. It will free others who probably are feeling the same way you do to speak out since it is easy to be the second person (since they have you as their ≥partner who calls it right≤). In the Milgram study, people were alone as subjects (teachers) and had nobody to consult with try to reach social consensus with as they were told they had to go on. In addition, he did studies with multiple people and when the other teachers shocked the real subject did too, but when others resisted, the real subject also did, so conformity does play a role. Itπs also interesting that the same 1/3 is the proportion of people who stick to their guns-and never conform or obey.

12. You might use foot in the door as a major mechanism. You would get them to first do small and then larger and larger things at your request/demand. You would also isolate them from others who might dissuade them or allow them to reality check. You would be likely to have them with other true believers (using experienced people) who would get them to conform. You might get them to accept an alternative view of reality (that the world is against them, that they are about to be attacked, that they are special and will be lifted up in spaceships to a better harp playing future, etc.) by brainwashing them repeatedly (lecturing them, bombarding them with info that they are not used to refuting). You might convince them that the movement is growing by leaps and bounds. You might induce dissonance by getting them to behave in ways that commit them to the movement in a public fashion. Obedience is the final technique that can be used---people have an obedient streak within them if you activate it properly.

e.c. The fact that during conflict situations people think their side correct is very well established. Even in something as innocuous as football or baseball, there are strong social forces that unify people around "their" team. During a war or conflict, millions of people on each side agree that their side is right. Religion is another example--most people (overwhelmingly) belong to or identify with the religion of their parents. The forces that produce these conforming effects are large and mostly automatic. Social development tells us that young children look to the people around them to learn what they are supposed to do (and thus be, given self perception theory). Conformity plays a large role as does social modeling and identification (with our parents or older siblings). On most basic issues we are surrounded by people who hold common beliefs. This unanimity produces strong forces for conformity. Our social institutions teach us a set of beliefs. (Historically, the public school system in the U.S. was set up to train people for citizenship--to create a unified and educated citizenry rather than one devoted to the teachings of specific religious groups.) How do you stand against that? The Korean War studies of captured Americans suggest that having a contrarian streak is one way (but a somewhat costly one at times!) Another is having a set of deep beliefs that produce guidance for how to live/what to do/what to believe. These can lead to good and useful behavior if they are good and our appraisal of the situation is accurate, but also to very bad behavior if they are not good and we are too absolutist and unyielding in those beliefs and thus apply them to situations for which they are inappropriate. People have to be very inner directed (according to the views of one social commentator, David Reisman) in order to stand against the common and received wisdom of their surrounding communities. John Walker would have had to resist all of the conforming influences to do what he did.