Share This Link

Object permanence: Object permanence is the understanding that objects continue to exist when out of sight; it’s about memory/representation, not directly about learning from others.

Animism: Animism (attributing life/intent to inanimate things) is a cognitive tendency in early childhood, not a mechanism for social learning.

Centration: Centration is the tendency to focus on one aspect of a situation (a limitation in preoperational thought), not a process that enables social learning.

Survey persons over the age of 55: This is a correlational survey design; it can identify associations between exercise and cognition but cannot establish causation because of possible confounds and lack of experimental control.

Compare residents of active vs non-active retirement communities: This is a quasi-experimental / naturalistic comparison; it’s stronger than a simple survey but still vulnerable to selection effects and other confounds (not true random assignment).

Case study of a 60-year-old competitive weightlifter: A single case study provides rich detail but has no generalizability and cannot demonstrate causation.

This is an observational/comparative design subject to self-selection bias (active people join biking clubs), so it shows association but not causation.

-.5 to +.5: correlation coefficients are not limited to this narrower range; they can be stronger (closer to ±1).

-1.5 to +1.5: coefficients cannot exceed magnitude 1 for linear correlations.

-2.0 to +2.0: Incorrect for the same reason; ±2 is outside the possible range.

-2.5 to +2.5:  Outside the allowable range for a correlation coefficient.

Longitudinal: Longitudinal studies follow the same individuals over time to observe change; Dr. Morgan is comparing different age groups at one time, not following the same people.

Cross-sequential: Cross-sequential (cohort-sequential) combines cross-sectional and longitudinal elements by following multiple cohorts over time; Dr. Morgan’s design as described is not doing that.

Experimental: Experimental implies manipulation of an independent variable and random assignment; Dr. Morgan is surveying/comparing groups, not manipulating variables.

Partially true (cross-sectional studies are observational), but this choice is too general - the specific correct label for comparing two age groups at one time is “cross-sectional.”

Kent (conditions for conformity): Studying conformity focuses on social influence processes (social psychology), not the multi-layered environmental systems emphasized by ecological systems theory.

Sidney (questionnaires measuring cognitive, social, emotional development): Measuring developmental domains is core to developmental psychology but doesn’t specifically indicate an ecological-systems focus on nested environmental contexts.

Jeanne (tracking IQ over ten years): That’s a longitudinal interest in stability/change of intelligence; it’s not specifically an ecological-systems approach unless she’s also examining environmental layers.

Confounding: A confounding variable is an extraneous factor that varies with the independent variable and could provide an alternative explanation for the outcome; the video type is the manipulated factor, not an uncontrolled confound.

Control: A control variable is something the experimenter holds constant across conditions to prevent it from influencing the outcome; the video type is not something held constant.

Intervening: An intervening (mediating) variable is an internal process that links the independent and dependent variables (e.g., increased arousal), not the manipulated stimulus itself.

Dependent: The dependent variable is the outcome being measured (here, aggressive behavior); the video type is the presumed cause, not the outcome.

Boys observe and imitate their father's aggressive behavior: This is a social-learning explanation (modeling/imitation), not the primary evolutionary account.

Boys become bored easily with nonaggressive play: This is a behavioral/descriptive claim about preference and arousal, not an evolutionary functional explanation.

Boys' aggressive behavior is permitted by their parents: This is a socialization explanation (parental permissiveness), not an evolutionary one.

Boys are preparing to play aggressive sports later in life: This is a cultural/practice-centered explanation, not a core evolutionary-functional account.

Psychodynamic: Psychodynamic theory emphasizes unconscious motives and inner conflicts, so it does not de-emphasize inner mental states.

Social cognitive: Social-cognitive theory includes consequences but also stresses cognitive processes (expectancies, self-efficacy, observational learning), so it doesn’t largely de-emphasize mental states.

Attribution: Attribution theory concerns how people explain causes of behavior (internal vs external), focusing on cognitive interpretation, not on consequences shaping behavior.

Information-processing approaches center on internal mental operations (encoding, storage, retrieval), not on external consequences as the primary shaper.

Short-term and long-term memory: These are types of memory processes; cross-sectional design interpretation is not primarily about distinguishing memory systems.

Experimentation and correlation: This contrasts methods (experimental vs correlational); cross-sectional studies are typically observational-this choice doesn’t pinpoint the central interpretive problem.

Reliability and validity: These are measurement properties; while important, they are not the core confound in interpreting cross-sectional age comparisons.

Treatments and placebos: These terms relate to experimental controls in intervention studies, not to the principal issue in cross-sectional interpretation.

Proximal versus distal influences: This contrasts immediate (proximal) versus more distant (distal) causes; while relevant, Bella’s cross-cultural comparison targets a different theoretical question.

Nature versus nurture: This debate concerns biological versus environmental origins of behavior; comparing cultures could inform it, but Bella’s focus on cultural differences in grandmother roles is more about context-specific vs universal patterns.

Quantitative versus qualitative factors: This contrasts types of differences (amount vs kind); Bella’s question is about cultural patterning, not measurement style.

This concerns whether development is gradual or stage-like; Bella’s cross-cultural role analysis isn’t directly addressing that issue.