1Final Exam PS 306, Fall 20031a. Pierroutsakos and DeLoache (2003) were interested in the development of pictorial competence inchildren. They use the term pictorial competence to “encompass the many factors that are involved inperceiving, interpreting, understanding, and using pictures (DeLoache, Pierroutsakos, & Uttal, 2003, p.115).”These researchers observe infants as they explore pictures of familiar objects. Unlike adults, infantsare not content to look at the pictures, but will typically attempt to manipulate the pictured object.In the data depicted below, 9-month-old infants were shown photographs and line drawings of familiarobjects. The photographs and line drawings were either in black-and-white or in color. The dependentvariable is the number of manual behaviors the infant exhibits toward the picture. Complete the followingsource table, which depicts results consistent with those of Pierroustsakos and DeLoache, and then analyzethe results as completely as you can. Make an effort to interpret the results, as you would in a Discussionsection. [10 pts]1 48.400 48.400 75.757 <.0001 75.757 1.0001 36.100 36.100 56.504 <.0001 56.504 1.0001 .100 .100 .157 .6947 .157 .06736 23.000 .639DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda PowerPict TypeColorPict Type * ColorResidualANOVA Table for Manual Behav20 1.800 1.196 .26820 4.000 1.298 .290Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.DrawingPhotoMeans Table for Manual BehavEffect: Pict Type20 1.950 1.276 .28520 3.850 1.461 .327Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.B&WColorMeans Table for Manual BehavEffect: ColorTo complete the source table, one needs to remember that the MSError (Residual) isthe average of the variances for the conditions. Given that StatView prints out thestandard deviations, your first step would be to square the standard deviations toget the variances, then average the variances. With the four variances of .323, .901,.666, and .666, the MSError would be .639. However, you’d know the majority of thesource table without knowing the MSError. The main effects are going to beimportant, because the interaction is not significant.These infants were more likely to try to pick up the colored objects (M = 3.85) thanthe black-and-white objects (M = 1.95). They were also more likely to try to pick upthe objects depicted in photographs (M = 4.00) than objects depicted in drawings (M= 1.80). [No post hoc test needed, with only two levels of each main effect.]These results are interesting. Looking at the four cell means, there is no interactionbecause the differences (e.g., 1.8 for the impact of color on drawings and 2.0 for theimpact of color on photos) were too similar. Thus, the infants do reach for the morerealistic depictions more often, but though they prefer photos to drawings andcolored depictions to black-and-white depictions, there is no particular advantage tocolor photos, nor a particular disadvantage to black-and-white drawings.21b. DeLoache and her colleagues find that 9-month-old children will often attempt to grab objects picturedon paper or on television screens. Adults, however, rarely attempt to grab the beer can pictured in amagazine or television advertisement. DeLoache, et al. were not interested in the factors that contribute toadults attempting to manipulate such objects. However, they were interested in the time course ofdevelopment of the “awareness” that the child cannot manipulate the pictured object. To that end,DeLoache, Pierroutsakos, Uttal, Rosengren and Gottlieb (1998) studied 9-month-olds, 15-month-olds, and19-month-olds. They were interested in the way the children interacted with the pictured objects across thethree different ages. They looked at two different types of manual behaviors directed at the pictures(manual investigation vs. pointing). Below are partially completed source tables for analyses of these twodependent variables. Complete the source tables and then tell me what story these two data sets tell.2 195.300 97.650 100.199 <.0001 200.398 1.00057 55.550 .975DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda PowerAgeResidualANOVA Table for Manual Invest20 4.850 1.226 .27420 2.000 1.076 .24120 .500 .513 .115Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.09 month15 month19 monthMeans Table for Manual InvestEffect: AgeAgain, you need to remember that MSError (Residual) is the average of the variancesof the conditions. With HSD = .75, we can see a decreasing attempt to manipulatethe depicted object. The 9-mo-old infants attempted to manipulate the objectssignificantly more often than the 15-mo-old infants and the 19-mo-old infants. The15-mo-old infants attempted to manipulate the objects more often than the 19-mo-old infants.2 221.433 110.717 128.400 <.0001 256.800 1.00057 49.150 .862DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda PowerAgeResidualANOVA Table for Pointing20 .300 .470 .10520 2.000 .973 .21820 4.950 1.191 .266Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.09 month15 month19 monthMeans Table for PointingEffect: AgeWith HSD = .71, you can conclude that as the children age, they becomeincreasingly likely to point at the depicted object. That is, 19-mo-old childrenpointed significantly more often than 15-mo-old and 9-mo-old children.Furthermore, 15-mo-old children pointed significantly more often than 9-mo-oldchildren.Taken together, these results show maturation. As children age, they areincreasingly less likely to attempt to manipulate a depicted object and more likely tosimply point at the object. It’s almost as if the older children recognize that thedepicted object isn’t really there, so they make no attempt to manipulate the object,but it’s still sufficiently interesting for them to point at the object.32. Hmmm. There’s an article with the intriguing title, “Why people fail to recognize their ownincompetence” by Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, and Kruger (2003). According to Confucius, “realknowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” So, how well do you think that you’ll do on thisexam? Dunning, et al. (2003) asked students who were leaving an exam to judge how well they’d done onthe exam. It turned out that students who performed the worst on the exam actually overestimated theirperformance and students who did the best on the exam were fairly accurate in their self-assessment (with aslight underestimation among the students with the best performance).In one study, Kruger and Dunning (1999) gave additional information to some students, and thatinformation had