1Final Exam PS 306, Spring 20031. You know about the Milgram study, but what about the Hofling, et al. (1966) study of obedience? [from Gross] [5pts]Identical boxes of capsules were placed in 22 wards of both public and private psychiatric hospitals. The capsuleswere, in fact, placebos (consisting of glucose). But the containers were labeled ‘5 mg capsules of Astrofen’ (not areal drug); the labels also indicated that the normal dose is 5 mg with a maximum daily dose of 10 mg.While the nurse was on duty, a ‘doctor’ (‘Dr. Smith from the Psychiatric Department’) instructed the nurse,by telephone, to give 20 mg of Astrofen to his patient, a Mr. Jones, as he was in a desperate hurry and the patientneeded the capsules. He said that he would come in to see Mr. Jones in 10 minutes time and would sign theauthorization document for the drug when he got there.To comply with his request, the nurse would be breaking three basic procedural rules:(i) the dose was above the maximum daily dose of 10 mg;(ii) drugs should only be given after written authority has been obtained;(iii) the nurse must be absolutely sure that ‘Dr. Smith’ is a genuine doctor.A real doctor was posted nearby, unseen by the nurse, and observed what the nurse did following the telephonecall—comply, refuse, or try to contact another doctor. Whatever the nurse’s course of action, the observer-doctorthen revealed to the nurse what was really going on.If you were a member of an IRB, would you have approved this study? Why or why not? [And although you wouldnot know the results of the study as a member of an IRB, 21/22 nurses administered the ‘drug.’]As always, for this type of question, you need to focus on the APA guidelines in yourresponse. I’m less concerned with your actual decision than I am with your use of theguidelines in arriving at the decision.2. How many participants would you need with a minimum n = 30? [8 pts]A completely repeated measures (within) 3x5 design30A completely repeated measures (within) 2x9 design36A mixed 3x3 design, with the first factor repeated measures (within)90A mixed 2x9 design, with the second factor repeated measures (within)723. Faces appear to be interesting stimuli to children (e.g., Fantz, 1961). To test that hypothesis, suppose that threedifferent stimuli were presented to children of four different ages (1, 2, 3, and 4 months of age). The three differentovoids (seen below) were filled with face-like features (Face), filled with the same features in a scrambled fashion(Scrambled Face), or filled with an equivalent amount of black ink at the top of the ovoid (No Face). First of all, tellme why these particular stimuli were chosen. [2 pts]The amount of black and white information was kept constant over the three “faces.”However, the configuration of the black and white information is varied. In a, theconfiguration is face-like. In b, the configuration is as complex as the information in a, butit is not in a face-like configuration (controls for complexity). In c, the black and whiteinformation is not complex nor is it face-like.2The DV is the amount of time (in seconds) that the children spend looking at the stimuli in a 2-min test. Completethe source table below and interpret the results of this study as completely as you can. [15 pts]3 286.067 95.356 47.284 <.0001 141.851 1.0002 7349.033 3674.517 1822.074 <.0001 3644.149 1.0006 724.833 120.806 59.904 <.0001 359.421 1.00048 96.800 2.017DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda PowerAgeType of FaceAge * Type of FaceResidualANOVA Table for Looking Time5 38.000 1.581 .7075 20.800 1.924 .8605 33.000 1.581 .7075 42.400 2.074 .9275 20.800 1.483 .6635 38.200 1.304 .5835 50.400 1.673 .7485 17.600 .894 .4005 42.200 .837 .3745 41.600 1.140 .5105 13.000 1.000 .4475 44.800 .837 .374Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.1 mo., Face1 mo., No Face1 mo., Scram Face2 mo., Face2 mo., No Face2 mo., Scram Face3 mo., Face3 mo., No Face3 mo., Scram Face4 mo., Face4 mo., No Face4 mo., Scram FaceMeans Table for Looking TimeEffect: Age * Type of Face10152025303540455055Cell Mean1 mo. 2 mo. 3 mo. 4 mo.CellScram FaceNo FaceFaceInteraction Line Plot for Looking TimeEffect: Age * Type of FaceThere is a significant interaction between Age and Type of Face, F(6,48) = 59.9, MSE = 2.02, p< .001. [There are also main effects for Age and Type of Face.] Because the interaction issignificant, I would focus my attention on explaining the interaction. After looking at the graphabove, I would have a sense of the differences that would lead to an interaction, so I would nextcompute Tukey’s HSD: HSD = 4.872.025= 3.1Thus, at 1, 2, and 3 months of age, children preferred the facial stimuli (looked longer at them)than the scrambled faces, and they looked at longer at both facial and scrambled face thimulithan the non-face stimuli. However, at 4 months of age, children preferred (looked longer at) thescrambled faces than the facial stimuli, both of which were preferred to the non-face stimuli.Alternatively, you might conclude that three-month-old children preferred the facial stimuli morethan all other ages. Moreover, two- and four-moth-old children preferred the facial stimuli morethan the one-month-old children (but did not differ from one another). However, three- and four-month-old children preferred the scrambled face stimuli more than the other two ages (but didnot differ from one another). Moreover, the two-month-old children preferred the scrambledfaces more than one-month-old children. Finally, the pattern was different from the non-facestimuli. For these non-face stimuli, one- and two-month-old children preferred the stimuli morethan three- and four-month-old children (though they did not differ from one another). Moreover,three-month-old children preferred the non-face stimuli to the four-month-old children.34. Rosenthal conducted a number of studies that were intended to illustrate the operation of experimenter expectancyeffects. Other researchers have pointed out that various characteristics of experimenters are likely to affect theexperimental outcome. [15 pts]a. Describe the Rosenthal study that showed the problems that might emerge from the experimenter learning abouthow the participants were performing on a memory experiment or the Rosenthal study that showed the impact oftelling the experimenter what to expect in terms of the ratings of pictures of people's faces.b. What antidote(s) would you suggest to deal with such