\documentstyle[11pt,simplemargins]{article}
\setallmargins{1in}
% no page numbers
\pagestyle{empty}
% counter for page numbers
\newcounter{pg}
\setcounter{pg}{2}

% DEFINE THE PROBLEM SET NUMBER
\def\psnum{3}

% DEFINE THE DUE DATE
\def\due{March 17, 1992}

% title command
\newcommand{\mytitle}{{\large\noindent 9.63 Lab in Cognitive Science
 \hfill{} Juliet Bourne \\ 
Problem Set \#\psnum \hfill{} \due \\}
\vspace{-.43in}
\begin{center} \rule{6.5in}{.25mm} \end{center}}
% newpage setup command 
\newcommand{\mypage}[1]{\newpage{\large\noindent 9.63 Lab in Cognitive
Science \hfill{} Juliet Bourne \\
Problem Set \#\psnum \hfill{} \due \\}
\vspace{-.43in}
\begin{center} \rule{6.5in}{.25mm} \end{center}}
% problem command
\newcommand{\prob}[1]{\noindent{\fbox{\large\bf #1}}\vspace{.25in}}
% subproblem command
\newcommand{\subprob}[1]{\vspace{.15in} \noindent{\large\bf #1.}}
% equations commands
\newcommand{\beq}{\vspace*{-.3in}\begin{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray*}}

\newcommand{\PSbox}[3]{\mbox{\rule{0in}{#3}\special{psfile=#1}\hspace{#2}}}

\begin{document}

\mytitle

\prob{1} 

A three-factor memory experiment could compare age, sex, and the effect
of instructions to create a story from the words in the list to be
memorized.

\subprob{a} A main effect of age could imply that the number of words
that can be remembered increases with age. This would look like
(assuming no other main effects or interactions):

\PSbox{/mit/jcbourne/Psets/963/main.ps}{6in}{2.5in}

\subprob{b} A two-way interaction between age and instructions could
imply that the effectiveness of the story instructions increases with
the age of the subject. Assuming no main effects or other interactions,
this would look like:

\PSbox{/mit/jcbourne/Psets/963/two.ps}{6in}{2.5in}

\mypage 

\subprob{c} A three-way interaction (between age, sex, and instructions)
would imply that the effectiveness of the story instructions with
increasing age differs for males and females. This would look like:

\PSbox{/mit/jcbourne/Psets/963/three.ps}{6in}{2.5in}

\mypage

\prob{2} 

The report I have chosen is Chapter 8 in {\it Readings About The Social
Animal}: ``Attribution versus Persuasion as a Means for Modifying
Behavior'', particularly the second study in that chapter. It describes
a study of self-esteem and performance on math tests of second-graders.
The report concluded that attribution of ability or motivation (``You
are good at math'' or ``You are a hard worker in math'') was better than
persuasion of ability or motivation (``You should be good at math'' or
``You should work harder in math'') in terms of increasing self-esteem
and performance on math tests.

The report mentions the fact that they do not explicitly take into
account the effect of the attention of the teacher had on students. This
alone could explain the results. Positive attention from the teacher
(i.e. the positive messages in the attribution treatment) could cause
students to feel better about themselves and to apply themselves more to
arithmetic.  This possibility is mentioned in the Discussion section of
the report.  The authors argue that if students were only responding to
positive attention, then if the behavior attributed were negative the
students would respond in the opposite way. But, as shown in the
literature, ``negative attributions ... can indeed produce or support
the attributed behavior.'' (p. 116) So, the effect of attention might
not be an alternative explanation.

However, there is another fact they failed to take into account: the
effect the parents had on the students.  As part of the treatment
(either attribution or persuasion), students were sent home with letters
from their teacher and the principal of the school. The parents of
students who were receiving the attribution treatment (i.e. praise for
being a good math student or a hard worker in math) could reward the
students because of the letters from the teacher and principal. However,
parents of students who were receiving the persuasion treatment (i.e.
admonition to be better or try harder in math) could come down hard on
the students for not living up to their ``potential'' or not trying hard
enough. Basically, the effect could be explained through positive eand
negative reinforcement from the {\it parents}, which the experimenters
had no way of controlling or taking into account. The dissipation of the
persuasion effect over time could be explained by the fact that students
receiving negative reinforcement from their parents does not have
lasting positive effect. That is, once their parents get off their case
about working harder (presumably because the letters from school have
stopped), the students no longer worked hard to satisfy their parents. 

The difference in self-esteem could also be explained in this
positive/negative reinforcement model. ``Attribution'' students were
rewarded, so they felt better about themselves, but ``persuasion''
students were admonished, which could have a slight negative effect on
their self-esteem. The effect of the increased attention from the
teacher shouldn't be ignored in this case, since even ``persuasion''
students showed a slight (not significantly significant) increase in
self-esteem.  The decreased self-esteem of the control group, which
received no extra attention from the teacher, shows that there is a
possible effect from attention or lack thereof. 

Thus, positive/negative reinforcement from parents due to the
attribution/persuasion treatments, as well as the effect of the
attention paid to students, could offer another explanation for
the results of this study.

\end{document}
