The question asks us to identify which variable in Study 2 acts as a moderator. To answer this question, we must first assess what a moderator is.

A moderator variable influences the strength or direction of the relationship between two other variables. Before we identify the moderator variable, let us evaluate the different variables in Study 2 to better understand how we identify which variable is the moderator variable.

In the third paragraph, the passage mentions Study 2 “examined how fluctuations in housing values impacted older adults’ psychological functioning.” In this example, the fluctuation in housing values is the independent variable, as it is the factor being investigated to determine its effect on another variable. It is the presumed “cause” in the cause-and-effect relationship that Study 2 is exploring. Psychological well-being, then, is the dependent variable, as it is the variable being measured to see if it is affected by the changes in housing values. The study is designed to observe whether and how psychological well-being responds to fluctuations in housing values. To determine the moderator variable, We need to identify a variable mentioned in the passage that influences the relationship between housing value and psychological functioning.

The passage mentions that Study 2 participants were “older adults.” However, it does not suggest that specific age within that group changed or influenced the relationship between property values and psychological outcomes. Age is a characteristic of the sample but not a moderator within the sample.

The passage states, “Results found that for female participants, increases in property values were associated with decreased anxious symptomatology…”. This sentence tells us that the relationship between property value changes and anxiety symptoms may be different for men and women. For women, increasing property values are linked to lower anxiety.

Therefore, participant gender (male or female) changes the relationship between property value (the independent variable) and anxiety (the dependent variable). This is the definition of a moderator variable. In other words, the moderator variable in the study influences the relationship between housing value changes (the independent variable) and psychological functioning (the dependent variable).

Baseline property values are incorrect because they served as a reference point to quantify the change in property value over the study’s duration. The change in value, not the initial baseline value, is considered the independent variable, as it is this change that is hypothesized to affect psychological well-being. The baseline value provides a starting point for measuring how much the property value increased or decreased, allowing researchers to isolate the impact of those fluctuations.

Baseline psychological symptomatology is incorrect because it functions as a control, not a moderator. A moderator changes the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Baseline symptomatology, however, is measured before the independent variable (change in housing value) has had its effect. It is a starting point. Researchers use the baseline measurement to determine how much the dependent variable (psychological symptoms) changes over time. They can isolate the effect of the changing housing values by comparing the final symptomatology scores to the initial (baseline) score.

The question asks us to identify which of Maslow’s needs is LEAST likely to be associated with homeownership, according to the passage.

We must first assess Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to answer this question. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a psychological theory about what drives human behavior and what leads to self-actualization. From the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy upwards, the needs are physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.

As we move through the answer choices, we will examine how homeownership, as presented in the passage, relates to each of these needs and must identify the one with the weakest connection.

Belongingness needs, according to Maslow, focus on interpersonal relationships, intimacy, and feeling part of a group (family, friends, community, etc.). The passage does not directly connect homeownership to fulfilling these social and emotional needs. While a home can be a setting for family and social interaction, the passage emphasizes the financial, personal worth, and security aspects of owning a home rather than its role in fostering belonging.

The passage explicitly states that “the transition from being a renter to a homeowner leads to increases in self-worth.” Self-worth is a core component of Maslow’s esteem needs, which involve feelings of accomplishment, respect from others, and self-respect/confidence. The passage directly links the act of becoming a homeowner to an improvement in how individuals view themselves. Owning a home can contribute to fulfilling the need for esteem by providing a sense of achievement and potentially increasing social status, both of which are related to esteem as defined by Maslow.

The passage discusses how “differences in the quality of housing are also relevant to well-being,” mentioning the impact of noise on sleep. Sleep is a fundamental physiological need, and the passage links housing quality (and, thus, potentially, homeownership) to obtaining adequate rest. Furthermore, shelter itself is a basic physiological need, providing protection from the elements and a safe place to rest. Homeownership, by providing a stable and potentially higher-quality living environment, can directly contribute to satisfying these basic physiological needs.

The passage notes that many Americans “hold the majority of their wealth in the value of their home.” This directly relates to Maslow’s safety needs, which include financial security and resources. Homeownership, in the context presented, is framed as a significant component of personal wealth and contributes to a sense of safety and security. A home can provide a sense of stability and protection from external threats, further contributing to fulfilling safety needs. The passage explicitly links the financial aspects of homeownership to overall well-being, aligning with Maslow’s concept of safety and security.

The question asks us to identify the psychological construct that is specifically examined in relation to psychological well-being. To answer this, we need to review the section of the passage that describes Study 1 and understand the relevant terms.

In paragraph 2, it states that Study 1 found that the relationship between home ownership and psychological well-being varies based on how personally responsible for and capable of maintaining the value of their property the owner feels.” This tells us that Study 1 focused on how a person’s belief in their own ability to maintain or increase their home’s value influenced their well-being. Now, what we need to do is find the concept that aligns with this explanation.

Cognitive dissonance is a theory that explains the discomfort when someone has two or more contradictory beliefs, attitudes, or values. To decrease this discomfort, people can either justify their beliefs, add a new cognition, or change their behavior to align with the belief or opinion they hold. When we review the passage, we can’t see it mentioning conflicting beliefs or attitudes causing discomfort in homeowners. There is no mention of homeowners holding two inconsistent views simultaneously, like wanting to believe their home matters but feeling it doesn’t. Therefore, this concept does not fit.

Learned helplessness is a term that describes when someone believes that they have no control over their situation due to repeated exposure to uncontrollable negative events. Learned helplessness often causes hopelessness, a passive state, and depression. When we examine Study 1, we can clearly see that people who felt capable of controlling the value of their home, were not helpless. In reality, a greater sense of control (contradicting helplessness) was related to worse well-being. Therefore, this concept does not fit.

As we explained in the main solution, Study 1 focused on how a person’s belief in their own ability to increase their home’s value has an influence on their well-being. This belief – in one’s ability to to produce desired effects through one’s actions — is the definition of self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy is a concept from social cognitive theory, which refers to a person’s belief in their capability to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments. It affects how people think, feel, and act. In Study 1, homeowners who felt more capable of increasing their property value (high self-efficacy) surprisingly reported lower psychological well-being. Paragraph 2 clearly states that well-being varied depending on how “personally responsible for and capable of maintaining the value of their property” homeowners felt — a clear reference to self-efficacy.

Self-esteem is the concept that explains someone’s overall evaluation of their own worth. Study 1 focuses on a more specific concept: homeowners’ belief in their ability to influence their home’s value. Therefore, this is not the construct being directly examined in Study 1.

This question asks us to identify which claim about noise and sleep is most directly supported by the passage. We need to refer back to the specific sentence in the first paragraph where the relationship between noise exposure and sleep quality is described.

In paragraph 1, it says that “Daytime exposure to noise has been found to reduce the amount of time spent in REM sleep, while exposure to noise during sleep leads to shifts from deeper to lighter sleep stages.”

We can infer two specific things from this:

First, being exposed to daytime noise reduces the time spent in REM sleep. Second, exposure to noise during sleep can cause a person to shift from deeper to lighter sleep stages.

Before we go through the answer choices to identify these two claims, we also need to know about sleep cycles. Basically, sleep is divided into two stages: NREM and REM. NREM sleep is further divided into 4 stages, which are NREM-1, NREM-2, NREM-3 and NREM-4. These sleep stages are going from lighter to deeper. NREM-3 and NREM-4 are the deepest stages of sleep, also known as slow-wave sleep. On the other hand, REM sleep is known as paradoxical sleep since the brain acts like its active, and eye movements. Thus, dreams are experienced during this stage.

Now, we need to identify the statement that best reflects one of these two claims as we go through the answer choices.

The passage says that when people are exposed to noise during their sleep, this causes shifts from deeper to lighter sleep stages. Slow-wave sleep, which includes NREM-3 and NREM-4, is the deepest stage of sleep. If a person is shifting away from deeper stages, then time spent in slow-wave sleep would be reduced. Therefore, we can infer that being exposed to noise while sleeping can decrease the amount of slow-wave sleep.

Paragraph 1 mentions that being exposed to daytime noise decreases the time spent in REM sleep. As we explained above, REM sleep is the sleep stage that is associated with dreaming the most. A reduction in REM sleep would likely lead to fewer dreams, not more. This statement contradicts what the passage says.

Paragraph 1 does not specify when during the night sleep is affected by noise exposure. There is no reference to early versus late night effects, therefore making it the inaccurate answer choice.

The passage does not include a comparison between the daytime consequences of noise exposure at different times. It does not mention daytime sleepiness at all, nor does it evaluate which type of noise exposure (daytime or during sleep) leads to worse outcomes.

This question asks us to identify the statement that best summarizes the findings of Study 2, as described in the third and fourth paragraphs of the passage. To answer this, we need to carefully extract the key results from Study 2 and understand the type of relationship reported between property values and various psychological outcomes.

Results found that for female participants, increases in property values were associated with decreased anxious symptomatology across the data collection period. For all participants, increased property values were associated with improved performance on Task 2 during the second assessment.

This gives us two findings: First, among female participants, an increase in property value was associated with reduced anxiety over time. Second, or all participants, an increase in property value was associated with better performance on Task 2, which assessed verbal memory recall.

Therefore, we can say that the results are correlational, since the passage mentions phrases like “associated rather than causal conclusions. Importantly, the study design (a long-term observational study) and wording of the passage do not support claims of causation.

The passage never claims that changes in property values caused improved cognitive performance. It only says they were associated with better memory task performance. Therefore, this overstates the evidence and does not accurately summarize the study’s findings. Therefore, this choice is incorrect because it makes a causal claim.

Task 2 was the verbal recall task. The passage says: “Increased property values were associated with improved performance on Task 2.” A positive correlation means that as one variable increases (property values), so does the other (performance on the task). This statement directly reflects what the study found, and it appropriately uses correlational language.

The passage does not mention baseline property values or baseline symptomatology in relation to each other. Instead, it discusses changes in property values and how those relate to psychological and cognitive outcomes over time. No relationship between baseline variables is described.

A spurious association means the relationship is false or misleading — appearing real due to a third variable or error. The passage does not suggest the associations found in Study 2 were spurious. In fact, it presents them as legitimate and consistent findings. Therefore, this choice is incorrect.

This question requires us to identify which sociological or psychological concept best aligns with the themes and findings presented in the passage. To answer this, we need to review what the passage is primarily about.

The passage explores the relationship between home ownership and psychological and cognitive well-being. It highlights how factors like noise exposure, changes in housing value, and beliefs about maintaining property value are associated with outcomes such as anxiety, sleep quality, self-worth, and memory. These are all examples of how external, environmental, and socioeconomic conditions influence health and psychological functioning.

Demographic transition is the shift in birth and death rates that occurs as a society industrializes, typically moving from high birth/death rates to low birth/death rates over time. This model is used to describe population growth and development over time. The passage does not discuss population-level birth or death rate changes, fertility, or industrialization patterns. Therefore, this concept is not relevant here.

Differential association is a theory in criminology that explains how individuals learn deviant behavior through interactions with others. It focuses on how social relationships influence criminal behavior. This theory has no connection to the topics in the passage, which are about homeownership, property value, noise, and psychological functioning.

Front stage behavior is a concept from Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical theory. It describes how people manage impressions and present themselves in social settings — essentially, how we “perform” in public. The passage does not explore impression management, public self-presentation, or social performances. Therefore, this concept does not fit the discussion.

The key idea running through the entire passage is that where and how people live affects their mental and cognitive health — this is a classic example of what sociologists and public health researchers refer to as social determinants of health.

Social determinants of health are the non-medical factors that influence health outcomes — including economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, education, food access, community context, and the healthcare system. The passage discusses how homeownership, property value, noise exposure, and housing quality are linked to mental health and cognitive function — all clear examples of how social and environmental conditions impact health. This concept directly applies to the entire passage and best summarizes the overall theme.

This question asks us to identify the best term that describes the self-esteem proxy, based on the first paragraph of the passage. To answer this, we need to first understand how the passage defines and explains the self-esteem proxy and then match it with the most appropriate psychological concept from the choices.

According to the first paragraph, “Self-esteem proxy refers to the tendency to use an individual’s self-esteem to judge that individual’s social worth.” The passage then adds that people tend to assume that individuals with high self-esteem (HSE) possess more desirable traits. This suggests that observers make quick judgments about others based on perceived self-esteem levels. The paragraph goes on to say that this process may be adaptive, as it allows people to make fast decisions in social settings: “making quick judgments based on perceived self-esteem is necessary for social success.”

Now, let’s examine each answer choice to find which concept aligns with our description.

The description above matches the concept of a heuristic, which is a mental shortcut used to make quick judgments or decisions, especially in complex or uncertain situations. Heuristics help people conserve cognitive resources by relying on simple cues or rules of thumb—in this case, using someone’s self-esteem as a cue for their social worth or traits. In the context of the passage, people are described as relying on perceived self-esteem to quickly judge another person’s value or traits. This process reduces the need for deeper evaluation and fits the definition of a heuristic. The passage emphasizes that this kind of shortcut may be necessary “for social success,” supporting the idea that self-esteem proxy functions as a heuristic.

Chunking is a memory strategy that involves grouping information into meaningful units to improve recall. For example, remembering a phone number by breaking it into smaller groups. This concept is unrelated to the content of the paragraph, which discusses social judgment and trait evaluation—not memory processes.

Stereotype threat refers to the risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s social group, often leading to decreased performance in evaluative situations. For example, a student under stereotype threat might perform worse on a math test if reminded of a stereotype about their group’s math ability. Stereotype threat involves judgment and evaluation. However, it describes the experience of the person being judged—not the process of the observer using a shortcut like self-esteem to judge others.

Defense mechanisms are unconscious strategies used by individuals to reduce anxiety or protect the ego (e.g., denial, repression, projection). These are internal psychological responses to stress or conflict. The paragraph is not describing how a person defends against internal anxiety, but rather how others judge someone based on a visible cue (self-esteem). Therefore, this is not a defense mechanism.

This question asks us to determine which psychological theory is most closely related to sociometer theory, as it is described in the passage. To answer this, we need to first clearly understand what sociometer theory is and then evaluate which of the listed theories aligns with its core principles.

According to the passage, “sociometer theory [holds that] an individual’s self-esteem reflects their history of rejection and acceptance (for example, in familial and interpersonal relationships) and is a gauge for social success.” In other words, sociometer theory suggests that self-esteem acts like a social “meter” or internal gauge that monitors how well a person is accepted by others. When someone is included and accepted, their self-esteem rises; when they experience rejection or exclusion, it falls. This internal feedback mechanism helps individuals regulate their behavior in order to maintain social bonds.

Let’s examine answer choices.

Trait theory focuses on stable, enduring characteristics that people possess, such as openness, conscientiousness, or extraversion. While trait theory is about what a person is like, sociometer theory is about why self-esteem fluctuates based on social feedback. The sociometer concept is dynamic and socially driven, while trait theory is more static and individual-focused. This is not the best match.

Our explanation above points toward a theory that centers on relationships, social bonds, and how early experiences with others influence self-worth—this fits best with attachment theory, which focuses on how early interactions, especially in close relationships, shape individuals’ emotional development, behavior, and sense of security. Attachment theory explains how people form emotional bonds and how early relationships, especially with caregivers, shape later relational behaviors and emotional functioning. Since sociometer theory highlights that self-esteem reflects a history of social acceptance or rejection, it overlaps conceptually with attachment theory’s emphasis on interpersonal relationships and the psychological effects of those early experiences. The passage even gives examples like “familial and interpersonal relationships,” which are central concerns in attachment theory.

Spreading activation is a concept from cognitive psychology describing how one idea in memory can trigger related ideas through associative networks. This mechanism is mostly used to explain memory recall and semantic processing, not social self-esteem or interpersonal feedback. Therefore, it’s unrelated to sociometer theory.

Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort experienced when someone holds conflicting beliefs or behaves in a way that contradicts their values. People then try to reduce this discomfort by changing their beliefs or behaviors. This theory focuses on internal conflict and consistency—not on interpersonal feedback and self-esteem regulation, as sociometer theory does.

This question asks us to identify which psychological construct best explains the overall impact of self-esteem on trait ratings, based on the data in Table 1. To answer this, we must first interpret what the table shows regarding how self-esteem (LSE vs. HSE) affects how people rate others on various traits.

In Table 1, we see that across all traits—intelligence, emotional stability, agreeableness, and physical attractiveness—targets described as having high self-esteem (HSE) received higher ratings than those with low self-esteem (LSE). For example, the HSE condition received a 5.8 rating for intelligence, compared to 5.1 in the LSE condition; 4.8 vs. 3.5 for emotional stability; 5.2 vs. 4.6 for agreeableness; and 4.5 vs. 3.9 for physical attractiveness. Several of these differences are marked with asterisks, indicating statistical significance.

This pattern suggests that participants rated targets with HSE more positively across multiple traits, even for traits unrelated to the information in the narrative. That is, participants did not just rate HSE targets higher on relevant traits like intelligence and emotional stability, but also on irrelevant traits, such as physical attractiveness and agreeableness.

Let’s examine what we just explain through each answer choice.

Based on the explanation above, we can say that tendency to leave an overall impression—such as the perception that someone has high self-esteem—influences judgments on unrelated traits is an example of the halo effect. The halo effect is a type of cognitive bias where our overall impression of someone (such as seeing them as confident or high in self-esteem) influences how we judge their unrelated traits. In this case, participants appear to view high self-esteem targets more positively in general—not just in terms of traits relevant to success, but even in unrelated traits like physical attractiveness. The consistent boost in trait ratings for HSE individuals supports the presence of a halo effect.

Hindsight bias is the tendency to believe, after an outcome is known, that it was predictable all along (the “I-knew-it” effect). This bias applies to how people reflect on past events, not how they evaluate personality traits based on perceived self-esteem. There is no element of hindsight or predicted outcome in the design of this study.

Social facilitation is the phenomenon where people perform better on simple or well-learned tasks when in the presence of others. This concept deals with performance in front of others, not how individuals rate others’ traits based on self-esteem cues. It is not relevant to interpreting Table 1.

Encoding specificity is a memory principle stating that information is best recalled in the same context in which it was learned. This has to do with retrieval from memory, not with trait evaluation or perception of self-esteem. This choice is not applicable to the question.

This question asks what effects we can conclude from Table 1. To answer this, we need to understand what each type of effect means in the context of a 2×2 experimental design.

A main effect occurs when one independent variable has a significant impact on the dependent variable, regardless of the other variable. So a main effect of target self-esteem would mean that participants rated targets differently depending on whether the target had HSE or LSE, no matter if they won or lost the scholarship. A main effect of the scholarship condition would mean that targets who won the scholarship were rated differently from those who lost, regardless of their self-esteem condition.

An interaction effect occurs when the effect of one independent variable depends on the level of the other variable. In this case, that would mean that how self-esteem affects trait ratings depends on whether the target won or lost the scholarship.

Now, let’s look at Table 1.

For every trait listed, targets with HSE are rated higher than LSE targets, and most of these differences are statistically significant (marked with *). This supports a main effect of self-esteem (I).

For every trait, “Won” targets are rated higher than “Lost” targets, and again, several of these are marked as significantly different. For example, intelligence ratings go from 4.8 (“Lost”) to 6.1 (“Won”), and emotional stability from 3.7 to 4.6. This supports a main effect of scholarship condition (II).

However, nothing in Table 1 shows a specific interaction—we don’t see whether the difference in ratings between HSE and LSE is larger or smaller depending on whether the target won or lost. There is no combined row/column data that shows the joint effect of both independent variables together. Without interaction terms or a graph, we cannot conclude an interaction effect from this table alone.

The main effect of self-esteem is clearly supported, however, the table also shows consistent differences due to scholarship outcome—so this choice overlooks the second main effect.

There is no evidence in the table to support an interaction effect. Interaction effects require analysis of how the two variables work together, which is not shown.

There is clear support for both main effects: self-esteem (HSE > LSE across traits) and scholarship condition (Won > Lost across traits). There is no evidence to support an interaction.

Even though II is supported, there is no data for an interaction effect (III). Therefore, this answer choice is inaccurate.

This question asks us to identify which term best describes the trait ratings collected in Study 1. To answer this, we must identify the role of trait ratings within the study’s experimental design and determine whether they functioned as a dependent, independent, control, or confounding variable.

According to the passage, in Study 1, participants read a narrative about a target individual, which manipulated two characteristics: the target’s self-esteem level (high or low) and the scholarship outcome (won or lost). Then, participants rated the target individual on traits such as intelligence, emotional stability, agreeableness, and physical attractiveness.

Let’s evaluate each answer choice.

A control variable is something that is held constant across experimental conditions to eliminate alternative explanations. For example, if every narrative described the target as being the same age, gender, or from the same school, those would be control variables. The trait ratings varied as part of the outcome, so they are not control variables.

A confounding variable is an outside factor that is unintentionally linked with both the independent and dependent variables, potentially distorting the results. A confound is something the researchers try to avoid or eliminate. Trait ratings are the intended outcome being measured, not an unwanted influence, so this choice is incorrect.

Trait ratings, based on the explanation above, are outcomes that the researchers measured after the participants were exposed to the experimental manipulations (self-esteem and scholarship status). Therefore, the ratings are used to assess how the participants judged the target in response to the manipulated variables. This is the classic definition of a dependent variable—the variable that researchers measure to determine if and how it changes in response to other manipulated factors. The researchers manipulated the target’s self-esteem and scholarship condition, and then measured how these manipulations influenced participant perceptions—specifically, how the target was rated on personality traits. Because the ratings are the result or output of the study, they are the dependent variables.

Independent variables are the variables that are manipulated by the researchers to test their effects. In this study, the independent variables are the target’s self-esteem (HSE or LSE) and scholarship condition (won or lost). Trait ratings were measured, not manipulated, so this option is incorrect.

This question asks us to identify which phenomenon most likely conflicts with how low self-esteem (LSE) individuals consider their performance and skills, as described in paragraph 2 of the passage. To answer this, we need to first understand how the passage describes LSE individuals’ perceptions of their abilities and then determine which concept is in tension with that view.

In paragraph 2, it states that:”LSE individuals report concern that their professional skills and performance may be undermined at the workplace because they are less likely than HSE individuals to highlight their performance and skills in work interactions.” This suggests that LSE individuals are less likely to self-promote, even if their work is strong, and worry that others may not recognize their abilities. This contrasts with a system or belief in which skill and performance are recognized and rewarded purely on merit—regardless of how much someone promotes themselves.

Let’s examine the answer choices.

Intersectionality means how different aspects of a person’s identity (such as race, gender, class) intersect to create unique experiences of discrimination or privilege. While identity may affect workplace outcomes, this is not the focus of the paragraph, which emphasizes self-esteem’s effect on self-presentation and recognition at work. This choice does not directly relate to the issue of skill recognition discussed.

Multiculturalism is a sociological and political approach that recognizes and values cultural diversity within a society. It relates to inclusion of different cultural identities, not how individuals perceive or present their professional abilities based on self-esteem. This is unrelated to the passage’s content.

Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own culture or ethnic group is superior to others. It typically affects cross-cultural judgments and biases, and has no direct link to the concept of self-esteem and workplace recognition of individual performance. This choice is not supported by paragraph 2.

Meritocracy is the belief that individuals are rewarded based on merit, such as talent, effort, and performance. The passage suggests that LSE individuals may not receive the recognition they deserve, not because they lack merit, but because they do not showcase their skills confidently. This conflicts with the principle of meritocracy, which assumes that skill alone determines success.

This question asks us to identify which of the listed research questions would be best studied using a longitudinal design. To answer this, we must first understand what a longitudinal design is.

A longitudinal study tracks the same individuals or groups over an extended period of time, allowing researchers to observe changes and developments as they unfold. This type of design is especially useful when examining how early life experiences or traits influence outcomes later in life, or how variables change over time. It differs from cross-sectional studies, which examine different individuals at one point in time, and from experimental designs, which manipulate variables in a controlled setting.

To find the best fit, we must identify the option that requires tracking individuals across a significant time span in order to measure how earlier factors influence later outcomes.

Studying how infant attachment styles (which occur in early childhood) influence adult relationship patterns clearly requires a longitudinal design. Researchers would need to classify infants’ attachment types and then follow those same individuals into adulthood to evaluate their later relationship behavior. This involves observing development across many years, which fits the definition of a longitudinal study.

This statement is more appropriate for a twin study or an adoption study, which often uses a behavioral genetics framework. While such studies may use longitudinal elements, the core of this question is about separating the influences of genes and environment, not necessarily tracking individuals over time. Therefore, a longitudinal design is not the most necessary or efficient approach here.

This statement is best addressed through a cross-sectional design. It focuses on comparing prevalence rates between groups at a given point in time, rather than studying how individuals change over time. A longitudinal design is not required to compare group prevalence rates.

This statement is based on the concept of the bystander effect, which is typically studied in controlled, immediate-response situations. It does not require tracking individuals over time, so a longitudinal design would not be suitable. An experimental or observational design would be more appropriate here.

This question asks us to identify which psychological construct best explains why a child performs better—more fluently and accurately—when reading aloud in front of peers than when reading alone. To determine the correct answer, we need to understand the psychological processes that affect performance in the presence of others.

The key detail in the question is that the child’s performance improves when an audience (a small group of peers) is present. This suggests that the presence of others is enhancing performance rather than hindering it. We need to find which answer choice explains this phenomenon described in the question.

Deindividuation refers to a psychological state where individuals lose their sense of self-awareness and personal responsibility in group settings, often leading to impulsive or antisocial behavior. It typically applies in situations involving crowds or anonymity, such as riots or mob behavior. It does not relate to improved cognitive or academic performance in front of others. Therefore, this option does not explain the child’s improved reading performance.

Scaffolding is an educational concept that describes how a more knowledgeable other (such as a teacher or parent) supports a learner’s development by providing guidance, which is gradually removed as competence increases. There is no mention in the question of instructional support being given to the child while reading aloud, so scaffolding does not apply here.

The psychological construct that describes improved performance on simple or well-practiced tasks when others are watching is called social facilitation. This concept stems from early studies in social psychology, particularly those of Zajonc, which found that the presence of others can enhance performance on tasks that are already familiar or mastered. The effect tends to reverse—performance may worsen—when the task is new or complex. Therefore, we can say that a child’s fluency and accuracy improved when reading in front of peers, which suggests that the task is familiar and the presence of others boosted performance—consistent with social facilitation.

Social support refers to emotional, informational, or practical assistance received from others. While the presence of peers might feel supportive, the question does not mention any direct emotional or practical help being offered. Instead, it focuses on performance improvement simply due to an audience being present, which is better explained by social facilitation than by social support.

This question is asking us to determine which statistical result best supports the reliability of a measure of generalized intelligence over time. To answer this, we need to understand what reliability means in the context of psychological testing and how it is evaluated.

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measurement. A reliable measure yields similar results under consistent conditions. One way to assess reliability is through test-retest reliability, which involves administering the same test to the same participants at two different points in time and calculating the correlation between the two sets of scores.

The correlation coefficient, r, indicates the strength and direction of the relationship between the two sets of scores. Values closer to +1 indicate strong, positive relationships—meaning participants scored similarly both times. A strong positive correlation is ideal for showing that the measure is reliable. Values near 0 suggest no relationship, and negative values suggest that as one score increases, the other decreases, which would be inappropriate for a reliable intelligence test.

Let’s evaluate each option.

This is a very weak positive correlation, suggesting that there is little consistency between scores at Time 1 and Time 2. Additionally, the p-value of 0.20 indicates the correlation is not statistically significant. This result does not support reliability.

This is both a weak and negative correlation, which suggests that participants who scored higher initially tended to score slightly lower later. A negative correlation for test-retest scores undermines the idea of consistency. The non-significant p-value also weakens any claim about the measure being reliable.

A correlation of r = 0.84 is a strong positive relationship, indicating high test-retest reliability—participants’ scores remained consistent across six months. The p-value of 0.0 (which can be interpreted as p < 0.001) indicates that this result is statistically significant. This supports the conclusion that the intelligence measure is reliable over time.

Although the magnitude of this correlation is strong, the negative sign indicates an inverse relationship: participants who scored high initially scored low later and vice versa. This pattern contradicts the concept of reliability, which requires that scores remain similar over time. A significant but negative correlation does not support reliability.

This question asks us to identify which behavior best reflects egocentrism according to Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. To answer this, we need to understand what egocentrism means within Piaget’s framework.

In Piaget’s theory, egocentrism is a hallmark of the preoperational stage (approximately ages 2 to 7). During this stage, children tend to be unable to differentiate their own perspective from that of others. Egocentrism does not mean selfishness in the everyday sense—it refers more specifically to cognitive limitations. Egocentric children assume that others see, hear, and feel exactly what they do because they are not yet able to take another person’s point of view.

The classic test for egocentrism is Piaget’s Three Mountains Task, in which a child is asked to describe what someone else sees from another vantage point. Preoperational children typically describe the scene from their own perspective, not recognizing that the other person has a different visual viewpoint.

Let’s examine the answer choices.

Refusing to share is not necessarily egocentric in Piagetian terms—it could reflect selfishness or difficulty with emotional regulation, but it doesn’t indicate an inability to recognize another person’s point of view. Therefore, this is not the best representation of egocentrism.

Embarrassment shows awareness of others’ perceptions and implies some understanding of how one appears to others. This is the opposite of egocentrism. Feeling embarrassment requires recognizing that others can observe and judge your actions, which means the child is capable of adopting another’s point of view.

This behavior suggests overconfidence or a fragile self-concept, but it doesn’t clearly indicate a lack of perspective-taking. The child may be exaggerating or denying the outcome, but there is no evidence here that they fail to understand someone else’s point of view. This is not a direct example of egocentrism.

The child assumes that the parent can see exactly what they see, despite the parent being in a different position. This demonstrates egocentrism in the Piagetian sense—an inability to understand that another person has a different physical perspective. The child is not intentionally being unclear; they simply cannot yet conceptualize a different viewpoint.

This question asks us to identify which intervention is most likely aimed at reducing the fundamental attribution error. To answer this, we must understand what the fundamental attribution error (FAE) is.

The fundamental attribution error is a well-established concept in social psychology. It refers to the tendency for people to overemphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations for others’ behavior while underestimating situational factors. In other words, when observing someone else’s behavior, individuals are more likely to attribute it to who that person is rather than to the context they are in.

For example, if someone arrives late to a meeting, we may think they are lazy or irresponsible (a dispositional attribution), rather than considering they may have faced unexpected traffic or a personal emergency (a situational attribution). Reducing the fundamental attribution error would involve encouraging people to consider situational factors more when evaluating others’ behaviors.

Let’s go through the answer choices one by one.

This intervention addresses irrational fear or cognitive bias related to perceived danger. It is aimed at reducing anxiety by correcting misconceptions, not at changing how people attribute causes to others’ behaviors. It does not address attribution errors at all.

This addresses professional flexibility and openness to multiple treatment modalities, possibly reducing confirmation bias or tunnel vision in clinical practice. However, it does not concern how we explain other people’s behavior, so it is not designed to reduce the fundamental attribution error.

Providing staff managers with training regarding how stressors in employees’ personal lives can impact workplace performance is the correct answer. This intervention helps managers recognize that an employee’s poor performance or mood might not be due to laziness or bad attitude (dispositional factors), but rather due to situational stressors—such as family illness, financial issues, or lack of sleep. By training managers to consider these situational influences, this approach directly reduces the likelihood of committing the fundamental attribution error.

This addresses self-attribution and may help reduce internalized blame or depressive thinking patterns. However, the fundamental attribution error refers specifically to how we attribute other people’s behavior—not our own. So while this could help someone’s well-being, it is not an intervention targeting FAE.

This question asks us to identify the social phenomenon that best describes how the respondents view social media personalities, based on the passage. To answer this, we need to understand how the passage describes the respondents’ perceptions of themselves in relation to others—including those they don’t personally know, like influencers or celebrities.

In paragraph 2, the passage states:

“The respondents often described viewing themselves less favorably than others, including peers, social media personalities, and actors.”

This indicates that respondents are comparing themselves to public figures—people they likely do not know personally—and using them as benchmarks for evaluating their own bodies and appearance. Let’s take a look at the answer choices to find out the ones that describe this phenomenon.

A secondary group is a formal, impersonal group based on specific goals or activities, such as coworkers or classmates. The key characteristic of a secondary group is limited emotional closeness and interaction focused on tasks. Social media personalities do not form an organized group that the respondents belong to or participate in, so this is not the correct term.

A reference group is any group that individuals use as a standard for evaluating themselves—their appearance, behaviors, goals, or values. A reference group doesn’t require close interaction or even personal relationships; it simply serves as a point of comparison. Social media personalities and celebrities often serve as reference groups, especially for youth developing self-concept and identity.

A primary group involves close, personal, and enduring relationships, such as those with family and close friends. These groups have high emotional significance and regular interaction. Respondents are not personally interacting with social media personalities, so this is not a primary group.

An in-group is a social group to which a person identifies as belonging. It typically involves shared identity, loyalty, and mutual recognition. Even though individuals may feel admiration for or interest in a social media figure, they usually do not consider themselves part of the same group as the influencer. Moreover, an in-group implies membership, while reference groups can influence behavior without actual group membership.

This question asks us to identify the sociological phenomenon that best characterizes the efforts of respondents’ parents, as described in paragraph 2 of the passage. To answer it, we must first understand the parents’ behavior and then connect it to the relevant sociological term.

Paragraph 2 explains that parents participated in what the researchers call Weight Surveillance Work (WSW). Specifically, it says: “Respondents recalled many incidents where parents reaffirmed negative aspects of their weight and food choices.” Additionally, it says parents monitor their children’s weight with “good intentions,” with mothers framing discussions in terms of health, and fathers focusing on appearance. These efforts were meant to influence the respondents’ behaviors regarding food and body image, aligning them with certain norms or expectations around weight.

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual’s beliefs and behaviors should be understood within the context of their own culture, without judgment from another cultural standpoint. The parents in the passage are not attempting to understand alternative views or cultural norms about weight; rather, they are trying to enforce specific standards. Thus, this does not apply.

Differential association theory refers to how people learn values, attitudes, and behaviors through interaction with others—particularly how deviant behavior is learned from close relationships. The behavior being enforced here is not deviant but rather conforms to dominant cultural standards about thinness and health. Therefore, this does not apply.

Ethnocentrism involves judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. There is no indication that the parents are evaluating or comparing other cultures’ views on body image or health. Instead, they are reinforcing norms within their own cultural framework, not expressing superiority over others. This doesn’t apply.

Based on the explanation above, the key thing we need to focus on is that the parents attempted to regulate or influence the behavior of their children in relation to social norms about body weight and appearance. This aligns with the concept of social control, which refers to the ways in which society (or individuals within it) enforces norms and expectations to maintain order and conformity. Social control can occur through institutions, peer pressure, or, as in this case, parental guidance and monitoring. In the context of the passage, the parents are trying to guide their children’s behavior to align with societal expectations about weight, health, and appearance, even if unintentionally contributing to negative self-perceptions.

This question asks us to identify which construct is most likely to be neglected in teaching about health and nutrition, based on paragraph 3 of the passage. To answer this, we must first understand the content of paragraph 3 and what ideas were excluded in the teaching practices described.

Paragraph 3 discusses how teachers approached the topic of weight in school. Although teaching about obesity wasn’t mandated, teachers introduced topics like calculating Body Mass Index (BMI) and emphasized “being thin and eating healthy as culturally desired objectives.” Importantly, the paragraph notes that teachers “neglected to include discussion of other explanations for obesity, such as genetic predisposition.” This tells us the neglected construct is one that provides a biological or genetic explanation for body weight regulation, contrasting with the behavioral and cultural focus that was emphasized.

Let’s now evaluate each of the answer choices in light of this.

The set point theory proposes that each individual has a biologically predetermined weight range that their body naturally attempts to maintain through regulatory mechanisms like metabolism and hunger cues. This concept directly relates to genetic predispositions and biological explanations for body weight. Since paragraph 3 says that teachers neglected to include such explanations, the set point theory is the construct most likely to be neglected.

The gate control theory is a concept in pain perception. It proposes that the spinal cord contains a neurological “gate” that either blocks or allows pain signals to pass to the brain. This has no direct connection to body weight, obesity, or nutrition education, so it’s unlikely to be relevant or expected in such a teaching context.

Chemoreception refers to the detection of chemical stimuli in the environment, typically related to smell and taste. Chemoreception is related with eating, however, it does not provide a systemic or genetic explanation for obesity and would not be central to discussions of health and nutrition in the context described in the passage.

General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), developed by Hans Selye, describes the body’s short-term and long-term reactions to stress. While stress can influence health, this concept is more relevant to stress physiology than to weight or nutrition education, and it’s not the best match for what paragraph 3 says was neglected.

This question asks us to identify the psychological construct that best explains how others influenced the respondents’ views of their weight, based on the passage. To answer this, we need to recall the section of the passage that addresses how respondents’ perceptions of their bodies were shaped by interactions with others.

In paragraph 2, the passage describes how respondents engaged in weight surveillance work (WSW), which includes both objective measures (like weighing oneself) and subjective experiences, such as “looking in the mirror while being self-critical.” It also says, “The respondents often described viewing themselves less favorably than others, including peers, social media personalities, and actors.” Additionally, family members and medical professionals also contributed to their body image concerns. These comparisons to other people—particularly those idealized in media or social groups—are key to identifying the correct construct.

Deinidividuation refers to a psychological state in which individuals lose their sense of self-awareness and personal responsibility, often in group settings (e.g., mobs or crowds), leading to behavior they might not engage in individually. This is not related to how individuals form self-perceptions based on others’ appearances or feedback, so it doesn’t apply here.

Incongruence, as described in humanistic psychology (particularly Carl Rogers’ work), refers to a mismatch between an individual’s self-concept and their actual experiences or behavior. Even though it involves self-evaluation, the core mechanism here isn’t about comparing oneself to others but rather about internal misalignment. The passage emphasizes external comparisons and social influence, so incongruence is not the best fit.

Based on the explanation, the main psychological mechanism is one in which individuals evaluate themselves in relation to others, often resulting in negative self-perceptions. This aligns with the concept of social comparison, a well-established psychological construct. Social comparison theory explains how individuals determine their own social and personal worth based on how they stack up against others. The passage clearly states that respondents “viewed themselves less favorably than others, including peers, social media personalities, and actors,” which is classic upward social comparison. This leads to negative self-assessment when individuals compare themselves to those they see as “better” in some way. Therefore, this construct directly explains the influence of others on the respondents’ views of their weight.

Social inhibition refers to the tendency to perform less well on tasks or behave more reservedly in the presence of others, particularly when being observed. Although the respondents did avoid judgment by, for example, eating at less busy times, this is a behavior pattern—not a construct that explains how views of the self are shaped by comparison to others. Thus, this concept is not the best match for the question.

This question asks which part of the passage would be most relevant to a social movement from a resource mobilization perspective. To answer it correctly, we need to understand the resource mobilization theory and then identify which discussion from the passage fits that framework best.

Resource mobilization theory is a sociological perspective that explains the development and success of social movements by focusing on how they acquire, manage, and mobilize resources—such as people, money, knowledge, media access, and organizational networks. Unlike other theories that may focus on grievances or ideology alone, resource mobilization highlights the practical, organized efforts behind collective action. It emphasizes that even when discontent exists, successful movements require strategic planning and mobilization of available resources.

So, the correct answer will point to an example from the passage where individuals or groups collectively resist or challenge dominant norms and do so in a way that aligns with organization, agency, and strategic use of tools or language, which are markers of social movement potential.

Parents’ monitoring behavior in their children’s food choices and weight reflects individual-level parental behavior, which was framed as well-intentioned but resulted in negative outcomes for respondents. Parents in the passage are not organizing or mobilizing others for change; rather, they reinforce existing norms about weight. This is not consistent with the goals or processes of a social movement and does not involve mobilizing resources or collective action.

Objective measures and subjective experiences in youths’ engagement in WSW reflects how youths engage in self-monitoring behaviors, like weighing themselves or looking critically in the mirror. These behaviors reflect internalized social norms rather than resistance or organized efforts to challenge them. Although this shows how societal pressures operate on an individual level, it does not align with social movement action or the resource mobilization framework.

Resistance strategies such as participating in swimming and using empowering language describes deliberate and agentic efforts by respondents to challenge dominant norms about body image. Examples include engaging in activities like swimming to defy stereotypes about larger bodies and using empowering language such as “large” instead of “obese.” These strategies indicate early forms of resistance identity, which could be scaled into collective action if organized. The use of language and visibility (e.g., participating in public activities) can be seen as symbolic and social resources that could be mobilized in a body-positivity or anti-fat-shaming movement. These are direct expressions of challenging existing social norms, and they involve strategic choices—hallmarks of resource mobilization.

Teachers’ motivation to bring in weight-related topics to classroom discussions on health and nutrition describes how teachers integrate weight topics into health education, emphasizing thinness and healthy eating as “culturally desired objectives.” This supports existing norms and is not an act of resistance or mobilization, but rather a reinforcement of dominant discourses. Teachers are not organizing to create social change here; instead, they are shaping students’ perspectives in line with prevailing health narratives.

This question asks us to identify the most likely research method used by the researchers in the study described in the passage. To answer it, we need to look at how the data was collected and what kind of analysis was performed.

In paragraph 2, the passage states:

“Through an analysis of responses to open-ended questions, researchers found that WSW includes objective measures… and subjective experiences…”

This phrase indicates that participants were asked open-ended questions, and the researchers analyzed their responses to understand how young people experience and engage in weight surveillance work (WSW). This points to a qualitative research method, where the goal is to explore participants’ perspectives, experiences, and meaning-making processes in detail.

Although “open-ended questions” could technically appear in various research methods (including surveys or interviews), the key here is the type of analysis that was conducted: researchers examined themes related to personal behaviors, family interactions, classroom experiences, and even resistance strategies. This level of detailed, interpretive analysis suggests they were interested in the content and meaning of participant responses—not just in collecting standardized or numerical data.

Now let’s evaluate each answer choice to find out the best one.

Even though surveys can include open-ended questions, they are typically structured to gather quantitative or broadly categorical data from a large number of participants. Surveys aim for breadth over depth. The passage describes a more interpretive and qualitative approach to the data, focusing on subjective experiences and personal stories. Therefore, this is unlikely to be the primary method.

Experiments involve manipulating variables and observing outcomes under controlled conditions, which is not described anywhere in the passage. There is no mention of independent or dependent variables, random assignment, or any sort of controlled setting. Thus, an experimental method is not appropriate here.

Content analysis involves systematically coding and analyzing the content of existing texts, media, or documents (such as newspaper articles, social media posts, or policy documents). However, in this case, the data came directly from participants’ responses to open-ended questions, not preexisting texts. Therefore, this is not the best match.

In-depth interviews are a qualitative research method where researchers ask participants open-ended questions to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences in detail. The fact that the researchers analyzed subjective experiences, such as feeling judged or resisting social norms, strongly suggests the use of in-depth interviews or similar qualitative techniques designed to capture rich, detailed narratives. This method aligns well with the type of data and analysis described in the passage.

This question asks us to categorize involuntary and voluntary memories in terms of the broader memory types known as explicit and implicit memory. To answer this, we need to understand the definitions of these terms.

Explicit memory (also called declarative memory) refers to memories that require conscious recall—such as remembering facts or personal events. Autobiographical memories (AMs), whether retrieved voluntarily or involuntarily, are a type of episodic memory, which is a subset of explicit memory. These memories concern events from a person’s life and usually include contextual details like time and place.

Implicit memory, by contrast, refers to memories that are recalled without conscious awareness, such as procedural memory (e.g., riding a bike) or conditioned responses.

According to the passage, both involuntary and voluntary memories are forms of autobiographical memories, which involve conscious content about the self and one’s past. The difference lies in how they are retrieved: voluntarily through deliberate effort, or involuntarily through automatic triggering (e.g., by an odor or song). Despite the automatic retrieval of involuntary AMs, the memories themselves are still explicit in nature because they contain conscious, episodic content.

So, while involuntary AMs are triggered without effort, they are still explicit because the content is consciously experienced and reported.

Let’s find out the accurate answer choice.

Both involuntary and voluntary autobiographical memories are explicit. Voluntary AMs are retrieved deliberately, and involuntary AMs are retrieved spontaneously, but in both cases, the memory content is consciously accessed and expressed.

Voluntary memories are certainly explicit, but labeling involuntary autobiographical memories as implicit is inaccurate. Although their retrieval is automatic, the content of the memory is consciously accessible and verbalized—making them explicit.

This is incorrect for the same reason as above, just in reverse. The retrieval of involuntary AMs is automatic, but that doesn’t make the memory itself implicit. Both types involve consciously accessible personal memories.

Voluntary autobiographical memories are consciously recalled and verbalized, which places them firmly in the explicit category. Likewise, involuntary AMs, though automatically retrieved, still involve conscious awareness and detail, so they are also explicit.

This question asks us to identify which symptom participants in Study 1 were most likely screened for. To answer this, we must return to the passage and identify exactly what participants were screened for and understand why that screening was relevant to the study.

In the second paragraph, the passage states:

“Participants were early-stage AD patients and age-matched controls who were all screened for depression and anxiety.”

This tells us directly what screening occurred. Now we need to infer the likely symptom among the given options that would be most commonly associated with depression and anxiety—since these were the two conditions the researchers explicitly chose to screen for.

Each of the answer choices corresponds to a possible psychiatric or neurological symptom, but only one is most closely linked to depression and anxiety.

Let’s go through each option to find out the accurate answer.

Compulsive behavior is more commonly associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) rather than depression or anxiety per se. Although anxiety can be a component of OCD, compulsive behaviors are not a primary symptom of the types of anxiety or depression the study is concerned with. So this is unlikely.

Delusional ideation is typically associated with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. It is not a core feature of anxiety or depression, particularly in their mild or moderate forms. Therefore, this is not the best match.

Disorganized speech is also associated with psychotic disorders, especially schizophrenia. It is not a common symptom of depression or anxiety, and the passage does not suggest that this symptom would interfere with the study’s aims. So this is also unlikely.

Sleep disturbances are common in both depression and anxiety, the two conditions participants were screened for. Because these mood-related symptoms can affect cognitive functioning, emotional recall, or responsiveness to sensory stimuli, they are relevant to a study assessing autobiographical memory performance. Screening participants for depression and anxiety would help control for variability due to sleep issues, which could influence memory retrieval.

This question asks us to identify which types of sensory receptors were most likely activated by the stimuli used in Study 1. To answer this, we need to revisit what stimuli were used and understand which receptors are responsible for detecting those stimuli.

According to the passage, in Study 1 participants were exposed to two stimuli: A well-known classical music melody, and two distinct odors (vanilla and coffee).

The goal was to evoke autobiographical memories using either music or odor. So, we need to identify which sensory receptors respond to auditory stimuli (like music) and olfactory stimuli (like coffee and vanilla smells). Let’s start with describing the relevant receptors that we may need to know for this question.

Chemoreceptors detect chemical stimuli. In humans, they are involved in the senses of taste and smell. Olfactory receptors in the nose are a type of chemoreceptor.

Mechanoreceptors detect physical stimuli such as pressure, vibration, and sound. Auditory hair cells in the cochlea (inner ear) that respond to sound waves are mechanoreceptors.

Nociceptors detect pain or potentially damaging stimuli.

Photoreceptors detect light and are located in the retina of the eye.

What we need to do is find out which sensory receptors are responsible for detecting classical music and two odors.

Chemoreceptors detect the coffee and vanilla odors, and mechanoreceptors detect classical music via auditory hair cells in the inner ear.

Mechanoreceptors are correctly included, but nociceptors are pain receptors and were not relevant to the stimuli used in the study. There was no painful stimulus involved.

Neither pain nor light was used as a stimulus in the study. This choice does not correspond to any stimuli mentioned.

Chemoreceptors apply to the odors, but photoreceptors are involved in vision/light, which was not part of the study design.

This question asks us to identify the role of familiar odors in the classical conditioning paradigm mentioned in the first paragraph of the passage. To answer this, we need to revisit the basics of classical conditioning and determine where familiar odors would fit within that framework.

Classical conditioning involves learning through the association of stimuli. The core components are:

Unconditioned stimulus (US) is a stimulus that naturally and automatically triggers a response (e.g., food causing salivation).

Unconditioned response (UR) is the natural reaction to the unconditioned stimulus (e.g., salivation in response to food).

Conditioned stimulus (CS) is a previously neutral stimulus that, after being associated with the unconditioned stimulus, elicits a learned response.

Conditioned response (CR) is the learned response to the conditioned stimulus.

The first paragraph states:

“Familiar odors can evoke emotional reactions through classical conditioning.”

This implies that the odors themselves are not inherently emotional but have become associated with emotional experiences over time. Therefore, they were previously neutral stimuli that acquired emotional significance through repeated pairings with emotionally meaningful events.

This is the hallmark of a conditioned stimulus—a neutral stimulus that, after association with an unconditioned stimulus, triggers a conditioned response. So, familiar odors become CSs because they are linked to emotional memories or responses through learning.

Let’s examine each answer choice.

Appetitive stimulus usually appears in operant conditioning, not classical conditioning, and refers to a stimulus that an organism finds rewarding (e.g., food or social approval). Familiar odors may sometimes be pleasant, but the question asks about classical conditioning, and this term doesn’t fit that framework here. So, this is incorrect.

Discriminative stimulus is also a concept from operant conditioning. A discriminative stimulus is a cue that signals the availability of reinforcement or punishment if a particular behavior is performed. Since the passage focuses on classical—not operant—conditioning, this is not the correct choice.

The odors, originally neutral, have acquired the ability to elicit emotional responses due to their repeated association with emotionally significant events from the past. As the passage says, odors “can evoke emotional reactions through classical conditioning,” which directly supports their role as conditioned stimuli.

An unconditioned stimulus elicits a natural, unlearned response. Familiar odors do not automatically or biologically trigger emotional responses; their effect is learned through association. Therefore, they are not unconditioned stimuli.

This question asks us why independent raters in Study 1 were blinded to the conditions of the study. In research methodology, blinding is used to reduce bias by preventing those involved from knowing key information that could influence their behavior, judgments, or analyses. In this case, the raters were evaluating features of autobiographical memories (AMs) like specificity, detail, and automaticity.

The passage says:

“Participant reports were recorded and coded by two independent raters blind to the conditions of the study.”

This means the raters did not know whether the memory they were assessing came from the odor, music, or no-stimulus condition. The reason for this blinding would be to prevent their expectations or preconceptions from influencing how they coded the memories.

Let’s now evaluate the answer choices that describe this phenomenon.

Reactivity refers to changes in participant behavior due to the awareness of being observed. This is not relevant here because the raters—not the participants—are the focus of the blinding. Also, raters were not being observed; they were doing post-hoc coding. So this is incorrect.

Based on the explanation above. This type of concern—where someone’s existing beliefs or hypotheses affect how they interpret data—is best described as confirmation bias. This occurs when a person interprets or scores information in a way that supports their expectations or the study’s hypothesis.

For example, if a rater knew a memory came from the odor condition, and expected odors to produce more vivid memories (as the researchers hypothesized), they might (even unconsciously) rate that memory as more detailed or specific, even if it objectively wasn’t. Blinding prevents this from happening.

This bias involves participants giving responses they think are socially acceptable or favorable. It applies to self-reports by participants, not to independent raters coding data. So this is not applicable here.

Demand characteristics refer to cues that cause participants to guess the purpose of the study and adjust their behavior accordingly. Again, this applies to participants, not the raters who are blind to the condition and not generating data. So this is incorrect.

This question asks us to identify which part of the passage best aligns with humanistic theory in psychology. To answer this, we need to understand what humanistic theory emphasizes.

Humanistic theory is a psychological perspective that focuses on individual growth, self-awareness, free will, and the drive toward self-actualization. One of its core ideas is that a person’s sense of identity and self-concept are central to their psychological functioning. Humanistic psychologists like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow emphasized the importance of subjective experiences and a coherent sense of self as essential for mental well-being.

With this framework in mind, we must identify the part of the passage that deals most directly with ideas related to self and identity.

The second paragraph of the passage states:

“Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients have limited access to their AMs, including those AMs that shape their sense of self. Some researchers hypothesize that this is linked to the diminished sense of identity experienced in AD.”

This directly connects autobiographical memories (AMs) with the sense of self and identity—a key concern in humanistic theory. Humanistic psychology would be especially interested in how the loss of autobiographical memory affects self-concept and personal meaning, both of which are considered central to human psychological health in that framework.

Let’s now assess each option.

This section explains how odors can trigger involuntary autobiographical memories through classical conditioning. While it is interesting, it focuses on stimulus-response mechanisms, which are more aligned with behaviorist or cognitive approaches than humanistic theory.

Paragraph 2 discusses how Alzheimer’s patients have limited access to the autobiographical memories that help shape their sense of self, and how this may be linked to a diminished sense of identity. These themes—identity, personal meaning, and the self—are central to humanistic psychology, which emphasizes the importance of a coherent self-concept for well-being.

This part is about how raters classified memories as either general or specific. While it is important to the study’s methodology, it is descriptive and not related to self or identity, so it does not connect to humanistic theory.

This describes how memories differed in automaticity, detail, and specificity across conditions. While this is relevant to memory research, it deals with cognitive processing—not with personal meaning, self-concept, or growth. Therefore, it does not reflect humanistic concerns.

This question asks us to identify which graph best illustrates an interaction between two independent variables:

Grammatical function (nouns vs. verbs), and

Word frequency (frequent vs. infrequent words).

In psychological research, an interaction occurs when the effect of one independent variable depends on the level of another. In other words, we would expect to see that the effect of word frequency on recall is different for nouns than for verbs, or vice versa.

The dependent variable in this experiment is the number of words accurately recalled. We are looking for a graph that shows that recall performance changes differently across frequency levels depending on whether the word is a noun or a verb.

In terms of how this is represented visually, an interaction is usually seen when the bars for one condition (e.g., frequent vs. infrequent) diverge, converge, or cross over when comparing one level of the second variable (e.g., nouns) to another (e.g., verbs). Parallel bars typically indicate no interaction.

This figure shows that recall performance is equal across both frequency levels for both nouns and verbs. There is no difference between frequent and infrequent words within each grammatical category. This suggests no main effect of either variable and certainly no interaction between them.

In this figure, nouns are recalled more than verbs overall, but the difference between frequent and infrequent words is the same for both word types. This implies a main effect of grammatical function (nouns > verbs), but because the frequency effect is consistent across both types, there is no interaction.

This figure shows that frequent words are recalled more than infrequent words across both grammatical categories. The difference in recall between frequent and infrequent words is similar for both nouns and verbs. That indicates a main effect of frequency—frequent words are better remembered—but not an interaction, because frequency affects both nouns and verbs similarly.

This figure shows that for nouns, recall is the same regardless of frequency, while for verbs, frequent words are recalled much more than infrequent ones. This pattern shows that frequency only influences recall when the word is a verb. The fact that one variable (frequency) has an effect only at one level of the other variable (verbs, not nouns) is a clear and strong example of an interaction.

This question asks us to identify which scenario best represents a diathesis according to the diathesis–stress model of psychological disorders.

The diathesis–stress model is a psychological framework used to explain how mental disorders develop. According to this model, the onset of psychological disorders results from the interaction between a vulnerability (the diathesis) and external stressors (stress). The diathesis can be biological, genetic, or psychological, and it represents a predisposition or susceptibility to developing a disorder. However, the disorder often only manifests when a stressful life event interacts with that predisposition.

To correctly answer the question, we must identify the option that represents a pre-existing vulnerability, not an environmental stressor or protective factor.

Let’s now evaluate the choices.

A recent job loss is a stressful life event, which would qualify as the “stress” part of the model, not the diathesis. It could trigger symptoms in someone who already has a predisposition, but it is not itself a vulnerability.

Social support is considered a protective factor, not a risk factor or vulnerability. It can buffer against the effects of stress and reduce the likelihood that a disorder will develop, even in someone with a predisposition.

A history of secure attachment is also generally seen as a protective factor. It suggests emotional stability and resilience, which would reduce the likelihood of developing a psychological disorder in the face of stress—not increase it.

A gene linked to dysregulated neurotransmitter activity (for example, serotonin, dopamine, or glutamate imbalances) represents a biological predisposition to developing certain mental disorders. This is a classic example of a diathesis in the diathesis–stress model: a biological vulnerability that may lead to a disorder if combined with environmental stress.

This question asks us to identify which phenomenon is most consistent with differential association theory. To answer this, we first need to understand what differential association refers to.

Differential association theory, proposed by Edwin Sutherland, is a sociological explanation of deviant behavior, especially criminal behavior. The theory argues that deviance is learned through interactions with others, particularly through close personal relationships such as family and peer groups. According to the theory, individuals are more likely to engage in deviant behavior if they are exposed to more attitudes that support deviance than those that oppose it.

So, the key elements are:

– Deviance is learned behavior, not inherited or purely individual.
– It is learned through social interaction, especially with those who are important to the individual.

The process of socialization into deviant norms and values leads to deviant behavior.

Now, with this knowledge, let’s evaluate each answer choice.

Demographic transition of generations refers to population-level changes over time, such as declining birth and death rates, usually associated with economic development. This is a concept from demography, not from theories of deviance or social learning. It is unrelated to differential association.

Macro-level socialization refers to broad cultural or institutional influences on behavior (such as mass media, education systems, or national policies). Differential association focuses on micro-level interactions, particularly peer groups and close relationships, not societal-level forces. So this does not align with the theory.

Multiculturalism of social norms describes the coexistence of different cultural norms within a society. Even though multicultural settings may involve exposure to varying values, this concept is about cultural diversity, not about the learning of deviant behavior. It does not capture the learning of deviance through interpersonal contact.

Socialization of deviant behavior directly refers to the process by which people learn deviant behavior through interaction with others, which is exactly what differential association theory describes. It captures the key mechanism of the theory—deviance as a learned behavior through social relationships.

This question asks us to identify the demographic conditions that most likely result in an aging society. To answer this, we need to understand what an aging society is and how fertility and mortality rates contribute to population age structure.

An aging society is one in which the proportion of older individuals increases relative to younger individuals. This shift typically results in a higher median age of the population and often leads to increased demands on healthcare and social support systems.

There are two key demographic factors that drive population aging:

Fertility rate – the average number of children born per woman.

Mortality rate – the rate at which people die, particularly at older ages.

An aging society typically emerges when:

Fertility rates decline, meaning fewer young people are being born.

Mortality rates decline, especially in older age groups, meaning people are living longer.

When fewer young people are born and more older people survive, the proportion of elderly individuals increases over time—this is the hallmark of an aging society.

Let’s now assess each choice.

Increase in fertility, decrease in mortality would likely decrease the average age of the population, as more babies are being born. While longer life expectancy would increase the number of older people, the larger increase in births would result in a younger overall population. So this does not lead to an aging society, making this choice inaccurate.

Increase in fertility, increase in mortality the number of young people due to higher birth rates but also increases death rates, potentially reducing life expectancy. The increase in fertility would again skew the population younger, not older. Therefore, this answer choice is inaccurate.

In this scenario, fewer young people are being born, and at the same time, people are living longer. This combination leads to a higher proportion of older adults, which defines an aging society. This pattern is seen in many developed nations undergoing demographic transition. Therefore, this is the accurate answer choice.

Decrease in fertility, increase in mortality would reduce both the number of young and old people. The increase in mortality, especially among older individuals, could reduce the proportion of elderly in the population despite fewer births. This would not lead to a consistent aging trend.

This question is asking us to connect the type of treatment used in Study 2 with an underlying theory about the neurochemical cause of schizophrenia. To answer this, we need to revisit what treatment participants were receiving. The passage states that “participants were male SPs being treated for schizophrenia with a dopamine receptor antagonist.”

A dopamine receptor antagonist is a drug that blocks dopamine receptors and reduces dopamine signaling in the brain. These medications are commonly used to treat positive symptoms of schizophrenia, such as hallucinations and delusions.

If blocking dopamine receptors helps alleviate symptoms, then the assumption behind the treatment is that schizophrenia is associated with too much dopamine activity—specifically, overactivation of dopamine receptors. This is consistent with the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia, which proposes that positive symptoms result from excess dopamine transmission, particularly in certain areas of the brain like the mesolimbic pathway.

Let’s evaluate each answer choice based on this information.

If schizophrenia were caused by low dopamine levels, a dopamine receptor antagonist (which blocks dopamine effects) would worsen symptoms, not help. Therefore, this assumption is the opposite of what the treatment implies.

DOPA decarboxylase is an enzyme involved in synthesizing dopamine. If activity of this enzyme is decreased, it would lead to less dopamine production. Again, this would suggest dopamine deficiency, which contradicts the use of a dopamine antagonist. So this assumption is also inconsistent with the treatment used.

The treatment used—a dopamine receptor antagonist—blocks dopamine receptors. This makes sense only if the receptors are being overstimulated in the first place. Therefore, this assumption fits with the rationale for using that type of medication.

Biogenic amines include neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Increased breakdown would mean lower levels of these neurotransmitters, not higher. But again, the treatment blocks dopamine activity, so this assumption is inconsistent with the use of a dopamine antagonist.

To answer this question, we need to identify the core hypothesis of Study 2 and determine which psychological construct it aligns with. The passage states that Study 2 was designed to test the hypothesis that “SPs with a better understanding of their thought processes will exhibit fewer positive symptoms of schizophrenia.” Participants were assessed using the Mental Process Understanding Scale (MPUS) and a self-report symptom scale (SSS), which measured the frequency of both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Let’s examine the answer choices to find out the accurate answer choice.

Crystallized intelligence refers to knowledge acquired through experience and education, such as vocabulary and general world knowledge. It is relatively stable over time and not focused on understanding one’s own mental states. Since the study is about self-understanding and symptom prediction, this is not the best match.

Fluid intelligence refers to the capacity to solve novel problems, reason quickly, and identify patterns. It is more related to general cognitive function than to self-awareness or understanding one’s own thoughts. This is not the accurate answer choice since it is not the focus of the hypothesis of Study 2.

Self-actualization, from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, is about realizing one’s full potential and achieving personal growth. This is a broader and more abstract concept than what is being measured in Study 2. The study is focused specifically on cognitive self-awareness, not personal fulfillment.

Based on the explanation above, the hypothesis proposes a link between understanding one’s own thought processes and symptom reduction. A construct that refers to the awareness and regulation of one’s own mental processes is known as metacognition. Metacognition is often described as “thinking about thinking” and includes the ability to monitor and control cognitive activities, such as attention, memory, and problem solving.

Given that Study 2 tested whether better understanding of one’s own mental processes is associated with fewer symptoms (as captured by the SSS), the construct most aligned with predicting SSS scores is metacognition.

To answer this question, we need to understand what MPUS Subscale 2 measured and then determine which psychological construct it best represents. The passage describes the Mental Process Understanding Scale (MPUS) as consisting of two subscales. It says:

“Subscale 1 assessed how well participants understood their own mental processes and Subscale 2 assessed how well participants understood others’ mental processes through sentences participants rated on a 5-point scale.”

This means MPUS Subscale 2 focused on understanding other people’s thoughts. Now, what we need to do is find out which concept from the answer choices align with this phenomenon.

Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological discomfort experienced when a person holds two or more conflicting beliefs or behaviors. This concept is about internal conflict and self-related mental processes, not understanding the minds of others. Therefore, it does not match what MPUS Subscale 2 measures.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs. Like cognitive dissonance, this concept is about how people process information, not about understanding others’ thoughts or perspectives. So it is not consistent with the focus of Subscale 2.

Understanding other people’s thoughts, intentions, and feelings is a skill commonly referred to in psychology as Theory of Mind.

Theory of Mind is the ability to attribute mental states—like beliefs, intentions, desires, and knowledge—to oneself and others. It also involves understanding that others have perspectives and experiences different from one’s own. Because MPUS Subscale 2 is assessing how well participants interpret or understand others’ mental states, Theory of Mind is the construct most aligned with this subscale.

Paranoia includes irrational distrust or suspicion of others, often seen in schizophrenia. Paranoia has a connection with how one interprets others’ intentions, it is not a measure of understanding others accurately or empathetically. MPUS Subscale 2 assesses understanding others’ mental processes—not distorted perceptions of others. Thus, paranoia is not the best fit.

To answer this question, we need to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative data and then determine which assessments used in Study 2 are more likely to generate qualitative data.

Qualitative data are non-numerical and descriptive. They often come from open-ended responses, interviews, or narrative accounts and are used to explore subjective experiences, meanings, or concepts in depth.

By contrast, quantitative data are numerical, standardized, and often come from rating scales, surveys, or performance scores. These data types are useful for statistical analysis.

According to the passage, Study 2 used several tools:

– The Semi-Structured Interview (SSI), described as “conversational rather than clinical,” included questions about participants’ personal history and how they feel schizophrenia affects their lives.
– The Self-Report Symptom Scale (SSS) assessed the frequency of symptoms.
– The Mental Process Understanding Scale (MPUS) had two subscales rated on a 5-point scale.

Based on this, we need to determine which tool gives us qualitative data to answer the question.

The SSI is most likely to yield qualitative data because it involves open-ended conversation about the participants’ lives and experiences, rather than standardized numerical ratings. Meanwhile, both the SSS and MPUS scales involve structured self-report instruments designed to collect quantitative data. Therefore, the Semi-Structured Interview is the only assessment in Study 2 described as conversational and focused on personal narratives, making A the accurate answer choice.

The Self-Report Symptom Scale is a quantitative tool—it measures symptom frequency in a structured way, likely with fixed-response options (e.g., Likert scale), not open-ended descriptions.

Even though SSI produces qualitative data, MPUS Scale 1 is based on a 5-point rating scale and thus collects quantitative data. Including MPUS Scale 1 makes this choice inaccurate.

Both MPUS Scale 2 and SSS use structured rating scales and are therefore quantitative, not qualitative.

To answer this question, we need to understand what locus of control refers to in psychology and then determine which part of Study 2 assessed that construct.

Locus of control refers to an individual’s belief about what causes the events in their life. People with an internal locus of control believe they can influence outcomes through their own actions. People with an external locus of control believe that external factors—like fate, luck, or other people—determine what happens to them.

Going back, the passage describes two main types of instruments in Study 2:

– The Semi-Structured Interview (SSI), which had two sections.

– The Mental Process Understanding Scale (MPUS), which included Subscale 1 (understanding of one’s own mental processes) and Subscale 2 (understanding others’ mental processes).

Let’s look closely at what the second section of the SSI measured:

“In the second section, they were asked to describe the extent to which they feel that schizophrenia affects their lives and the extent to which they think they can determine their own outcomes.”

Let’s examine the answer choices to find which one addresses this explanation.

The first section of SSI focused on participants’ personal history and their experience with schizophrenia. Even though it is informative, it was not specifically designed to assess beliefs about control over life outcomes.

Based on the explanation, we can say that how schizophrenia influences lives of the patients and how they can determine the outcomes, as described in paragraph 2, directly addresses whether participants believe they can influence what happens to them—that is, their locus of control. If they feel they can “determine their own outcomes,” this indicates an internal locus of control. If they feel they cannot, this would suggest an external locus of control. This indicates a direct assessment of locus of control.

MPUS Subscale 1 measured how well participants understand their own mental processes, which relates to metacognition, not necessarily locus of control. It measures insight into thought patterns, not beliefs about control over life events.

Subscale 2 focused on understanding others’ mental processes—this taps into Theory of Mind, not locus of control.

To answer this question, we need to restate Study 2’s hypothesis and identify which specific variables would directly test that hypothesis using the correlational data from Table 1.

The passage states that:

“Study 2 was designed to test the hypothesis that SPs with a better understanding of their thought processes will exhibit fewer positive symptoms of schizophrenia.”

As we examine, we can see that there are two key elements in this hypothesis:

1. Understanding of thought processes — measured by MPUS Subscale 1 (which assesses how well participants understood their own mental processes).
2. Positive symptoms of schizophrenia — which include hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking, but not negative symptoms like emotional withdrawal or blunted affect.

We need to evaluate each answer choice keeping these in our minds.

Emotional withdrawal is a negative symptom, not a positive one. While it may be relevant for broader symptom assessment, it does not directly test the Study 2 hypothesis, which focuses specifically on positive symptoms. So this is not the best answer.

Hallucinations are a classic positive symptom of schizophrenia, and MPUS Subscale 1 measures understanding of one’s own mental processes. A negative correlation between these two variables would show that greater self-understanding is associated with fewer hallucinations, which directly supports the hypothesis of Study 2.

Blunted affect is a negative symptom, and MPUS Subscale 2 relates to understanding others’ mental processes (Theory of Mind), not one’s own. This pairing neither matches the dependent variable (positive symptoms) nor the relevant subscale, so it does not directly support the hypothesis.

Delusions are indeed a positive symptom, but MPUS Subscale 2 assesses understanding of others’ mental processes. The hypothesis specifically concerns understanding of one’s own thought processes. This is less direct in supporting the hypothesis compared to Subscale 1.

To answer this question, we need to understand both what the Semi-Structured Interview (SSI) asked participants to do and what types of memory are listed in the answer choices.

According to the passage, the SSI was “conversational rather than clinical” and consisted of two sections. In the first section, participants were asked to tell the interviewer their personal history and their experience with schizophrenia. This would require participants to recall specific life events and describe their own lived experiences in detail.

Let’s now break down the types of memory listed in the choices and identify which aligns best with the kind of recall prompted by the SSI.

Flashbulb memories are a specific type of episodic memory tied to emotionally intense, often shocking events, such as hearing about a major disaster or personal trauma. The Semi-Structured Interview (SSI), as described in the passage, asks participants to recount their personal history and experience with schizophrenia. These are personally meaningful topics and may involve emotionally intense or life-altering moments—for example, receiving a diagnosis, experiencing first symptoms, or dealing with a major life disruption due to the illness. So, while flashbulb memories are a subset of episodic memories, they’re the best fit from the answer choices given—especially since the interview is likely to trigger recollection of significant and vivid personal events.

Implicit memories are non-declarative and are not consciously recalled. They influence behavior without deliberate awareness, such as habits, motor skills, or conditioned responses. Since the SSI involves intentional, conscious reflection and verbal reporting, it does not rely on implicit memory. This choice is inaccurate.

Procedural memory is a type of implicit memory and involves knowing how to do things—like riding a bike or tying shoes. These are skills and routines, not the kind of autobiographical content participants would describe in an interview about their life history or experiences with mental illness. Therefore, procedural memory does not match the task.

Semantic memory involves general world knowledge, facts, and concepts—like knowing that Paris is the capital of France or that schizophrenia is a mental disorder. The main purpose of the SSI was to collect personal life stories and subjective experiences, which are episodic, not semantic.

The question asks what evidence would best support the idea that math anxiety (MA) is a unique construct. In the passage’s first paragraph, we’re told that some believe MA is just a part of general test anxiety, while others argue MA is distinct—in other words, a “unique construct.” To demonstrate that MA is unique, we would need evidence showing that MA does something differently from general test anxiety. This means we’re looking for evidence that separates the two: that MA predicts outcomes (like test performance) independently from or better than general test anxiety does.

If both MA and general test anxiety predicted math performance in the same way, it would suggest they’re not meaningfully different. But if MA is a better or independent predictor of math-related outcomes, it supports the idea that MA is not just a subset of general anxiety but a separate phenomenon.

Now let’s evaluate the answer choices one by one.

This shows that MA is related to math performance, which is important, but it does not compare MA to general test anxiety. It tells us MA is predictive, but not whether it’s unique. So while it supports MA’s relevance, it doesn’t establish that MA is distinct from general anxiety.

This comparison directly supports the idea that MA is a unique construct. If MA is a better predictor of math performance than general test anxiety, then MA cannot be entirely explained by general test anxiety. This supports its uniqueness as a psychological construct specific to math.

This shows that general test anxiety has a relationship with test performance, but it does not provide information about MA. This actually weakens the argument that MA is unique, because it supports the idea that test anxiety in general affects math performance, possibly implying MA is not unique.

This choice presents evidence that directly weakens the claim that MA is unique. If general test anxiety is the better predictor, then MA might simply reflect a domain-specific version of general anxiety, rather than a separate psychological construct.

This question asks us to identify which construct is associated with lower math learning anxiety (MLA), based on the results presented in Study 3. To answer this, we need to analyze Table 2, which presents correlations between aspects of the classroom environment and two types of math anxiety: MLA (math learning anxiety) and MEA (math evaluation anxiety).

We are looking for a negative and statistically significant correlation with MLA—this would suggest that as the construct increases, MLA decreases. According to Table 2, only two classroom environment variables have statistically significant correlations with MLA:

– Student cohesiveness (r = –0.13, statistically significant)
– Cooperation (r = –0.08, statistically significant)

These two are both negatively correlated with MLA, which means greater student cohesiveness and cooperation are associated with lower levels of math learning anxiety. The question now asks which psychological construct from the answer choices most closely matches the variables in Table 2—particularly one that aligns with student cohesiveness or cooperation.

Attachment typically refers to emotional bonds, particularly in early development or within close personal relationships (e.g., between a child and caregiver). Attachment can influence academic outcomes indirectly, it does not best represent classroom-based social dynamics like student cooperation or group cohesion. Not the best match for the variables related to MLA in Study 3.

Groupthink refers to a psychological phenomenon in which the desire for harmony or conformity in a group leads to poor decision-making. It generally has a negative connotation and is not aligned with positive, supportive peer interactions like student cohesiveness. This is not associated with reducing anxiety and would not fit the context of Study 3.

Social facilitation refers to improved performance on tasks when in the presence of others, especially on simple or well-learned tasks. It doesn’t relate directly to emotional support or anxiety reduction through peer interaction. Therefore, this is not a match for variables like cohesiveness or cooperation.

Social support involves receiving emotional, instrumental, or informational help from others, often contributing to reduced stress or anxiety. In the context of the classroom, student cohesiveness—described in the passage as students being “friendly and encouraging of each other”—is a clear example of peer-based social support. Since student cohesiveness is significantly negatively correlated with MLA, and aligns conceptually with social support, this is the best choice.

To answer this question, we need to identify which theoretical framework best aligns with the concept of teacher scaffolding, as measured in Study 3. According to Table 2 and the description of Study 3, “teacher scaffolding” refers to when “the teacher guides student learning.” In educational psychology, scaffolding is a key instructional method where a more knowledgeable person (like a teacher) provides structured support to help learners progress in their understanding, gradually removing that support as the learner becomes more independent.

Now, we need to determine which theory is tied with this concept explained above.

Based on the explanation above, we can say that this is most closely tied to Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of cognitive development, particularly his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is the range of tasks a child can perform with guidance but not yet independently. Scaffolding is a method for supporting students within their ZPD—offering help that is tailored to their current level of understanding and gradually reduced as they gain competence.

Piaget was also a major figure in developmental psychology, his theory emphasized that children construct knowledge through independent exploration and stages of cognitive development. Piaget did not focus on the role of adult guidance or scaffolding. Therefore, this is less consistent with the concept of teacher scaffolding in Study 3.

Freud’s psychodynamic theory focuses on unconscious drives, defense mechanisms, and early childhood experiences in shaping personality. It has minimal relevance to educational practices like scaffolding. Freud did not address how instruction or teacher support affects learning.

Erikson focused on psychosocial crises across the lifespan (e.g., identity vs. role confusion), emphasizing emotional and social development. While relevant to broader development, his theory does not specifically address learning through teacher support or scaffolding strategies in educational settings.

This question asks which psychological construct best accounts for gender differences in math evaluation anxiety (MEA), as found in Study 3. According to the passage, “Study 3 also found that female students were significantly more likely than male students to experience MEA.” This means that, on average, girls in the study reported higher anxiety when being evaluated in math contexts.

To answer this, we need to consider psychological theories that explain why a group (in this case, females) might experience more anxiety in situations involving performance evaluation in a specific domain like math.

One well-known explanation for performance differences based on group membership is stereotype threat.

Stereotype threat refers to the situational pressure individuals may feel when they are at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about their social group. For example, girls and women are often exposed to cultural stereotypes that suggest males are inherently better at math. When girls are placed in a math evaluation context, the fear of confirming this stereotype can increase anxiety and hinder performance. This makes stereotype threat a strong explanation for the observed gender difference in MEA.

Self-serving bias refers to the tendency to attribute one’s successes to internal factors (like ability) and failures to external factors (like bad luck). This bias helps protect self-esteem, but it does not explain group-level differences in anxiety related to evaluation, especially across gender lines. Not applicable here.

Deindividuation involves a loss of self-awareness and decreased personal responsibility, often in group settings (e.g., mobs or large crowds). It relates more to impulsive or antisocial behavior in groups, and not to individual anxiety in performance contexts like math tests.

Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort people feel when they hold two conflicting beliefs or when their behavior conflicts with their beliefs. While this concept can cause stress, it doesn’t directly explain why girls would experience more evaluation anxiety than boys in math—there is no mention of conflicting beliefs in the passage to suggest dissonance.

To answer this question, we need to carefully examine the results of Study 2, which are presented in Table 1. The study examined how math anxiety (MA) correlates with various math-related attitudes and performance outcomes. The question asks us to identify the best description of those findings. The table includes correlation coefficients between MA and four variables: math self-efficacy, math interest, math performance in high school, and math performance in college. All correlations are statistically significant. Here are the key correlations from Table 1 (assuming the numbers are visible in the image):

– MA and math self-efficacy: r = –0.70
– MA and math interest: r = –0.60
– MA and high school math grades: r = –0.51
– MA and college math grades: r = –0.34

All values are negative, meaning higher math anxiety is associated with lower scores in each of these areas.

Now we evaluate the answer choices one at a time.

Increased MA causes a decrease in students’ enjoyment of math is incorrect for two reasons. First, the passage reports correlational data, not experimental data—so we cannot infer causation. Second, the variable closest to “enjoyment” in the table is “math interest,” which is negatively correlated with MA, but again, correlation does not equal causation.

Table 1 shows that MA is negatively correlated with both college math grades (r = –0.34) and high school math grades (r = –0.51). Both are statistically significant, so MA is related to college performance, just somewhat less strongly than to high school performance.

“Math self-efficacy” refers to a person’s belief in their ability to perform math tasks—essentially, confidence in math ability. The correlation between MA and math self-efficacy is –0.70, which is the strongest (most negative) correlation in the table. This indicates that as math anxiety increases, confidence in math ability decreases more than any of the other outcomes measured.

The table includes college and high school performance, it does not provide a direct comparison of how MA predicts behavior or attitudes across these age groups. There is no breakdown by age or education level in the correlational results related to attitudes, so this statement cannot be verified from the data.

To answer this question, we need to determine which of the listed sociological concepts is most directly influenced by math anxiety (MA), based on what the passage describes. Throughout the studies summarized in the passage, MA is associated with:

– Poorer math performance (Study 1 and Study 2),
– Lower math self-efficacy and interest (Study 2),
– Increased anxiety in learning and evaluation settings (Study 3),
– And potentially gender-related differences in math evaluation anxiety (Study 3)

Even though these are primarily psychological outcomes, their influence extends into academic achievement, which over time can affect educational opportunities and access to resources—domains more closely aligned with forms of capital in sociology.

Let’s examine which capital aligns with this the best.

Social capital refers to resources gained from social networks—relationships and connections that provide support or access to opportunities. While MA could potentially affect group participation (e.g., avoiding group work in math), the studies in the passage don’t focus on social networks or peer support as the main influence or outcome of MA. This is not the most direct link.

Cultural capital includes skills and knowledge (like math ability) that help individuals succeed in educational systems and broader society. MA reduces math performance and confidence, which can hinder educational advancement—especially in math-dependent fields—thus limiting a student’s access to cultural capital. This is the most directly influenced sociological concept based on the studies described.

This theory relates to how individuals learn values and behaviors through interaction with others, often used in the context of deviant behavior or crime. MA has no clear connection in the passage to learning deviant behavior through social interactions, making this choice unrelated.

Residential segregation refers to the physical separation of groups into different neighborhoods based on race, income, or other social factors. Even though educational opportunity can be shaped by neighborhood factors, the passage does not mention geographic location or housing. There’s no direct link between MA and residential segregation in the data.

This question asks us to identify the social phenomena that explain why someone would emigrate from one country to another because of economic reasons—specifically, leaving due to lack of employment and moving toward better job opportunities.

This type of migration is best explained by the concepts of push and pull factors. In migration theory, push factors are conditions that drive people to leave their home country, such as unemployment, poverty, conflict, or lack of opportunities. In contrast, pull factors are conditions that attract people to a new country, such as job availability, higher wages, or political stability.

In this scenario, the lack of employment in the home country is the push factor, and the employment opportunities in the destination country are the pull factor. Both are at play here.

Let’s now evaluate the answer choices.

Even though employment opportunities in the new country are indeed a pull factor, this answer ignores the push factor—the lack of jobs in the home country. The decision to migrate is driven by both.

The demographic transition model describes how population growth and birth/death rates change over time as a country industrializes. While this can influence migration patterns on a larger scale, it does not directly explain an individual’s decision to leave due to employment reasons. This is not the most applicable concept here.

The immigrant is being pushed out of their country due to lack of employment, and simultaneously pulled to the new country by the availability of jobs. This dual influence is central to migration theory.

Social mobility refers to movement within a social hierarchy (e.g., moving from a lower to a higher socioeconomic class). Even though the immigrant might be hoping to achieve upward mobility, the question is about why they’re migrating, not what outcomes might result. And again, demographic transition is a broader population-level model that doesn’t specifically explain individual labor migration decisions.

To answer this question, we need to apply the principles of demographic transition theory, which describes how a society’s population patterns change over time with economic development and industrialization. The theory is typically divided into four (sometimes five) stages, with shifts in birth rates, death rates, and population growth.

A key trend observed during later stages of demographic transition (especially Stage 3 and Stage 4) is that as education—particularly among women—increases, the birth rate declines. This is because greater educational attainment is associated with:

– Delayed childbearing
– Fewer desired children
– Greater career focus
– Increased access to contraception and reproductive knowledge

So, according to, increased education among women is most closely linked to a decrease in the number of births per woman, also known as a declining fertility rate.

As per demographic transition theory, when women gain more access to education, they tend to have fewer children. This is due to delayed marriage, more workforce participation, and informed reproductive decisions. This directly aligns with the theory’s predictions.

This is the opposite of what demographic transition theory predicts. Higher education levels among women are associated with lower, not higher, fertility rates.

Demographic transition theory typically associates improvements in education and healthcare with decreases in mortality, especially maternal mortality. This answer runs counter to that expectation.

This also does not align with demographic transition theory. As societies develop and education increases, especially for women, we typically see improvements in healthcare access and a decline in mortality rates, not a flat trend.

To answer this question, we need to understand how feudal societies structured political power and social hierarchy. Feudal systems, which were prominent in medieval Europe and parts of Asia, were rigid social systems where individuals’ positions were largely inherited and fixed at birth.

Membership in the political ruling class—such as kings, lords, and nobles—was determined by lineage and family background, not by personal achievement or merit. Let’s examine answer choices that match with this explanation.

Achieved status refers to social positions a person earns or chooses, often based on merit, education, or accomplishments (e.g., becoming a lawyer or an athlete). In feudal societies, political roles were not earned; they were passed down through heredity. So this answer choice is not accurate.

Ascribed status involves positions assigned at birth, such as royalty, nobility, or serfdom in feudal societies. One’s membership in the political elite was based on family lineage, making it an ascribed—not achieved—status.

Ethnocentrism refers to judging other cultures based on the standards of one’s own. While this might appear in any society, it is not what determines political membership in feudal systems. This is not the accurate answer choice.

Social mobility is the ability to move up or down the social hierarchy. Feudal systems were characterized by low mobility, with individuals generally remaining in the class they were born into. This concept describes a contrast to feudal societies rather than how political roles were assigned.

To answer this question, we need to understand strain theory, which was developed by sociologist Robert Merton. Strain theory explains why individuals engage in deviant behavior, particularly in societies where there is a disconnection between culturally valued goals (like wealth or success) and legitimate means of achieving them (like education or employment).

Anomie is a state of normlessness, where societal norms break down. According to Merton and Durkheim, increased anomie is linked to higher deviance, not less. So an increase in perceived anomie would likely increase, not decrease, deviant behavior.

Role strain refers to stress within a single social role (e.g., a parent struggling to meet all parental expectations). While recognizing role strain might help with interpersonal or psychological stress, it doesn’t directly address the structural disconnect between societal goals and means, which is central to strain theory.

Cultural relativism is the idea of understanding and judging behavior within its cultural context. While this is a useful anthropological concept, it does not explain the motivations for deviance based on access to socially approved paths to success. Not directly related to strain theory.

When people are unable to achieve socially approved goals through accepted means, they experience strain, which can lead to deviance as they seek alternative (often illegitimate) ways to succeed—such as crime or fraud.

Therefore, strain theory predicts that increasing access to socially accepted means of achieving success (like education, jobs, and upward mobility) would reduce deviance, because individuals no longer need to turn to illegitimate methods to achieve their goals.

The question asks us to identify which conclusion about Study 1’s measure of involvement in childhood bullying is most directly supported by the reported correlation between children’s and parents’ reports. To answer this, we need to understand what a correlation tells us and how it reflects the reliability of a measure.

In the passage, it says: “Although the correlation between reported frequency of involvement on questionnaires collected from both children and parents was positive, the strength of the association was weak.” A correlation assesses the degree to which two variables change together. A strong correlation between two sources of measurement (like child and parent reports) would suggest that both sources are consistently reporting the same behavior. A weak correlation, on the other hand, suggests inconsistency between the two sources, which calls into question the reliability of the measurement across sources.

This issue of low consistency across reporters (children vs. parents) points to potential problems with inter-rater reliability, meaning that the measurement of bullying involvement may vary depending on who is doing the reporting. That helps us evaluate the choices.

Social desirability bias refers to the tendency of individuals to respond in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others, often by underreporting undesirable behavior (like bullying). While this could be a reason for discrepancy between child and parent reports, the passage never mentions social desirability. It only tells us that the correlation between reports was weak, not why. Therefore, this conclusion is speculative and not directly supported by the reported correlation.

This choice refers to temporal reliability—whether the same measure gives consistent results across time. However, the passage does not provide information about the consistency of bullying reports across different years of data collection. It only discusses cross-source reliability (parent vs. child) at given time points. So, this conclusion is not supported by the reported correlation.

The passage describes a weak correlation between parent and child reports of bullying involvement, which reflects inconsistency depending on who is doing the reporting. Since parents and children represent two different sources (or “categories of participants”), this suggests the measure lacks reliability across reporters. This is a direct conclusion based on the correlation result mentioned.

This choice refers to the validity of categorization within the bullying measure—specifically, whether it can validly differentiate among perpetrator-targets, POs, and TOs. However, the passage never claims that these categories were indistinguishable in the data. In fact, later results are reported separately for each group, implying that the measure did distinguish among them. Therefore, this conclusion is not supported by the correlation.

This question asks us to compare the research designs of Study 1 and Study 2 and identify the most accurate contrast or similarity between them. To do this, we need to recognize some key types of research design:

– A longitudinal design collects data from the same participants repeatedly over a long period of time.
– A cross-sectional design collects data at one point in time from a population or a sample.
– A correlational design identifies whether a relationship exists between two variables but does not establish causation.
– Qualitative data consists of non-numeric information such as interviews, observations, or open-ended responses, while quantitative data is numeric and statistically analyzable.

Let’s examine the designs of each study as described in the passage.

– Study 1 is described as: “Study 1 followed participants from the ages of 3 to 26 years old.” This clearly indicates a longitudinal design, since data was collected over many years from the same individuals. It also included questionnaires and outcomes related to physical health, psychological symptomatology, and socioeconomic status, all of which are quantitative measures.
– Study 2 is described as involving “interviewed a sample of participants (ages 19–25 years) who previously experienced cyberbullying as TOs.” This is a one-time data collection method using interviews, which are a source of qualitative data, and the sample is not tracked over time. Therefore, Study 2 is not longitudinal and is based on qualitative, not quantitative, data.

With that framework, we can evaluate the answer choices.

Although both studies may have included some correlational elements (e.g., associations between bullying involvement and outcomes), only Study 1 explicitly discussed correlations (between child and parent reports). Study 2 used interviews, which are qualitative and not primarily designed to assess correlations. This makes the comparison too general and not the most accurate.

Study 1 is described as following participants from age 3 to 26, which makes it a longitudinal study, not cross-sectional. Study 2, however, is consistent with a cross-sectional approach (interviewing participants at a single time point). Because both studies did not use cross-sectional designs, this choice is wrong.

Study 1 used questionnaires and outcome measures—all of which are quantitative, not qualitative. On the other hand, Study 2 used interviews, which is a common method of gathering qualitative data. So this choice reverses the actual methods used in each study.

The passage clearly states that Study 1 followed participants from ages 3 to 26—typical of longitudinal research—while Study 2 involved interviews with participants aged 19–25 at a single time point, which is not longitudinal. This makes the comparison accurate and directly supported by the text.

This question asks us to determine which psychological phenomenon is more likely to contribute to cyberbullying than to traditional bullying, based on how cyberbullying differs in context and features. To answer this, we should first consider what the passage says about cyberbullying:

“Cyberbullying differs from traditional bullying in that it occurs online, allowing anonymity and a lack of direct confrontation.”

These features—anonymity and lack of face-to-face interaction—are critical because they change how individuals behave compared to in-person settings. In online environments, people may feel less accountable, more detached from the consequences of their actions, and more likely to act aggressively or uncharacteristically.

Next, let’s consider the definitions of each concept and evaluate how well they apply to online bullying versus in-person bullying.

Conformity refers to adjusting one’s behavior or beliefs to align with group norms or expectations, often by underreporting undesirable behavior (like bullying). Conformity can play a role in both traditional and cyberbullying—for example, when someone joins in bullying because others are doing it. However, it’s not uniquely heightened in online contexts. Since the passage emphasizes anonymity and lack of direct confrontation, and not social norm alignment, conformity is less likely to be the distinguishing factor that contributes more to cyberbullying than to traditional bullying.

Deindividuation is the psychological state in which individuals lose self-awareness and a sense of personal responsibility when they are part of a group or are anonymous. This leads to behavior that is more impulsive, aggressive, or deviant than usual.

The passage notes that cyberbullying allows for anonymity, which directly fosters deindividuation. Online platforms often reduce cues to identity (such as name, voice, or face), lowering personal accountability and increasing the likelihood that someone engages in aggressive acts like cyberbullying. This makes deindividuation more relevant to cyberbullying than traditional bullying, where people typically know each other and interact face-to-face.

Thus, this is the best-supported option given the described features of cyberbullying.

Group polarization refers to the tendency for group members to adopt more extreme positions or decisions than they would as individuals after group discussions. This can occur online (e.g., in online forums or comment sections), but cyberbullying, as described in the passage, involves individual acts of aggression rather than group decision-making or opinion shifts. While polarization can amplify hostility, it is not directly linked to the anonymity or solitary nature of cyberbullying described here, so it’s less relevant.

Peer pressure involves direct or indirect influence from peers to adopt certain behaviors, often to fit in or gain approval. Peer pressure is a factor in both types of bullying, but traditional bullying, which happens in shared social spaces like schools, typically involves more immediate peer observation and pressure. The passage’s description of cyberbullying—anonymity and lack of confrontation—suggests that peer pressure is less central in this form of bullying. Therefore, this is not the best answer.

This question asks us to apply general adaptation syndrome (GAS) to the outcomes described in Study 1, specifically comparing perpetrator-targets to other groups. To answer it, we must understand what general adaptation syndrome is and how it relates to prolonged stress.

GAS is a three-stage model of the body’s physiological response to chronic stress, developed by Hans Selye. The three stages are:

– Alarm – the initial reaction to a stressor, triggering the fight-or-flight response.
– Resistance – the body attempts to adapt to the stressor. Physiological arousal remains high, but the body tries to cope.
– Exhaustion – prolonged stress without adequate recovery leads to depleted resources, resulting in physical and psychological breakdown.

The passage states that perpetrator-targets had worse outcomes than POs and TOs in adulthood on all measures, including physical health (like longer recovery from illness), psychological symptomatology, and socioeconomic status. These results suggest that perpetrator-targets experienced more prolonged and intense stress, leading to more severe long-term consequences. This aligns closely with the exhaustion stage of GAS.

With this understanding, we can now evaluate the answer choices.

The alarm stage is the body’s initial response to stress. There’s no indication that perpetrator-targets are less responsive in the initial phase of stress exposure. In fact, the passage says that perpetrator-targets are more emotionally reactive when bullied, suggesting they are more sensitive to the initial stressor—not less.

This is the opposite of what the data show. The passage notes that perpetrator-targets had worse long-term outcomes in all domains compared to POs and TOs. That implies less resilience, not more. So this choice is not supported.

According to GAS, chronic or repeated stress without sufficient coping mechanisms leads to the exhaustion phase. Perpetrator-targets, who are both bullying and being bullied, experience ongoing stress from both roles. The passage also highlights their emotional reactivity and social-cognitive impairments, which may reduce their ability to cope. The fact that they had the worst adult outcomes in physical and psychological domains suggests they reached a state of exhaustion, consistent with the final stage of GAS.

Learned helplessness refers to a state where individuals no longer attempt to escape or avoid stressors because they believe they have no control. While this concept is related to chronic stress, the passage does not provide evidence that perpetrator-targets are less likely to experience it. If anything, their worse outcomes could imply more helplessness, not less. This choice is not directly supported.

This question asks us to identify which listed phenomenon is most similar to the construct that perpetrator-only individuals (POs) are described as being relatively skilled in, according to the first paragraph of the passage. To answer it, we first need to revisit the relevant sentence in that paragraph and understand the construct being referenced.

The passage states:

“For example, while POs tend to be relatively adept at theory of mind, perpetrator-targets are particularly impaired in these skills.”

So, the construct we’re focusing on is theory of mind.

Even though the passage does not define theory of mind, we can infer from the context that it refers to the ability to understand and interpret others’ behaviors and intentions. This inference is supported by the contrast with perpetrator-targets, who are described as more emotionally reactive and likely to be bullied repeatedly—suggesting they struggle to understand others’ intentions or how to respond in social situations.

So, theory of mind, based on the passage, is a cognitive skill that helps a person interpret others’ behavior by considering their thoughts, motivations, or mental states.

Now, we’re being asked to choose which of the four listed social science concepts is most similar to that ability.

Cultural relativism is the idea that behaviors and beliefs should be understood in the context of the culture they come from, rather than judged by outside standards. Like theory of mind, it involves interpreting behavior within a specific context—in this case, a cultural one. Just as theory of mind helps someone understand an individual’s actions based on their thoughts or values, cultural relativism helps someone understand a group’s behavior based on shared cultural norms. Both require a shift away from one’s own perspective in order to make sense of others. This makes cultural relativism the most similar to theory of mind.

Differential association is a sociological theory that explains deviant behavior as something learned through interaction with others. It focuses on how people learn behaviors, especially criminal ones, from their social environment. While this relates to behavior and peer influence, it is not about understanding others’ thoughts or intentions, and it does not align with the mental-state perspective-taking of theory of mind.

Intragenerational mobility refers to changes in an individual’s social or economic status during their own lifetime. This is a socioeconomic concept and has nothing to do with understanding others’ mental states or behaviors. It is unrelated to theory of mind and does not match the construct described in the passage.

Social stratification is the structured ranking of individuals or groups in a society based on class, race, income, education, etc. It describes a system of social inequality but has no direct connection to understanding individual thoughts or perspectives. Like choice C, it is a social structure concept, not a cognitive or interpretive skill.

This question asks us to identify the type of task on which perpetrator-only individuals (POs) are most likely to perform better than perpetrator-targets, based on information provided in the passage. To answer this, we must go back to the section that compares these two groups directly.

From the first paragraph:

“For example, while POs tend to be relatively adept at theory of mind, perpetrator-targets are particularly impaired in these skills.”

This sentence tells us that POs have stronger theory of mind skills than perpetrator-targets. The question, then, is asking: which of the four task types listed involves theory of mind?

Let’s go through each option and determine whether it reflects a theory of mind task.

Conservation tasks are part of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. They test a child’s understanding that quantity remains the same despite changes in shape or appearance (e.g., pouring water into a taller glass). These tasks reflect logical reasoning about physical properties, not mental states. They are not related to theory of mind, so this is not the correct choice.

False belief tasks are direct measures of theory of mind. They test whether someone understands that another person can hold a belief that is different from reality and different from the observer’s own belief. For example, in a classic false belief task, a child must predict where someone will look for an object that was moved without their knowledge. Success on this task requires understanding that another person has a separate and potentially incorrect mental state.

Since the passage tells us POs are more skilled in theory of mind, they would be more likely to perform better on false belief tasks than perpetrator-targets.

Selective attention is the ability to focus on one stimulus while ignoring others. This is a cognitive control or executive function skill. While important in general cognition and learning, it is not directly tied to theory of mind, which is about understanding others’ mental states. So this is not the best match for the construct discussed in the passage.

Self-identification refers to the ability to recognize oneself as a distinct individual, often related to self-awareness or identity formation.This concept is not a measure of theory of mind, which is focused on others’ perspectives rather than the self. Therefore, this is not the correct answer.

This question asks us to determine which statement is best supported by Study 2’s results. To answer it, we need to return to what Study 2 found, as described in the passage, and identify which social psychology concept (social facilitation or the bystander effect) is supported by the outcomes reported.

From the passage, we know that Study 2 involved interviewing participants (ages 19–25) who had previously been targets of cyberbullying. Importantly, the study found that:

“Along with reports of the negative consequences of being bullied… participants also described unexpected positive outcomes… For example, one participant described that their experiences being cyberbullied encouraged them to actively intervene when they witnessed another person being bullied.”

“Several participants reported being more empathetic as a result of their experiences.”

So, Study 2’s results suggest that some people who were cyberbullied later took prosocial actions, such as intervening on behalf of others or feeling more empathy. This points to a reduction in passive behavior when witnessing others being bullied.

Now we can look at the answer choices and evaluate them based on two key social psychology concepts:

– Social facilitation: the tendency for people to perform differently (often better) on simple tasks in the presence of others.
– Bystander effect: the phenomenon where people are less likely to help in an emergency when others are present, due to diffusion of responsibility.

Study 2 does not mention anything about performance in front of others or task behavior, which are central to the definition of social facilitation. The focus of the results is on empathy and intervention behavior, not task performance. There’s no evidence from the study that supports this conclusion.

Social facilitation involves performing tasks in the presence of others, which is not related to the kind of behaviors described in the study (such as helping others or becoming more empathetic). This choice, like A, misapplies the concept.

The bystander effect describes a tendency to not intervene when others are around. But in Study 2, participants described that being cyberbullied made them more likely to intervene when someone else was being bullied. One participant specifically reported that their experience encouraged them to act when witnessing bullying. This suggests they were less likely to fall into passive bystander behavior—meaning a decrease in the bystander effect.

This is the opposite of what the passage shows. Study 2 indicates that participants were more likely to take action, not less. This would suggest a reduction, not an increase, in the bystander effect. So this choice is not supported.

This question asks us to classify the type of stimulus used in Study 3 based on how it affects nerve activity. To answer this, we need to understand two key neurophysiology terms: depolarizing vs. hyperpolarizing and above vs. below threshold.

A depolarizing stimulus makes the inside of a neuron less negative, bringing it closer to the threshold for firing an action potential. If the depolarization reaches the threshold, it will cause the neuron to fire (i.e., send an electrical signal). A stimulus above threshold means it is strong enough to reliably produce this effect. A hyperpolarizing stimulus, on the other hand, makes the inside of a neuron more negative, making it less likely that the neuron will fire.

In Study 3, participants received “a pulse of electricity to the right sural (leg) nerve delivered at 120% of the voltage level required to initiate stimulation of that nerve.” That phrase — “120% of the voltage level required to initiate stimulation” — tells us two things. First, the stimulus does initiate activity in the nerve (it reaches threshold). Second, since it’s 120% of the required level, it is above threshold. Additionally, electrical stimulation that activates a nerve is, by definition, depolarizing — it brings the membrane potential to threshold and triggers an action potential.

The stimulus activates the nerve, and it is administered at a level above the activation threshold (120%), which makes it a depolarizing stimulus above threshold. Therefore, this is the accurate answer choice.

A below-threshold depolarizing stimulus would not trigger an action potential or nerve activation. But the passage says the nerve was definitely stimulated (at 120% of threshold), so this cannot be right.

A hyperpolarizing stimulus moves the membrane potential farther away from threshold, making activation less likely. It cannot be “above threshold” in the sense of initiating stimulation — and certainly not used in this study where the nerve is clearly being activated.

Not only is this a hyperpolarizing (inhibitory) stimulus, but it’s also below threshold, meaning it would not initiate any neural activity. That directly contradicts the study design, which uses an activating (depolarizing) stimulus.

This question asks us to identify which emotion is most consistent with the types of emotional expressions used in Study 2. To answer this, we need to examine the passage’s description of Study 2 and determine which emotions were part of the stimulus set.

The passage states: “In Study 2, participants were presented with photos of male and female models displaying the six universal emotions.” These “six universal emotions” refer to a well-established concept in emotion research introduced by psychologist Paul Ekman. The six universal facial expressions are: happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust. These are considered biologically hardwired emotions that are recognizable across cultures.

Therefore, to answer the question, we should look for the option that corresponds to one of these six universal emotions. We also need to rule out any options that fall outside of this recognized group.

Guilt is not considered one of the six universal facial expressions. It is a more complex social emotion that does not have a consistent, universally recognized facial expression across cultures. Therefore, guilt would not likely be part of Study 2’s stimulus set.

Like guilt, pride is a socially influenced, complex emotion. Although some research suggests that pride can have recognizable nonverbal expressions (like posture), it is not part of the six universally recognized facial expressions included in this study.

Surprise is one of the six universal emotions listed in emotion research and is directly aligned with the emotions described as being displayed by models in Study 2.

Worry is also not one of the six universal facial expressions. It is more of a cognitive or affective state and does not have a distinct, universally recognized facial expression that is consistently used in research stimuli like those in Study 2.

This question asks us to connect Study 2’s hypothesis to a specific psychological concept. To do so, we need to review the hypothesis presented in Study 2 and identify what psychological mechanism or construct best explains it.

From the passage:
“When the model was male, participants were significantly more likely to identify disgust expressions as being angry, while the opposite pattern was seen when the model was female. The researchers hypothesized that this was due to gender-based expectations for differences in emotional expression.”

This means the researchers are suggesting that participants’ expectations or assumptions about gender and emotion are influencing how they perceive and interpret the same facial expressions differently depending on whether the face is male or female. This is not about the model actually displaying different emotions, but about how the observer interprets the expression based on social expectations about how men and women are “supposed” to express emotion.

Now, based on this information, we need to determine which concept align with this the most.

Stereotype threat refers to the risk of conforming to negative stereotypes about one’s own group, typically affecting performance (e.g., a woman underperforming on a math test due to awareness of stereotypes). This study does not involve participants being evaluated or performing under pressure related to their own group identity — it involves perceiving emotions in others, not being affected by stereotypes of oneself.

Social inhibition refers to the tendency to restrain behavior in social situations, especially when being observed or judged. It often leads to decreased performance or reduced expressiveness in the presence of others. This is not relevant here, since the study focuses on how participants interpret facial expressions, not how they behave or hold back behavior themselves.

The facial-feedback effect is the idea that facial movement can influence emotional experience (e.g., smiling makes you feel happier). While this relates to emotional expression, it is not relevant to interpreting others’ expressions or expectations based on gender. The study is about how observers interpret emotion, not how making facial expressions changes your own emotions.

The explanation above shows us a textbook example of display rules — culturally learned norms that govern how, when, and to whom people express emotion. Display rules not only influence how people express emotions, but also how observers expect those emotions to be expressed. In this case, observers seem to expect men to show anger more than disgust, and women the reverse — which then alters their interpretation of ambiguous expressions.

This question asks us to identify which aspect of Study 1 functioned as a control variable. A control variable is any factor that researchers keep constant across all conditions in an experiment to ensure that it does not confound the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. In other words, control variables are held the same so that the researchers can be confident that any changes in the dependent variable are due to changes in the independent variable — not other factors.

In Study 1, participants were shown “a series of photos of faces posed with angry, happy, or neutral expressions.” Superimposed on each photo was a word with either a positive or negative meaning. The participants’ task was to classify the word’s meaning while ignoring the face. The dependent variable is reaction time (RT), and the independent variables include the type of facial expression (angry, happy, neutral) and the emotional valence of the word (positive or negative).

The study design requires consistency in how the stimuli are presented, so participants’ reaction times are not influenced by irrelevant factors. One key detail in the passage is that the word was “superimposed over the nose region of each face.” This means that the position of the word was kept constant across trials — a classic example of a control variable, as it prevents variability in visual placement from influencing reaction time.

Reaction times are the dependent variable, not a control. This is what the researchers are measuring in order to determine the effect of facial expressions and word valence.

The emotional valence of the word (positive or negative) is actually a manipulated independent variable in the study. It’s one of the core factors the researchers are testing to see how it affects RT.

The passage explicitly states that the word was “superimposed over the nose region of each face.” By keeping the position of the word constant, the researchers controlled for possible variation in RT that could be due to where the word appears on the face, ensuring that differences in RT are due to emotional content, not word placement.

The emotion type (angry, happy, neutral) is an independent variable that is being manipulated to observe its effect on reaction time. It is central to the study’s hypothesis and not held constant.

To answer this question, we need to understand what an interaction between independent variables means. An interaction occurs when the effect of one independent variable on the dependent variable depends on the level of another independent variable. In other words, the impact of one variable changes depending on the presence or value of another variable.

We need to evaluate each study and see whether the results show that two independent variables jointly influence the dependent variable in a non-additive way — this is what defines an interaction. Let’s examine each study.

Study 1:

Participants classified words as positive or negative while ignoring facial expressions that were angry, happy, or neutral. The results showed:

– RTs were slower when words were paired with angry faces than with happy or neutral faces.
– RTs were slower when words were negative, regardless of facial expression.

Each independent variable (facial expression and word valence) influenced reaction time independently. The passage does not indicate that the effect of word valence depended on facial expression or vice versa. Therefore, no interaction is reported here.

Study 2:

Participants identified facial expressions of emotion shown by male and female models. The results showed:

– Overall highest accuracy and speed for happy faces, and lowest for fear.
– A gender-based interaction: “When the model was male, participants were significantly more likely to identify disgust expressions as being angry, while the opposite pattern was seen when the model was female.”

This clearly indicates an interaction between the model’s gender and the type of facial expression. The way participants interpreted the emotion (dependent variable) depended on the combination of the model’s gender and the emotion being expressed.

So, Study 2 includes an interaction.

Study 3:

Participants viewed fearful or neutral faces before receiving a standardized electric shock and then rated their perceived pain. Results showed:

– Fearful faces led to higher pain ratings than neutral faces.

There was only one manipulated variable (type of facial expression before the shock), and no mention of other independent variables or combinations. Therefore, no interaction is reported in Study 3.

Study 1 had multiple independent variables but no interaction was described between them. Therefore, this is not accurate.

Study 2 showed an interaction between model gender and emotion type on participants’ perception. Therefore, this is the accurate answer choice.

Neither Study 1 nor Study 3 reported an interaction between independent variables. Therefore, this is not accurate.

Study 2 included an interaction; Study 3 did not. Therefore, this is not accurate.

To answer this question, we need to understand what a conditioned stimulus (CS) is in classical conditioning. In classical conditioning, a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) — something that naturally and automatically triggers a response. After repeated pairings, the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus, meaning it can now trigger a conditioned response on its own.

For example, if a tone (neutral stimulus) is repeatedly paired with a shock (unconditioned stimulus), the tone will eventually trigger a fear or stress response on its own — it becomes a conditioned stimulus.

Now, we need to identify which study includes a stimulus that fits this process — specifically, a neutral or emotionally relevant stimulus that is consistently paired with a naturally aversive experience, so that it could become a CS over time.

Study 3 is most relevant here. In this study:

– Participants were shown fearful or neutral faces.
– Then they received an electric shock to the leg.
– They rated the intensity of pain afterward.

The shock is the unconditioned stimulus — it naturally causes discomfort or pain. If the neutral face (initially not associated with pain) is consistently paired with the shock, over time that face could become a conditioned stimulus that triggers anticipatory anxiety or heightened pain perception. This aligns with classical conditioning.

The passage even shows early evidence of this pairing affecting perception: participants rated the shock as more painful after seeing fearful faces, suggesting emotional faces can influence perception of pain — which sets the stage for conditioning effects.

Among the answer choices, we want the stimulus that (a) is part of a repeated pairing with an aversive outcome, and (b) has potential to trigger a learned response in the future — that is, to become a conditioned stimulus.

Even though angry faces did slow reaction time in Study 1, they were not paired with an unconditioned stimulus (like pain or shock). Instead, they were paired with emotionally valenced words, but this isn’t a classical conditioning setup — it’s more about attentional interference.

Study 2 involved identification of facial expressions. No aversive stimulus or outcome was paired with the disgust faces, so there’s no mechanism here for classical conditioning to take place.

Again, Study 2 is about recognition and accuracy of facial expressions. The fear faces are not paired with any unconditioned stimulus, so they cannot become conditioned stimuli.

In Study 3, neutral faces were shown right before the shock, a naturally aversive unconditioned stimulus. If this pairing is repeated, the neutral face — initially meaningless — could become a conditioned stimulus that triggers anticipatory fear or increases pain sensitivity. This fits the classical conditioning model.

This question asks us to identify the demographic changes that would lead to a decline in the average age of a society. In order to determine that, we need to understand how fertility and mortality rates affect age structure.

Fertility rate refers to the number of children being born. A high fertility rate introduces a large number of young individuals into the population, which tends to lower the average age. Conversely, a low fertility rate reduces the proportion of young people and often leads to population aging.

Mortality rate refers to the rate at which people die. A low mortality rate, particularly among younger age groups, means that more individuals survive into older age, potentially raising the average age over time. However, if mortality declines broadly across all age groups, including infants and children, it can also help lower the average age by increasing the survival of younger people.

So, a population with high fertility and high mortality—particularly if the mortality is concentrated among older individuals—will have a smaller older population and a larger younger population, which results in a lower average age. Let’s now go through each answer choice.

This might seem correct at first because increased fertility adds more young people, and decreased mortality allows more people to survive. However, this also means more older individuals will survive longer, increasing the elderly share of the population and raising the average age over time. So while the population may grow younger in the short term, over time, this trend can lead to population aging. This is not the best answer for a decrease in average age.

The high fertility rate increases the proportion of young people in the population. The high mortality rate—particularly if it affects older adults—reduces the number of elderly individuals. The combined effect is a large base of young individuals and a smaller elderly group, pulling the average age down. This is the classic profile of a population in early demographic transition—lots of births, many deaths, and a young population.

Lower fertility means fewer young people are being born, and decreased mortality means more people—especially older individuals—are surviving longer. This leads to population aging and an increase in average age, not a decline.

With fewer births and more deaths, the population may shrink. If mortality affects all ages, especially the young, the proportion of surviving older individuals could still remain high. Either way, there is no strong push toward a younger population, and the average age would likely increase or remain the same.

This question asks us to identify which sociological phenomenon is best illustrated by a country’s immigration policy that only permits immigrants who speak the dominant language of that country. To answer this, we need to understand what the policy is implying.

By restricting immigration to people who already speak the majority language, Country A is favoring its own dominant cultural norms—specifically its language—while excluding people who come from different linguistic or cultural backgrounds. This suggests a judgment of other cultures using the standards of one’s own culture, rather than an openness to cultural diversity. Let’s examine the answer choices to find which one aligns with this explanation

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to view one’s own culture as superior and to judge other cultures by the standards of one’s own. Country A’s policy reflects ethnocentrism because it places language conformity above cultural diversity. Instead of embracing immigrants from various backgrounds, the policy limits entry to those who already conform to the linguistic norm of the dominant group. This excludes individuals who may bring different cultural and linguistic perspectives and instead reinforces a narrow cultural identity.

Globalization refers to the increasing interconnectedness of societies through the flow of goods, people, ideas, and information across borders. A policy that restricts immigration based on language does the opposite—it limits global integration and reduces cultural exchange. Therefore, this answer does not reflect the phenomenon described.

Industrialization is the process by which an economy transitions from primarily agricultural to one based on manufacturing and industry. This transformation often involves changes in labor systems, technology, and urbanization. The question focuses on language-based exclusion, which is unrelated to economic production or industry development. This is not relevant to the policy described.

Multiculturalism promotes the recognition, acceptance, and coexistence of diverse cultures within a society. It values inclusion and diversity, especially among immigrant groups. Country A’s policy contradicts multiculturalism by selectively admitting only those who already fit the dominant cultural mold (i.e., language). This approach is exclusive, not inclusive, and does not support multiculturalism.

This question asks about the most likely consequence of racialization for racialized communities. To answer it, we need to first understand what racialization means.

Racialization is the process by which social meaning is assigned to perceived racial differences, often by dominant groups assigning characteristics—such as intelligence, criminality, or morality—to groups based on race. These labels are not based on biology but are socially constructed and often serve to justify unequal treatment, discrimination, or exclusion. Now, let’s examine the answer choices to find out which one aligns the explanation the best.

Demographic transition is the shift in population characteristics over time, typically from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates as a country industrializes. Demographic transition is a population-level phenomenon, not directly connected to the social consequences of racialization. Therefore, it is not a likely consequence of racialization.

Differential association comes from sociology and criminology and refers to a theory that people learn deviance or criminal behavior through their associations with others. Even though members of racialized communities may encounter environments shaped by structural inequality, differential association is not caused by racialization itself. It is a theory of behavior acquisition, not a historical consequence of racial categorization. Therefore, this is not the accurate answer choice.

Multiculturalism promotes cultural diversity and inclusion in a society. It is not a consequence of racialization. In fact, racialization often works against multiculturalism by assigning inferior status to certain groups. This makes multiculturalism the opposite of what usually results from racialization. Therefore, this answer choice is not the best fit.

Considering the explanation above, historically, the impact of racialization on racialized groups has been negative, reinforcing social hierarchies, unequal access to resources, and harmful stereotypes. These effects often lead to negative social perceptions, exclusion, and institutional discrimination. The term that best describes these consequences is stigmatization—being socially discredited or devalued based on a specific trait or identity.

Stigmatization occurs when individuals or groups are discredited, devalued, or marginalized because of a specific characteristic—such as race. Racialization has historically led to the stigmatization of racialized groups through stereotypes, systemic inequality, and discrimination. These groups are often labeled as “other,” which leads to social exclusion, reduced opportunities, and negative perceptions.

This question presents a situation in which a small change in stimulus intensity (volume) is easily noticed when the stimulus is low, but the same change goes unnoticed when the stimulus is already high. To identify the correct psychological construct, we need to understand how stimulus intensity and the detection of change are related.

The question is testing our knowledge of perception thresholds—specifically, the just noticeable difference (JND), which is the minimum difference in stimulation required to detect a change. The key idea is that our ability to perceive a difference depends on the relative, not absolute, change in stimulus. We need to find out which concept explains this relationship.

Cocktail party effect is the ability to focus auditory attention on a particular stimulus (like hearing your name) while filtering out background noise in a noisy environment. It’s about selective attention, not how changes in stimulus intensity are perceived. This doesn’t explain the perception of volume changes. Therefore, this is not the best fit.

Sensory adaptation refers to a decrease in sensitivity to a constant or unchanging stimulus over time (like becoming unaware of a strong smell after a few minutes). However, the scenario in the question is about immediate detection of a volume change, not long-term adaptation to ongoing stimuli. Therefore, this is not the accurate answer choice.

Law of effect is a concept from behaviorism that states that behaviors followed by satisfying outcomes are likely to be repeated, and behaviors followed by unpleasant outcomes are less likely to be repeated. It deals with learning and reinforcement, not sensory thresholds or perception, making it the inaccurate answer choice.

The concept that explains this relationship explained above is Weber’s Law. Weber’s Law states that the perceived change in a stimulus is proportional to the original intensity of the stimulus. That means:

– When a stimulus is weak (e.g., low volume), a small increase can be easily noticed.
– When a stimulus is strong (e.g., loud volume), a much larger change is needed to detect a difference.

This law explains why turning up the volume by a few units is noticeable at low volume but not at high volume.
Based on this, we can say that Weber’s law explains that the just noticeable difference depends on the proportional change, not the absolute change in stimulus. In the scenario, the same increase in volume is more noticeable when the baseline volume is low and less noticeable when it’s already high—exactly as Weber’s law predicts.

This question asks us to determine which sociological concept best explains the participation of healthcare professionals in RMA sessions, based on the final paragraph of the passage. That paragraph focuses on how differences in occupational rank influenced participation. Specifically, it says, “medical assistants felt inhibited from participating in RMA sessions when they were with superiors… worried that their superiors would consider them to be less knowledgeable if their views conflicted.” This shows that hierarchical relationships and perceived differences in professional standing affected whether or how freely individuals participated.

To answer the question correctly, we need to understand the definitions of each concept and determine which one most directly applies to how professional rank impacts participation in this setting.

Social stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of individuals in society, usually by wealth, occupation, education, or power. This concept applies broadly to society-wide inequalities and the structure of classes or social layers. The question specifically targets a situation within a profession or workplace setting. Social stratification is therefore too broad to capture the immediate, interpersonal effects described in the paragraph.

Social reproduction is the transmission of social inequality across generations. For example, children of wealthier families are more likely to remain wealthy due to access to education and other resources. This term is unrelated to the dynamics described in the paragraph, which concern how current workplace hierarchies shape participation in a specific answer choice is inaccurate.

Status inconsistency occurs when an individual’s social positions have both high and low ranks in different areas—for example, someone with a high level of education but a low-income job. The concept refers to conflicting social rankings across different dimensions and how that may create tension. However, the paragraph is not about individuals having inconsistent statuses; it is about individuals within a hierarchy (e.g., medical assistants vs. physicians) feeling pressure due to their lower status. Therefore, this concept does not apply to the situation described.

Ascribed status refers to a social position one is born into or receives involuntarily—such as race, ethnicity, or family background. In contrast, the ranks mentioned in the paragraph (like being a medical assistant or a superior) are achieved statuses, since they are based on one’s job and role within a professional setting. Therefore, this concept does not describe the dynamic in question.

This question asks us to identify which form of globalization would most directly affect the effectiveness of the project the RMA moderators were working on. To answer this question, we must first understand what the project is: according to the second paragraph, the moderators were involved in a research project “aimed at developing an online electronic personal health record to encourage patients to be more involved in their health.”

This means the project is based on the use of digital tools—specifically, an online platform to manage personal health records. The purpose is to increase patient involvement, so the success of the project depends on how well patients are able to access, understand, and use this technology.

To choose the best answer, we need to identify which form of globalization most directly relates to individuals’ use of online tools and digital systems. Let’s evaluate each option.

Political globalization refers to the growing influence of international political institutions, policies, and ideologies. Activism in this area might involve participating in global human rights movements or engaging with global governance. However, this type of engagement is unrelated to using digital tools for personal health management. Therefore, this is not the most relevant factor.

Cultural globalization involves the spread of ideas, values, and cultural products across borders, often through media, travel, and migration. Even though it may affect a person’s worldview or openness to different health beliefs, it doesn’t directly affect whether someone can effectively use an online electronic health record. Therefore, this is not the accurate answer choice.

Economic globalization includes international trade, outsourcing, foreign investment, and global labor markets. A person’s economic position might indirectly influence their access to technology. However, the phrase “participation in economic globalization” refers to being directly involved in global economic processes—not simply having access to resources. This is still not the most directly relevant factor.

Technological globalization means the spread and interconnectedness of technology across the world. It includes access to the internet, familiarity with digital tools, and integration of technology into everyday life. Since the project depends on patients using an online personal health record, their level of immersion in technological globalization—how comfortable and engaged they are with digital tools—would most directly influence how effectively they can adopt and benefit from the system.

This question asks us to identify which research method RMA (Research Method A) most closely resembles. To answer this, we need to return to the description of RMA provided in the first paragraph of the passage. It states that RMA is a design that “allows respondents to build off one another’s responses and reflect on and refine their views as they discuss issues with other respondents.” This description highlights group interaction, discussion, and collective reflection—all of which are central features of one particular qualitative research method.

Let’s examine the answer choices by comparing the core characteristics of each method to what is described about RMA.

Ethnography is a qualitative method in which researchers immerse themselves in the everyday life of a group, often over extended periods of time, to observe and understand cultural practices and social dynamics. Ethnography does not typically involve structured group discussions led by a moderator. It focuses more on observation and participation rather than discussion-based interaction among participants. So, it is not the best choice to represent RMA.

A field experiment is a type of experimental design conducted in a real-world setting, where researchers manipulate one or more variables and measure the outcome. This method emphasizes control, randomization, and testing hypotheses. RMA, as described, is not about manipulating variables or testing cause-and-effect relationships; it is about facilitating discussion and reflection. Therefore, a field experiment is not the correct method.

A focus group is a qualitative research method that gathers a small group of people to discuss a particular topic under the guidance of a moderator. Participants are encouraged to interact with one another, respond to others’ ideas, and build on the discussion. The passage’s description of RMA—respondents “build off one another’s responses,” “reflect,” and “discuss issues”—directly aligns with the purpose and structure of a focus group. RMA sessions also had moderators, consistent with focus group design. Therefore, this is the accurate answer choice.

A survey is a research method that typically uses structured questionnaires to collect data from individuals. It is often quantitative and designed for individual, not interactive, responses. Surveys do not involve discussion, group reflection, or moderator-led sessions. Therefore, this method does not reflect the interactive and dynamic nature of RMA.

This question asks us to identify which condition best reflects a culture lag in relation to the study described in the passage. To answer this, we first need to understand the sociological concept of culture lag.

Culture lag refers to the period of adjustment that occurs when material culture (technology, inventions, or physical objects) changes more rapidly than non-material culture (values, norms, beliefs, or behaviors). When new technologies are introduced, people or institutions may take time to adapt to or accept these changes, leading to resistance, hesitation, or delay in full integration.

In the passage, the researchers are working on a project to develop an online electronic personal health record to help patients become more involved in their own care. The technological innovation (electronic health records) represents a material culture change. Therefore, any difficulty or delay in adapting to or accepting this system—particularly due to habits, beliefs, or social practices—could represent a culture lag.

Let’s examine each answer choice.

Younger patients without stable internet services will be less likely to engage with their electronic personal health records points to lack of access, not a delay in cultural adjustment. Culture lag is not about physical or infrastructural limitations (like unreliable internet), but about how people adjust behaviorally or mentally to new technologies. Since this reflects a technical barrier rather than a cultural delay, it does not qualify as culture lag.

Having access to personal electronic health records will lessen the stigma associated with chronic illnesses for patients of all ages suggests a positive shift in cultural attitudes toward illness. This shows a social change. However, it doesn’t reflect a lag between technology and non-material culture. Instead, it suggests that cultural beliefs are adapting alongside the introduction of the technology, not resisting it. Therefore, this is not an example of culture lag.

Working-age patients will not experience a difficulty in following their health status based on their electronic personal health records implies a smooth adaptation to the technology by a particular group. If there is no difficulty in using or accepting the innovation, there is no culture lag present. This choice describes cultural alignment with material change, not a delay.

The use of electronic personal health records will be considered problematic by the elderly patients before it becomes part of their daily routines reflects exactly what culture lag describes. The technology (online personal health records) is already available (material culture), but some elderly patients initially view it as problematic (non-material culture—attitudes, norms) until they eventually adapt. This delay in acceptance and behavioral adjustment aligns with the concept of culture.

This question asks us to identify the psychological or sociological construct that best explains why medical assistants felt inhibited from participating in RMA sessions when their superiors were present. To answer this, we should refer to the final paragraph of the passage, which describes this dynamic. It states: “Medical assistants felt inhibited from participating in RMA sessions when they were with superiors… they were worried that their superiors would consider them to be less knowledgeable if their views conflicted.”

This tells us that the medical assistants were concerned with how they would be perceived by others, particularly those in higher-ranking positions. Their reluctance to share opinions stems from a desire to manage others’ impressions of them—to avoid appearing incompetent or uninformed. This social self-awareness is key to identifying the correct construct.

Let’s analyze each answer choice to find the one that best explains this behavior.

Impression management refers to the process by which individuals attempt to control how they are perceived by others. People engage in impression management to present themselves in a favorable light, especially in social or hierarchical settings. In the passage, medical assistants are clearly trying to avoid negative judgments from their superiors. They are concerned that “their superiors would consider them to be less knowledgeable,” which directly aligns with managing how they come across.

Incongruence, in humanistic theory, refers to a mismatch between a person’s real self and their ideal self, or between experience and self-image. It’s an internal psychological state rather than a social dynamic. The medical assistants’ behavior is not described as stemming from an internal conflict about their self-image, but rather a social concern about judgment. Therefore, this is not the best match.

Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order from someone in a position of authority. There is no indication in the passage that the medical assistants were given orders or that they were complying with commands. Their inhibition was based on fear of judgment, not following directives. So this construct does not apply here.

Self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute one’s successes to internal factors (like ability or effort) and failures to external factors (like luck or task difficulty). The medical assistants are not making attributions about outcomes; they are withholding participation to manage how they are perceived. This choice is unrelated to the behavior described.

This question asks us to identify the psychological construct that best explains why clinicians were more engaged in RMA sessions when they were held outside of their clinics. According to the passage, “when clinicians participated in RMA locations outside of their clinics, they seemed to distance themselves better from their work duties and were more fully engaged in the moderated conversations.”

This sentence tells us that physical context affected the clinicians’ behavior. When the sessions took place outside of their usual workplace, clinicians were able to psychologically step away from their work roles and become more present and active participants in the RMA discussions. The key idea is that removing them from their usual work environment improved their focus and involvement.

Now let’s examine each construct to see which best explains this change in behavior.

Deindividuation is a psychological state in which individuals in groups lose self-awareness and a sense of personal responsibility, often resulting in behavior that is impulsive or uncharacteristic. This typically occurs in anonymous or high-arousal group settings (e.g., crowds or mobs). In this case, clinicians became more thoughtful and engaged, not less self-aware or impulsive. Therefore, this construct does not apply.

Diffusion of responsibility is the tendency for individuals to feel less personal accountability when others are present, particularly in group or emergency situations. It is often used to explain the bystander effect. However, the passage does not suggest that clinicians were avoiding responsibility because others were present—it describes an increase in participation when they were away from work-related pressures. Therefore, this is not the accurate answer choice.

Selective attention refers to the cognitive process of focusing on a specific stimulus while ignoring others. The passage states: “when clinicians participated in RMA locations outside of their clinics, they seemed to distance themselves better from their work duties and were more fully engaged in the moderated conversations.” This shift in setting likely reduced competing cognitive demands (like thinking about work tasks or patient responsibilities), making it easier for clinicians to direct their attention to the conversation at hand.

Selective attention is the most appropriate construct here because it explains how individuals focus mental resources on one stimulus while ignoring distractions. Being outside the clinic helped clinicians suppress irrelevant stimuli (e.g., work-related thoughts) and attend more fully to the RMA discussion (the target stimulus).

Social facilitation is the tendency for people to perform better on simple or well-learned tasks when in the presence of others. This effect is usually discussed in the context of task performance, not discussion engagement, and it occurs because others are present—not because of a change in physical environment. In this case, the engagement increased due to a change of setting, not due to others watching or being present. Therefore, social facilitation is not the best explanation.

The question asks us to identify which theory is most relevant to the first element in Theory A (TA) regarding the spread of technological innovations. According to the passage, the first element of TA focuses on “perception of the benefits and risks of new innovations.” This means the theory we are looking for should emphasize how people interpret or assign meaning to technological innovations, rather than assuming that such meanings are fixed or universally understood. In the passage, it says that “the social perception of the benefits and risks of innovations depends not on the novelty of innovations, but on the introduction of these innovations within different cultural contexts.” This highlights that meaning is shaped by society and context. Let’s focus on answer choices to determine which one aligns with this explanation the best.

Conflict theory is concerned with inequality, power struggles, and how resources and influence are distributed in a society. Conflict theory could relate to aspects like access to technology (which is discussed in TA’s last element), however; it is not primarily concerned with how people perceive the meaning or risks and benefits of technology. Therefore, this is not the best match for the first element of TA, which emphasizes perception shaped by cultural context.

Demographic transition theory explains the transformation of a society’s population structure—particularly birth and death rates—as it industrializes. It is a population-level theory and does not deal with how individuals or groups perceive innovations or how meanings are socially constructed. It is unrelated to the subjective interpretation of innovations mentioned in TA’s first element.

Malthusian theory centers on population growth and its potential to outpace food supply, leading to societal strain. Like demographic transition theory, this choice focuses on broad population-level issues and does not deal with the perception of technology or the cultural framing of innovations. It is not applicable to the concept of socially influenced perceptions of technological benefits and risks.

Social constructionist theory focuses on how people and societies collectively develop meanings and knowledge. In the context of the passage, TA’s first element highlights that “the social perception of the benefits and risks of innovations depends… on the introduction of these innovations within different cultural contexts.” This means that perceptions are not fixed but vary depending on how an innovation is socially framed—precisely the type of process studied by social constructionists.

This question asks us to identify the explanation that best matches the discussion in the passage. To answer it, we need to recall the overall framework of Theory A (TA) and how it describes the spread and adoption of technological innovations. The passage focuses on several interrelated elements: perception of benefits and risks, media and interpersonal influence, pace of adoption, and social composition. Across these elements, the passage repeatedly emphasizes how social and cultural factors shape the spread of technology. For example, it notes that “the adoption of innovations… depends on cultural characteristics” and that interpersonal networks often influence decisions to adopt innovations.

The key phrase in the question is “most relevant to the passage discussion”, so we are looking for the choice that best reflects the role of social dynamics—such as communication networks, cultural compatibility, and stratified adoption—in shaping how technologies spread across societies. This relates closely to the concept of cultural diffusion, which describes how innovations and ideas move from one culture or social group to another.

This statement introduces the idea that globalization slows down technological spread. However, the passage does not mention globalization at all, nor does it claim that global processes hinder innovation. In fact, TA focuses more on internal social dynamics and cultural factors, not global forces. Therefore, this explanation is not supported by the passage and is irrelevant.

This statement brings in the concept of role strain, which refers to tension arising from competing demands within a single social role. However, the passage never discusses social roles, role conflict, or strain as factors in technology adoption. Since this concept isn’t present in the passage at all, this explanation is unrelated to TA’s framework.

Cultural diffusion in this statement refers to the process by which an innovation spreads from one group or culture to another. The passage states that “compatibility between existing cultural practices and the innovation facilitates the adoption process,” and that interpersonal communication, media, and social class differences all affect whether and how innovations are adopted. These are all social dynamics that affect how and how fast innovations spread across different segments of society, which is consistent with the definition of cultural diffusion.

Differential association is a theory from criminology that explains how individuals learn deviant behavior through interaction with others. Even though the word “association” may seem relevant to interpersonal communication in the passage, the technical meaning of “differential association” is unrelated to the adoption of innovations. Additionally, the passage does not suggest that cultural customs must change before technology can spread—rather, it says that compatibility with existing customs can facilitate adoption.

This question asks us to apply the normal distribution model to the adoption categories described in Theory A (TA). To answer this, we must understand two things: (1) the distribution percentages provided in the passage, and (2) how those correspond to standard deviations in a normal (bell-shaped) distribution.

The passage outlines the social composition of innovation adoption as follows:

– Innovators and earliest adopters: 16%
– Early adopter majority: 34%
– Late adopter majority: 34%
– Latest adopters: 16%

In a normal distribution, the breakdown of percentages by standard deviation from the mean is:

– Between -1 and +1 SD from the mean: 68% of the population
– Between -2 and +2 SD from the mean: 95%
– Between -3 and +3 SD from the mean: 99.7%

The passage’s early and late adopter majorities together make up 34% + 34% = 68% of the population. This matches the percentage of data found within one standard deviation (±1 SD) of the mean in a normal distribution.

So, the question is asking: how many standard deviations from the mean would you need to go to include only the early adopter majority and late adopter majority? Since those groups make up the central 68% of the distribution, the answer is one standard deviation from the mean, both above and below.

Now let’s evaluate the answer choices.

No standard deviation would imply 0% of the distribution is considered, which is not possible. Also, the question asks how many standard deviations are needed to include specific portions of the population, not none of it. Therefore, this is not accurate.

The early adopter majority and late adopter majority together account for 68% of the population, and in a normal distribution, 68% of the data fall between -1 and +1 standard deviation from the mean. Thus, including only these two groups corresponds to within one standard deviation of the mean.

Two standard deviations from the mean includes 95% of the population. That would encompass not just the majorities, but also the innovators and latest adopters (the outer 16% combined). So this is too wide a range and includes more than the two middle groups.

Three standard deviations from the mean covers 99.7% of the population. This would encompass nearly everyone in the adoption process, not just the early and late majorities. Therefore, this is incorrect for the question’s scope.

This question requires us to recall what the fourth element of Theory A (TA) is and determine the most appropriate research method to test it.

According to the passage, the fourth element of TA is “the social composition of a complete adoption process.” The passage explains that society can be broken into different adopter categories:

– 16% are innovators and earliest adopters,
– 34% are the early adopter majority,
– 34% are the late adopter majority,
– and 16% are the latest adopters.

Furthermore, the passage states:

“TA argues that resources available to different social classes, such as access to technology education and means to acquire technological applications, influence the differential rate of adoption in a society.”

So, the fourth element focuses on how different social groups—based on class, access, education, etc.—adopt innovations over time. To test these assertions, researchers would need to collect data across a large population and quantify differences in adoption behavior by demographic or social category.

Content analysis is used to analyze textual, visual, or media content for patterns, themes, or frequency of certain ideas. It is not appropriate for testing who adopts innovations and when, which is the focus of the fourth element.

It is not appropriate for testing who adopts innovations and when, which is the focus of the fourth element. It is not ideal for large-scale quantification of adoption patterns across entire societies. Ethnography would not easily allow researchers to identify adopter percentages or compare multiple social classes statistically.

Experimental research involves manipulating variables to establish causality. However, it is difficult—and ethically questionable—to experimentally control or assign access to innovations across entire social classes. TA’s fourth element is observational and structural, not something that can be manipulated in an experiment. Thus, this method is not appropriate.

Based on the explanation above, this type of analysis involves gathering data from many people to identify patterns or distributions—especially regarding adoption timing and resource access. That makes survey research the most suitable option. Surveys are ideal for collecting large-scale, structured information on demographics, attitudes, and behaviors that can be statistically analyzed to reveal trends in technology adoption across different social groups.

To answer this question, we need to focus on the second element of Theory A (TA), which, according to the passage, relates to “different media channels and interpersonal communication.” This element explains how individuals receive information about innovations through both mass media and interpersonal connections. The passage states:

“TA proposes that the media is important in providing knowledge about innovations. However, media influence might not be sufficient by itself. Interpersonal connections are often required in influencing decisions to adopt innovations. An increasing number of individuals around a person using an innovation is predicted to improve the likelihood of that person’s adoption of the innovation.”

This tells us that while the media can introduce and inform people about innovations, actual adoption is often influenced more heavily by interpersonal cues—in other words, by what people around the individual are doing. This aligns well with dual-process models of persuasion, such as the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), which distinguishes between central and peripheral routes of processing messages.

Peripheral message characteristics refer to superficial aspects like source attractiveness, consensus cues, or emotional tone—things that don’t require deep thought but still influence decisions, especially when individuals are not highly motivated to process the information in depth.

Central message characteristics require effortful processing and relate to logical arguments and evidence—typically more influential when the person is motivated and able to think critically.

In the context of TA’s second element, interpersonal cues—such as seeing more people around you adopt an innovation—would qualify as peripheral cues. These are non-central influences that affect decision-making, not through detailed message analysis, but through social proof and observable behaviors of others.

Let’s evaluate the choices with that in mind.

TA’s second element discusses how interpersonal communication and seeing others adopt an innovation increases a person’s likelihood of adoption. This aligns with peripheral processing, where external social cues, not the content of the message, are influential.

The passage does not emphasize message content or rational argumentation as the key to innovation adoption. It states that the media may provide knowledge (which could be central), but interpersonal influence is needed to make the decision—suggesting that non-central cues are more impactful.

Cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs or behaviors. The passage does not mention or imply this concept. There’s no discussion of individuals experiencing psychological tension between beliefs and behaviors related to innovation, making this the inaccurate answer choice.

Incongruence might suggest a mismatch between self-concept and experience (a term from humanistic psychology), but TA’s second element doesn’t mention internal self-concept alignment—it focuses on external communication and social influence.

This question asks us to identify the psychological construct that best explains the relationship described in the second element of Theory A (TA): the more people in someone’s social circle adopt a new innovation, the more likely that person is to adopt it too. The passage explains:

“An increasing number of individuals around a person using an innovation is predicted to improve the likelihood of that person’s adoption of the innovation.”

This points to a social influence mechanism, where behavior is shaped by the behavior of others. Specifically, as more individuals around a person adopt a behavior or product, the pressure or tendency for that person to do the same increases. This description is most closely related to the concept of conformity.

Conformity refers to the act of aligning one’s behavior or beliefs with those of a group, often due to real or perceived social pressure. It occurs when individuals change their actions or decisions to match those of others—especially in group settings—because they want to fit in, avoid conflict, or believe the group is more informed. In the context of TA, people may adopt a technological innovation not just because of its features, but because others around them have done so, which is classic conformity behavior.

Let’s examine the answer choices.

Conformity explains why an individual is more likely to adopt an innovation as more people around them adopt it. The person aligns with group behavior due to implicit social pressure or a desire to fit in. TA’s emphasis on interpersonal influence matches this process exactly.

Groupthink is a decision-making phenomenon where a highly cohesive group strives for consensus at the cost of critical thinking. It involves suppression of dissent and occurs primarily in group decision-making settings. TA does not describe a group making a joint decision or suppressing dissent, so groupthink does not apply here.

Social facilitation refers to improved performance on simple tasks (or impaired performance on complex tasks) when in the presence of others. It concerns task performance, not decision-making or adoption behavior. Therefore, this does not explain why someone would adopt an innovation based on others doing so.

Social support refers to emotional, informational, or practical help provided by others. Social support can influence health behavior or coping. However, the TA element refers specifically to influence via adoption behavior, not support. The passage does not describe others encouraging the person or helping them adopt the innovation—it focuses on behavioral modeling and presence, which aligns better with conformity.

This question asks which observation best supports Gestalt theory of perception. To answer it, we need to understand what Gestalt theory proposes about how humans organize visual information.

Gestalt psychology emphasizes that the whole is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. According to this theory, people naturally organize visual elements into unified wholes or patterns, using principles like proximity, similarity, continuity, and closure. Rather than focusing on individual elements, Gestalt theory suggests that we perceive overall structures or forms first, even if they are composed of smaller parts.

We are looking for an option where a subject perceives a complete, organized whole (a gestalt) from smaller, individual components—something that illustrates people naturally grouping individual elements into a broader pattern or shape.

This statement reflects a core idea of Gestalt theory. Although the figure consists of small triangles, participants perceive the larger, organized pattern—the letter H—rather than just the individual parts. This shows the tendency to perceive the whole form first, a key principle of Gestalt perception. Therefore, this observation supports Gestalt theory.

This statement describes perception starting with individual elements rather than the whole. This is the opposite of what Gestalt theory predicts. It aligns more closely with a bottom-up processing model, where the parts are processed first before a whole is recognized. Thus, this observation does not support Gestalt theory.

This statement relates to visual search and attentional load, not Gestalt principles. It describes how the number of distractors affects reaction time but doesn’t demonstrate the perception of wholes or patterns. Therefore, this observation is unrelated to Gestalt theory.

This statement suggests how visual features like color help in distinguishing between objects, which involves feature detection and attention. It does not show grouping into meaningful wholes, so it is also not consistent with Gestalt principles.

This question asks us to determine which type of processing explains why participants more quickly identify the initial sound of a word (“p” in “potato”) when it is presented in the context of the word, compared to hearing the sound in isolation.

To answer this, we need to understand what top-down and bottom-up processing mean.

Bottom-up processing refers to perception that starts with the raw sensory input. In this case, a person would perceive the “p” sound based purely on the auditory signal received, without any influence from context or prior knowledge.

Top-down processing, on the other hand, involves using context, expectations, or prior experience to influence perception. When a listener hears a familiar word like “potato,” their brain is already primed to recognize the component sounds based on their knowledge of the word. This can lead to faster recognition of the parts because the whole is already anticipated or known.

If participants were relying only on bottom-up processing, they would perceive the “p” sound based purely on the auditory input itself. This wouldn’t explain why recognition is faster in the context of a word—if anything, it would be the same or slower due to added complexity.

In this question, participants identify the “p” sound more quickly when it’s part of a familiar word. This suggests that their prior knowledge of the word “potato” is helping them perceive its components more efficiently. That facilitation of perception by context is a hallmark of top-down processing.

Parallel processing is the brain’s ability to process multiple types of information at the same time (such as color, shape, and motion in vision). In this context, it doesn’t explain the effect of context or prior knowledge on sound perception described.

Serial processing means processing one piece of information at a time, in a step-by-step manner. This type of processing doesn’t explain why the presence of a familiar word speeds up sound recognition. There’s no indication that participants are analyzing each part in sequence to identify the “p” sound.

This question asks us to identify which procedure would extinguish the conditioned behavior of a rat pressing a lever when a bright light is on.

In behavioral psychology, extinction refers to the gradual weakening and eventual disappearance of a learned behavior when the reinforcement that originally supported it is removed. In operant conditioning, extinction occurs when a previously reinforced behavior is no longer followed by the reinforcing consequence.

According to the question, the rat has learned to press a lever when a bright light is on because doing so results in a food reward. This is an example of operant conditioning, where lever pressing (behavior) is reinforced by food (reward) in the presence of a discriminative stimulus (the light being on).

To extinguish the behavior, the food reward must be removed when the conditions that previously triggered the behavior are present—in this case, when the light is on. The rat will eventually stop pressing the lever if it learns that pressing no longer leads to food in that condition.

Pairing the bright light with an aversive stimulus introduces a punishment associated with the discriminative stimulus (the light), rather than removing the reinforcement for the lever-pressing behavior. This procedure might create a fear response to the light but doesn’t directly address extinction of the lever-press behavior. This is an example of classical conditioning involving an aversive stimulus, not operant extinction.

Pairing the lever press with an aversive stimulus introduces punishment for the behavior rather than removing the reward. This could decrease the behavior, but it does so through punishment, not extinction. Extinction specifically involves the removal of reinforcement, not the addition of punishment.

Removing the availability of the food reward when the bright light is on directly targets the condition under which the rat learned to press the lever. The light was a cue that pressing would produce food. If the food is no longer given when the light is on, the rat will learn that the contingency no longer holds, and the behavior will gradually extinguish. This is the definition of extinction in operant conditioning.

Removing the availability of the food reward when the bright light is off does not impact the behavior being targeted. The rat was already trained that pressing the lever when the light is off does not produce food, so removing a reward in that condition does not change or extinguish the learned behavior. It has no effect on the association between lever pressing and food when the light is on.

This question presents a finding where animals more readily associate nausea with a specific flavor than with a bright light. To determine which psychological phenomenon this finding best illustrates, we need to understand how different forms of learning are involved in stimulus associations.

This effect is most relevant to classical conditioning, which involves forming associations between a neutral stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus to produce a conditioned response. In classical conditioning, some associations are learned more easily than others, especially when they are biologically prepared. This specific phenomenon is known as biological preparedness—the idea that organisms are more likely to form associations that are evolutionarily adaptive.

In the study described, animals more easily associate a flavor (a taste stimulus) with nausea (an internal state), rather than associating a light (a visual stimulus) with nausea. This reflects that animals are biologically predisposed to associate tastes with illness, since this would help them avoid toxic substances in the future. The fact that this learning occurs more readily with certain types of stimuli supports classical conditioning, particularly the notion that not all stimuli are equally associable.

This scenario describes a conditioned association between a neutral stimulus (a flavor) and an unconditioned response (nausea). The fact that the association is stronger with taste than with light supports classical conditioning and illustrates biological preparedness, a well-known concept within classical conditioning. Therefore, this choice directly aligns with the finding described.

Operant conditioning involves learning behaviors based on consequences (rewards or punishments), such as pressing a lever for food or avoiding a shock. The described finding does not involve behavior that is shaped or maintained by consequences, so it is not an example of operant conditioning.

Instinctive drift refers to the tendency of animals to revert to instinctive behaviors even after learning a different behavior through conditioning. The scenario in the question does not involve learned behavior being replaced by an instinct. It is about the ease of forming associations, not reverting to instinctual behavior.

Habituation is the process by which an organism decreases or ceases its responses to a repeated, non-threatening stimulus over time. The question does not involve repeated exposure leading to a decreased response, so habituation is not relevant here.

This question asks us to apply a conflict perspective to the early conclusions drawn from identical (monozygotic) twin studies. To answer this question, we need to know about conflict theory first.

According to conflict theory—a key sociological perspective—social behavior is best understood in terms of tension between groups over power or the allocation of resources. It often focuses on systemic inequality, particularly related to race, class, and ethnicity.

The passage explains that early twin studies emphasized a direct influence of genetic inheritance (GI) on human behavior, without accounting for environmental influences. From a conflict theory point of view, this kind of conclusion could support systemic biases by implying that behavioral or health differences between social groups are biologically determined rather than shaped by social inequalities. If some groups are seen as biologically inferior or superior due to perceived genetic traits, this can reinforce and justify discrimination and unequal treatment.

The question asks which type of background would be most relevant to this kind of bias under a conflict theory lens. We are looking for a category that has historically been used to justify inequality through supposed biological differences.

Ethnic background refers to cultural identity, including language, traditions, or national origin. Conflict theory in relation to genetic explanations has historically been more directly tied to race, not ethnicity. Early studies attributing behavior to genetics often ignored social structures and instead reinforced stereotypes based on race, not necessarily cultural traditions or practices.

Race is a social category that has been falsely linked to biological and genetic differences in historical and scientific narratives. From a conflict perspective, early twin studies that attributed behavior purely to genetic inheritance could reinforce racial hierarchies by suggesting certain racial groups are predisposed to negative outcomes. Conflict theorists would argue this overlooks environmental inequality and instead promotes a narrative that supports systemic racism.

Personal background refers to individual life experiences, including education, family upbringing, or interests. This is not a systemic category and doesn’t align with how conflict theory views power and inequality across groups. Therefore, it is not the best fit here.

Subcultures are smaller cultural groups within a larger society (e.g., skaters, punk communities). These are not typically used in scientific narratives about biological determinism. From a conflict perspective, subcultural identity is less relevant than structural identities like race or class when analyzing bias in early genetic research.

This question asks us to identify the explanation most consistent with the 21st-century research findings described in the passage. To answer this, we need to understand the nature of the relationship between genetic inheritance (GI), health outcomes, and environmental factors based on how they were described in the updated research.

The passage states that more recent studies in the 21st century moved away from the idea that GI has a direct effect on behavior and health. Instead, they emphasize a partial effect of GI, which is “triggered by environmental factors.” In other words, GI does not automatically cause health outcomes—rather, the environment determines whether certain genes are expressed and thereby influence behavior or health. This suggests an interaction between genetics and environment.

Furthermore, the passage provides examples: individuals exposed to adverse environments in childhood were more likely to express GI-linked health issues later in life. On the other hand, protective environments—like high income or strong social support—reduced the likelihood that GI-related behavioral issues (e.g., substance use) would emerge.

Therefore, the correct explanation must reflect the idea that environmental factors influence whether GI leads to certain health outcomes. This is the definition of moderation—a moderator variable affects the strength or direction of the relationship between two other variables.

This statement reverses the causal direction implied in the passage. Health outcomes are the result of interactions between GI and the environment—not a factor that causes GI to be more susceptible to environmental influence.

Genetic inheritance does not change how environmental factors behave or how they’re influenced by health outcomes. Rather, environmental conditions influence how genes are expressed. This reverses the relationship.

The passage directly supports this statement, stating that gene expressions are dependent on environmental conditions, and that these expressions are what lead to behavioral and physical health outcomes. The environment determines whether genetic predispositions result in actual outcomes, which fits the definition of moderation.

A confounder is a variable that affects both the independent and dependent variable and can falsely distort the observed relationship between them. The passage does not describe GI as a confounder, but as something whose expression depends on environmental triggers. So this does not align with the findings.

This question asks which approach is most relevant to the findings in the review study discussed in the passage. The review study focuses on 21st-century research that investigates how genetic inheritance (GI) interacts with environmental factors to influence behavioral and physical health outcomes.

Specifically, the passage notes that recent studies show GI has a partial effect, and that environmental factors—like income, social support, and safety—can either trigger or protect against the expression of genetic traits. The passage also mentions adverse childhood environments and their long-term effects on health via gene expression.

Let’s determine which concept These findings reflect by examining the answer choice.

Exchange-rational choice focuses on individual decision-making based on cost-benefit analysis. It’s most relevant in economic or behavioral models of choice, not biological or health-related gene-environment interactions. The review study isn’t analyzing individual decisions or rationality. Therefore, this isn’t accurate.

The Malthusian theory relates to population growth and resource limitations, particularly food supply. It does not relate to gene expression, environmental influence, or health outcomes on an individual level. Nothing in the passage discusses population strain or growth trends.

Social constructionists examine how knowledge and meaning are created through social processes. The review study described in the passage is more concerned with biological outcomes influenced by social environments, not the definitions of health or behavior, making this the inaccurate answer choice.

Based on the explanation, these findings reflect an approach that examines how social conditions impact health and illness, especially by shaping the expression of genes. Therefore, the best-fitting approach must focus on the intersection of society and health, particularly how social structures and environments influence health outcomes—which aligns closely with social epidemiology.

This question asks us to identify which phenomenon is most likely associated with genetic inheritance (GI)-related health issues, based specifically on the final paragraph of the passage. To answer this, we need to first interpret what the final paragraph discusses, and then match it with the correct sociological concept.

The final paragraph states:

“Environmental factors, such as having a higher income and a social environment that foster feelings of safety and control over one’s life, were found to act as protective factors against GI-related behavioral and physical health issues.”

It continues by explaining that access to resources (like health services) and social support reduces the likelihood that GI-related health issues (like substance use disorders) will appear. This implies that health outcomes vary by socioeconomic status, with individuals from higher-income or more supportive environments being less likely to experience the negative expression of GI-linked conditions.

This describes a systematic difference in health outcomes across levels of socioeconomic status, which is the defining characteristic of the socioeconomic gradient in health.

The socioeconomic gradient refers to the inverse relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and health problems: as SES increases, the risk of disease or poor health generally decreases. The paragraph explicitly links higher income and social resources to lower expression of GI-related health issues, which matches this concept directly.

Intersectionality refers to the way different social identities (like race, gender, class) overlap to produce complex forms of discrimination or privilege. The paragraph does not reference overlapping identities or their combined effects. This concept is not the best match here.

Medicalization is the process by which non-medical problems become defined and treated as medical issues (e.g., labeling normal sadness as clinical depression). The passage is not discussing how behaviors are being redefined or treated as medical conditions—it’s focused on how environmental factors influence genetic expression.

The sick role, proposed by Talcott Parsons, describes the social expectations around how individuals behave when they’re ill (e.g., being exempt from normal responsibilities). There is no discussion in the paragraph—or the passage as a whole—about social expectations of illness or behavior of the ill.

This question asks which phenomenon would most likely lead to conditions that trigger GI-related behavioral and physical health issues. To answer this, we need to identify what kinds of conditions are described in the passage as triggers for the expression of genetic inheritance (GI) related to behavioral and physical health outcomes.

From the second and third paragraphs of the passage, we learn:

“Certain GI behavioral and physical health issues were more likely to surface in later years after consistent early exposure to adverse environmental conditions in childhood.”

“Environmental factors, such as having a higher income and a social environment that foster feelings of safety and control over one’s life, were found to act as protective factors against GI-related behavioral and physical health issues.”

So, GI does not act alone; the expression of genetic predispositions is shaped by environmental stressors, especially those experienced early in life. These environmental stressors might include poverty, lack of safety, limited access to healthcare, and chronic stress—all of which are often present in structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods.

We are looking for the phenomenon that leads to such adverse environments, which can then trigger GI expression. Let’s examine the answer choices to find out which one aligns with this explanation the best.

Cultural relativism is the principle that people’s beliefs and practices should be understood based on their own culture, rather than judged by the standards of another. This concept promotes understanding and tolerance between cultures, and it has no connection to adverse conditions that would trigger genetic health outcomes. Therefore, it is not accurate.

Differential association is a theory in criminology that explains how individuals learn deviant behavior through interaction with others. This doesn’t directly explain the environmental stressors (poverty, low access to health care, etc.) that lead to the expression of GI-related health issues.

Multicultural socialization involves learning the values, norms, and customs of more than one culture. This process can promote identity development and tolerance, but it is not associated with adverse environmental conditions or poor health outcomes. Therefore, this is not accurate.

Based on the explanation above, we can understand that residential segregation often results in marginalized groups being concentrated in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic resources, higher crime, poor schools, and limited access to health care. These environmental factors align with the “adverse conditions in childhood” described in the passage, which are said to trigger the expression of GI-related behavioral and physical health issues.

This question asks us to identify the mechanism most likely to trigger the partial effect of genetic inheritance (GI) on behavioral and health outcomes, as discussed in paragraph 2 of the passage.

In paragraph 2, the passage states:

“The partial effect of GI was found to be triggered by environmental factors. Because GI presents gene expressions that are dependent on environmental conditions, determining which environmental conditions trigger gene expressions has been an emerging research field.”

This means that GI alone does not fully determine behavioral and health outcomes—rather, certain environmental exposures influence whether and how genes are expressed. This falls within the field of epigenetics, which studies how environmental factors affect gene expression without changing the DNA sequence.

One common mechanism by which this occurs involves transcription factors—proteins that help turn specific genes on or off by binding to promoter regions of DNA. Environmental influences can alter how transcription factors bind to promoters, which in turn affects whether a gene is expressed. This mechanism reflects how gene expression can be environmentally responsive and supports a partial, not total, genetic influence.

Mutations refer to permanent changes in the DNA sequence, which is not what the passage describes. The focus is on environmentally triggered gene expression, not genetic damage or mutation. Also, mutation is typically not reversible or dependent on ongoing environmental conditions.

This is the opposite of what the passage describes. The passage explains that environmental conditions enable or trigger gene expression, not block it. Blocking gene expression changes would reduce GI’s partial effect, not activate it.

This mechanism aligns with the idea that gene expression is sensitive to environmental conditions. Transcription factors bind to DNA promoters to regulate gene activity. Environmental exposures (like stress, toxins, or social support) can influence this process and thereby trigger or suppress gene expression. This supports the partial effect of GI discussed in paragraph 2.

The passage discusses a partial, not total, effect of GI. Environmental exposures influence how much GI affects behavior and health—they don’t completely prevent it.

The question asks us to identify which part of the eye is most likely impacted by M’s genetic mutation, which causes gradual atrophy of photoreceptor cells and impairs night vision. To answer this, we need to understand the basic structure and function of different parts of the eye, especially in relation to photoreceptors and night vision.

Photoreceptors are specialized cells in the retina that detect light. There are two main types: rods and cones. Rods are highly sensitive to light and are responsible for vision in low-light (scotopic) conditions, which is commonly referred to as night vision. In contrast, cones are responsible for color vision and function best in well-lit conditions. Rods are primarily located in the peripheral regions of the retina, while cones are concentrated in the fovea, the central portion of the retina that allows for high-acuity vision.

The lens focuses light onto the retina but does not contain photoreceptor cells. Damage to the lens can cause vision problems like blurriness or difficulty focusing, such as in cataracts, but not night vision impairment due to photoreceptor atrophy.

The fovea contains a high concentration of cones, not rods. It is specialized for sharp, central vision and color perception under bright light, but it is not involved in night vision. Since M’s problem is with night vision, damage to the fovea is not the likely cause.

The optic disc is where the optic nerve exits the eye, and it lacks photoreceptors entirely—this is the anatomical “blind spot.” Even though damage to the optic disc could impact vision, it would not specifically cause night vision problems or result from atrophy of photoreceptors.

Because M’s mutation leads to night vision impairment, this suggests that his rods are being affected. Since rods are primarily found in the peripheral retina, this is the portion of the eye most likely impacted by the genetic mutation. The peripheral retina contains the majority of the rod photoreceptors, which are critical for night vision. A mutation that leads to atrophy of these cells would most directly affect the peripheral retina, resulting in the kind of night vision problems described in the passage.

The question asks us to identify which autonomic nervous system changes explain M’s physiological response after the minor accident, specifically when he felt very nervous, experienced increased heartbeat, and sweating upon re-entering a gas station. These symptoms reflect activation of the “fight-or-flight” response, which is mediated by the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system.

The autonomic nervous system (ANS) has two main branches:

– The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) is activated in stressful or threatening situations. It increases heart rate, dilates pupils, redirects blood flow to muscles, and promotes sweating. It also stimulates the adrenal medulla to release epinephrine (adrenaline) into the bloodstream, which reinforces and prolongs the effects of sympathetic activation.

– The parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) is active during “rest-and-digest” states. It slows the heart rate, promotes digestion, and conserves energy. Parasympathetic nerves release acetylcholine at their target organs.

In the passage, M’s increased heart rate and sweating indicate a classic sympathetic response, likely accompanied by increased levels of epinephrine, which circulates through the blood and contributes to these physiological effects.

M’s nervousness, elevated heart rate, and sweating are consistent with a sympathetic response, which is mediated by direct nerve activity and supported by circulating epinephrine from the adrenal medulla.

Although sympathetic nerves do play a role, acetylcholine is not the primary circulating neurotransmitter during sympathetic activation. Acetylcholine is mainly associated with parasympathetic signaling at the target organs.

Parasympathetic activation is associated with relaxation responses, not with symptoms like increased heart rate and sweating. Even though epinephrine would increase under stress, it would not do so alongside parasympathetic activation.

Both parasympathetic nerve activity and acetylcholine release are associated with a calm, relaxed physiological state. This choice does not match the stress-related symptoms M experiences.

The question asks us to identify the type of learning responsible for M’s physiological reactions—such as increased heartbeat and sweating—when entering a gas station after the minor accident. These are automatic physiological responses that occur in response to a specific stimulus (the gas station). To determine the correct answer, we need to understand the different learning types listed.

Shaping is an operant conditioning technique in which behaviors are gradually guided toward a desired outcome through successive reinforcement of closer approximations. There is no indication that M’s physiological reaction was shaped over time through reinforcement.

Habituation is a form of non-associative learning in which an individual shows decreased response to a stimulus after repeated exposure. While M does eventually show decreased fear over time (due to exposure), the initial physiological reaction after the accident is not due to habituation—it reflects the formation, not reduction, of a response.

Classical conditioning involves learning to associate a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus that naturally produces a response. Over time, the neutral stimulus alone can trigger the same response, becoming a conditioned stimulus. In this case, the gas station, originally neutral, became associated with the stress and fear of the minor accident (an unconditioned stimulus). After the incident, simply entering a gas station caused physiological arousal, indicating that M had formed a conditioned response.

This fits the pattern of classical conditioning:

– Unconditioned stimulus (US): Minor accident
– Unconditioned response (UR): Fear, stress, physiological arousal
– Conditioned stimulus (CS): Gas station
– Conditioned response (CR): Increased heart rate, sweating (fear response)

M develops an automatic fear response (increased heartbeat and sweating) to a previously neutral stimulus (the gas station) after it becomes associated with a negative event (the accident). This is a textbook example of classical conditioning.

Operant conditioning involves learning through consequences—reinforcement or punishment—of voluntary behavior. Even though it might be involved later in M’s training as he repeatedly enters gas stations without negative outcomes, his initial fear response is automatic and reflexive, making classical conditioning the more accurate explanation.

The question asks us to identify the process that best explains the gradual change in M’s emotional and physiological responses—such as nervousness, increased heartbeat, and sweating—to entering a gas station after the accident, as described in paragraph 2.

In the beginning, M has a strong conditioned response (fear and physical arousal) when entering a gas station, because it was associated with a minor car accident. However, after repeated, safe exposures to gas stations during driving practice, especially in low-stress settings (i.e., less busy gas stations), his fear response gradually decreases. Now, we need to determine which concept within the classical condition fits this explanation.

Based on the explanation above, we can say that This process is best described as extinction in the context of classical conditioning. Extinction occurs when the conditioned stimulus (gas station) is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus (accident or fear-inducing event), leading to a reduction in the conditioned response (physiological fear symptoms). Over time, the association between the stimulus and the response weakens, and the response fades.

Dishabituation refers to the reappearance of a response to a stimulus that had previously been habituated, typically after a change in context or presentation of a new stimulus. M’s experience is the opposite: a decrease in response over time, not a reappearance.

Stimulus generalization occurs when a conditioned response is triggered not just by the original conditioned stimulus, but also by similar stimuli. For example, if M became afraid of all parking lots or all roadside stops, that would be generalization. But the question asks about a decrease in response, not a spread of it to other stimuli.

Stimulus discrimination is the ability to distinguish between the conditioned stimulus and other similar stimuli that do not signal the unconditioned stimulus. There’s no mention of M distinguishing between different types of gas stations or locations, so this doesn’t fit the scenario.

The question asks us to determine which psychological phenomenon, from the humanistic perspective, M would most likely experience if he chose the second job offer—the one in the urban area that is less interesting and pays less, but would allow him to avoid the discomfort and fear associated with moving to a rural area and adapting to driving. To answer this question, we need to know about humanistic theory.

Humanistic theory emphasizes individual potential, personal growth, and self-awareness. One of its central ideas is self-concept, which includes how a person sees themselves and what they believe they are capable of. A key concept within humanistic psychology, especially in Carl Rogers’ theory, is incongruence—a mismatch between a person’s self-concept and their actual experiences or behaviors. This mismatch can cause psychological discomfort or internal conflict.

Let’s determine which concept points out this internal conflict.

Projection is a psychoanalytic defense mechanism, not a humanistic concept. It involves attributing one’s own undesirable thoughts or feelings to someone else. There’s no evidence in the scenario that M is attributing his internal conflict to others.

In the passage, M views himself as resilient and believes he should not make life decisions based on fear. If he were to choose the second job out of fear—even though it’s less interesting and pays less—it would go against the way he views himself. That disconnect between his self-image (as someone who is strong and growth-oriented) and his actual decision (to avoid difficulty) would lead to incongruence according to humanistic theory. Humanistic theory, particularly Rogers’ view, explains that if M’s behavior (choosing a less fulfilling job out of fear) conflicts with his self-concept (believing himself to be resilient and growth-oriented), he would experience incongruence—a psychological tension from the mismatch between self-perception and action.

Self-justification is more aligned with cognitive dissonance theory, not a central concept in humanistic psychology. Therefore, this choice is inaccurate.

Self-actualization refers to the process of fulfilling one’s potential and becoming the most authentic version of oneself. In the scenario, taking the second job to avoid fear would be a retreat from growth, not a move toward self-actualization.

The question asks us to identify the phenomenon that best reflects M’s reasoning as he chooses between the two job offers. In the passage, M is faced with a difficult decision: the rural job is more interesting and better paying but involves adapting to a new lifestyle and overcoming his fear of driving. The urban job is more familiar and less intimidating but also less desirable.

Despite the fear and discomfort, M reflects on his values and beliefs, particularly his belief that he is a resilient person who should not make life decisions based on fear. He decides to take the more challenging rural job, reasoning that, just as he was able to overcome his fear of gas stations, he will be able to adapt to rural life. This shows that M attributes his outcomes to his own abilities and decisions, rather than external circumstances. Let’s examine the answer choices to find out which one aligns with this explanation.

Hindsight bias is the tendency to see events as more predictable after they have already occurred (“I knew it all along”). M is making a decision before the outcomes are known, so this bias does not apply.

Confirmation bias involves seeking out or interpreting information in a way that confirms existing beliefs. M’s decision is based on reasoned reflection, not selective attention to confirming evidence. There’s no indication that he ignored contradictory information.

An external locus of control would mean that M believes his success or failure depends on factors outside his control (e.g., the difficulty of rural life or his night vision). However, M rejects that kind of reasoning, choosing the rural job despite the challenges because he believes in his own resilience.

M’s attribution of his outcomes to his own abilities and decisions rather than external factors, reflects an internal locus of control. In psychology, locus of control refers to how individuals explain the causes of events in their lives:

– An internal locus of control means believing that outcomes are primarily the result of one’s own behavior, effort, or decisions.
– An external locus of control means believing that outcomes are controlled by external forces, like luck, fate, or other people.

M’s decision reflects confidence in his ability to adapt and belief that he is responsible for shaping his future, which aligns with an internal locus of control.

The question asks us to identify the phenomenon that best describes how having someone in the car improves M’s driving performance after his move. The relevant part of the passage states that “he drives more proficiently when someone is in the car with him.” To answer this question, we must understand how the presence of others can affect task performance.

The mere-exposure effect refers to the tendency to develop a preference for things merely because we are exposed to them repeatedly. It relates to attitudes and preferences, not task performance. It doesn’t explain M’s improved driving when others are present.

Self-serving bias is a cognitive bias where people attribute their successes to internal factors (like skill) and their failures to external factors (like bad luck). There is no indication that M is attributing his driving outcomes to internal or external causes; the question is about performance changes, not attribution.

M’s driving to get better in someone’s presence is social facilitation—a concept from social psychology which refers to the improved performance on simple or well-practiced tasks when others are present. This occurs because the presence of others increases arousal, which can enhance performance on tasks the individual already knows how to do well. Since M has already developed driving skills through repeated practice, having someone in the car likely boosts his arousal in a way that enhances focus and execution.

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to put in less effort when working in a group, especially when individual effort is not being evaluated. It applies to group tasks, not individual performance in front of others. M is performing better, not worse, in the presence of others, which is the opposite of social loafing.

The question asks us to identify the behavioral role of the sound of the drawer that occurs before the dog runs to its bowl. The scenario describes a case of learned behavior—initially, the dog likely didn’t respond to the drawer sound, but over time, it learned to associate that sound with being fed. Now, the sound causes the dog to go to its bowl in anticipation of food. To answer the question accurately, we need to determine which concept within classical or operant conditioning in the answer choices.

An unconditioned stimulus naturally triggers a response without any learning. For example, food is an unconditioned stimulus because it automatically elicits salivation in dogs. But in this scenario, the drawer sound does not naturally produce a response; the dog had to learn its meaning. Therefore, it is not an unconditioned stimulus.

To classify the sound in this context correctly, we need to understand the function of a discriminative stimulus. In operant conditioning, a discriminative stimulus is a cue that precedes a specific behavior and indicates whether a particular consequence (reinforcement or punishment) is available if the behavior is performed. It does not itself cause the reinforcement, but it signals that reinforcement is likely to follow a certain behavior.

In this example, the drawer sound occurs before the dog’s behavior (running to the bowl) and signals that food will be available. The dog has learned that when the drawer opens, food typically follows. Thus, the drawer sound acts as a discriminative stimulus: it tells the dog that reinforcement (food) is now available if it performs the correct response (going to the bowl).

Delayed reinforcement occurs when a reward is given after a period of time following the behavior. For example, if the dog ran to the bowl but had to wait five minutes before being fed, that would be delayed reinforcement. But the sound of the drawer is not the reinforcer, nor is it delayed—it simply cues that food is coming. So this term does not apply.

Primary reinforcers are unlearned and satisfy biological needs—like food, water, and warmth. In this example, the food is the primary reinforcer. But the drawer sound is not inherently rewarding—its meaning is learned through experience. Therefore, this answer choice is inaccurate.

This question asks us to apply optimal arousal theory to identify which scenario best reflects its predictions. To answer this, we need to understand the basic premise of the theory.

Optimal arousal theory suggests that individuals are motivated to maintain an optimal level of physiological arousal—not too low and not too high—for best performance. This theory is often represented by the Yerkes-Dodson law, which proposes that performance improves with arousal up to a point, but after that point, further arousal impairs performance. Importantly, the optimal level of arousal depends on the difficulty of the task: easy or well-practiced tasks tend to benefit from higher arousal, while complex or new tasks are better performed under lower arousal conditions.

Now, let’s evaluate each answer choice through the lens of optimal arousal theory.

This statement is more related to expertise and memory capacity rather than arousal level. It reflects how expert players can chunk information and recognize patterns more efficiently than novices. It does not mention arousal, task performance under pressure, or varying levels of stimulation. Therefore, this is not predicted by optimal arousal theory.

This scenario reflects a classic application of optimal arousal theory and the Yerkes-Dodson law. The presence of an audience typically increases arousal. For experts, whose tasks are well-practiced and automatic, this increase in arousal may enhance performance. However, for novices, who are still learning and more easily distracted by pressure, the extra arousal can exceed optimal levels and lead to impaired performance. This aligns directly with the theory’s prediction that task difficulty and skill level interact with arousal to affect performance. Therefore, this is the accurate answer choice.

This scenario reflects state-dependent memory, which is part of encoding specificity theory in cognitive psychology. It suggests that memory retrieval is improved when one’s internal state during encoding matches the state during retrieval. While arousal is involved, the key mechanism is not optimal arousal level, but rather consistency between internal states, making this unrelated to optimal arousal theory.

This scenario reflects a placebo effect, where belief or expectation produces a change in perception or behavior. This scenario is not about how different levels of arousal influence task performance. Therefore, this is not predicted by optimal arousal theory.

This question presents a situation where a student initially sees two colleges as equally attractive, making the decision between them difficult. However, after choosing one, the student comes to believe that the selected college is clearly better than the other. The key to solving this question is recognizing that the student’s change in attitude—justifying their choice after the fact—suggests a shift in beliefs to reduce internal psychological conflict. We need to find out the concept that describes this internal inconsistency and self-justification through the answer choices.

The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) explains how people are persuaded by messages, depending on whether they use the central route (deep, thoughtful processing) or the peripheral route (surface-level cues, like attractiveness). This model is about persuasion processes, not about how individuals resolve internal conflict after making a decision. Therefore, it doesn’t apply to this scenario.

The shift in beliefs is best explained by cognitive dissonance theory. According to this theory, when a person holds two conflicting cognitions (such as liking both colleges but choosing only one), it creates an uncomfortable psychological state known as dissonance. To resolve this discomfort, people often adjust their attitudes or beliefs. In this case, the student likely experienced dissonance after making a tough decision and reduced it by convincing themselves that the college they chose is much better than the one they didn’t choose.

This type of dissonance—where a person upgrades their choice and devalues the alternative—is commonly referred to as post-decision dissonance.

A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when an expectation about a person or situation leads to behavior that causes the expectation to come true. For example, expecting someone to be unfriendly may lead you to act coldly, which then causes them to act unfriendly in return. In this question, there’s no mention of behavior influencing outcomes in a way that confirms a belief. So this is not applicable.

Self-serving bias refers to the tendency to attribute successes to oneself and failures to external factors. For example, a student might say they got an A because they’re smart, but blame a bad grade on a bad teacher. In this question, there’s no discussion of attribution of success or failure, only a shift in preference and belief after a difficult choice. So this does not explain the attitude change described.

This question asks us to identify the term that best characterizes negative emotions as motivators for behavior—specifically, behaviors that aim to reduce those emotions. The key detail in the question is that individuals act to reduce the unpleasant emotional state, such as by distracting themselves when experiencing negative emotions. This framing mirrors the logic behind drive theory in motivation.

In drive theory, a drive is an internal state of tension or discomfort that arises when a physiological or psychological need is unmet. The function of the drive is to motivate behavior that reduces the tension and returns the body to a balanced state, known as homeostasis. Although originally developed to explain biological needs (like hunger or thirst), the concept of drive has been extended to emotional states as well.

Under this view, a negative emotion like anxiety or sadness acts as a kind of drive—a motivator that pushes the person to act in a way that reduces that emotion. Distracting oneself, seeking comfort, or problem-solving can all be examples of drive-reducing behavior.

Based on this information, we need to find out which concept is related to drive theory through the answer choices.

In drive theory, a drive is an internal motivational force that prompts action to reduce discomfort. In this case, negative emotions are functioning as drives, prompting the person to engage in behaviors (like distraction) to reduce the emotional discomfort. The theory describes emotions as functional motivators that serve to regulate behavior.

Instincts are innate, fixed patterns of behavior that are biologically hardwired and typically universal across a species. The scenario presented in the question involves a person acting to regulate or reduce a feeling, which implies flexible, learned strategies, not fixed responses. So “instinct” does not best describe the function of negative emotions in this context.

A conditioned response is a learned response to a previously neutral stimulus, established through classical conditioning. For example, salivating when hearing a bell because it has been associated with food. The question emphasizes the motivational function of emotion (leading to behavior change), not the learned association between stimuli and responses. Therefore, this term does not apply here.

An unconditioned response is a natural, automatic reaction to an unconditioned stimulus, like salivating to food. It occurs without learning. The example in the question involves intentional behavior to manage emotion, not automatic reactions to stimuli. So this term is also not appropriate.