Gibson and Walk

Question 1

What were the 2 things Gibson and Walk aimed to do?

Answer 1

• To see if depth perception is inborn or learned

- To investigate depth perception in infants and young animals

Question 2

How can Gibson and Walk’s study be placed in a social and historical context?

Answer 2

In 1960’s increasing interest in evolutionary psychology and the nature Vs nurture debate. One question asked was “how much of visual ability is due to nature?” Nativists claimed depth perception is inborn; however empiricists claimed it’s learned. Survival of humans and animals depends on depth perception. For example children and stairs and also lambs and cliff edges

Question 3

How can Gibson and Walk’s study be placed in an academic context?

Answer 3

Lashley compared rats ability to jump gaps when half had been reared in the light and the other in the dark. Both could jump gaps accurately suggesting depth perception is innate

Question 4

What was Gibson and Walk’s research method?

Answer 4

Lab Experiment

Question 5

How many groups were there in Gibson and Walk’s study?

Answer 5

2

Question 6

How many human infants were used?

Answer 6

36

Question 7

How old were the human infants used?

Answer 7

6-14 months

Question 8

What animals were also used?

Answer 8

Chicks - 1 day old
Lambs - 1 day old
Goats - 1 day old
Kittens - 4 weeks old reared in light and dark for 27 days
Rats - 4 weeks old reared in light and dark
Pigs 
Dogs
Aquatic Turtles

Question 9

What was the ‘visual cliff’?

Answer 9

Large glass sheet with patterned under the glass on one side (shallow) and a few feet below on the other side (deep)

Question 10

Where were the infants and animals placed?

Answer 10

In the middle

Question 11

Who called the infants from the shallow side and then the deep side?

Answer 11

Their mothers

Question 12

How did Gibson and Walk make it a fair test?

Answer 12

They lighted the cliff from below and adjusted the red and white squares to avoid variables

Question 13

How did Gibson and Walk address some ethical issues?

Answer 13

Ensured animals and infants were safe by using a glass sheet - even if they went over the ‘cliff’ they couldn’t fall off. They also got informed consent from their mothers

Question 14

How many infants did Gibson and Walk find moved off the centre board?

Answer 14

27/36

Question 15

How many infants crawled to their mothers on the shallow side?

Answer 15

27

Question 16

How many infants tried to crawl to the deep side?

Answer 16

3

Question 17

Did any of the pps pat the deep side, but still didn’t crawl?

Answer 17

Yes

Question 18

Did any of the infants crawl away from their mothers when they were being called from the deep side?

Answer 18

Yes

Question 19

What did some of the infants do because they couldn’t get to their mother without going over the cliff?

Answer 19

Cried

Question 20

Which animals hopped onto the shallow side, but never the deep side?

Answer 20

Chicks
Lambs
Goats

Question 21

What did kittens reared in the light prefer?

Answer 21

Shallow side

Froze when placed on the deep side

Question 22

What did kittens reared in the dark prefer?

Answer 22

Neither - went onto both sides

After a week being in the light they avoided the deep side

Question 23

What % of aquatic turtles crawled onto the deep side?

Answer 23

24%

Question 24

Did some of the rats explore both sides?

Answer 24

Yes

Question 25

What did Gibson and Walk conclude about infants?

Answer 25

They have depth perception as soon as they can move on their own

Question 26

What did Gibson and Walk conclude about animals?

Answer 26

They have depth perception from birth due to evolution

Question 27

What did Gibson and Walk conclude about depth perception?

Answer 27

It’s adaptive and necessary for survival, if humans didn’t have it by the time they’re mobile they wouldn’t survive to reproduce

Question 28

Was reliability a strength for Gibson and Walk?

Answer 28

Yes - could be repeated, study was scientific and so was using controlled conditions. Also using kittens reared in both light and dark made it a fair test

Question 29

Was validity a strength for Gibson and Walk?

Answer 29

No - may not have been truly measuring innate factors. Infants were as old as 14 months, they could’ve learnt depth perception by then. To resolve this problem they used newly born animals, but could you apply animal findings to humans?

Question 30

Was sampling strong for Gibson and Walk?

Answer 30

Yes - used wide range of pps; however 36 human pps isn’t a large number - hard to generalise and also age range was too wide

Question 31

What data was produced?

Answer 31

Quantitative - enables comparisons in different groups

Question 32

In terms of ethics why was Gibson and Walk’s study problematic?

Answer 32

Many infants cried - not protected from harm. Also kittens reared in dark weren’t protected from harm and babies couldn’t give fully informed consent and had no right to withdraw

Question 33

Whose research supports Gibson and Walk’s and how?

Answer 33

Lashley - compared rats ability to jump gaps (half reared in light, other in dark) both could jump accurately. This supports because both studies found depth and distance perception is innate leading to this ability being adaptive and passed on by evolution. However could Lashley’s be limited by the fact that Lashley was studying distance whereas G&W was studying depth

Question 34

Whose research challenges Gibson and Walk’s and how?

Answer 34

Turnbull - found bambuti pygmies taken out to vast plain where buffalo in the distance, they said they hadnt seen one of those insects before. When driven towards buffalo insects grew and pygmies thought it was witchcraft. This rejects G&W because it suggests perception is shaped by culture and learning. However could Turnbull’s be limited as pygmies inborn perception had not been able to develop due to their forest surroundings. Once in the open space their distance perception developed quickly

Question 35

Whose research also contradicts Gibson and Walk and how?

Answer 35

Sorce et al - recreated the visual cliff and found babies responded to expressions on mothers faces. This rejects G&W because it suggests there may have been other factors contributing to babies staying on the shallow side.