Looser and Wheatley (2010) pointed out that all human minds have faces, but not all faces have human minds. In their study:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

In this question, we need to evaluate each proposed statement about Looser and Wheatley (2010) and how their study investigated perceptions of faces and minds.
Option a: 'They asked participants to design the faces of dolls to look as much as possible like real human faces.' This would be a specific design task focusing on how people anthropomorphize or generalize human facial features onto dolls. While such tasks can appear in studies of face perception or human likeness, it’s not a standard description I can confidently attribute to this particular study without additional context. The claim could be plausible in a broader discussion of face perception but remains uncertain as a definitive method for this paper.
Option b: 'They used electroencephalographic (EEG) technology to look at responses to photographs of real faces and photographs of dolls and mannequins.' Using EEG to compare neural responses to real faces versus artificial faces (dolls or mannequins) fits with common neurocognitive methods for studying face processing and social cognition. This approach is technically feasible and aligns with investigations into whether human minds engage with non-human faces similarly to real human faces, so it seems plausible as a description of their method.
Option c: 'They instructed participants to imagine creepy doll faces as they monitored galvanic skin response (GSR).' Galvanic skin response is a measure of autonomic arousal, and asking participants to imagine unsettling stimuli while recording GSR is a plausible paradigm for examining affective responses to non-human faces or eerie imagery. This could reasonably appear in a study about perception of dolls and the emotional/mind attribution to such stimuli.
Option d: 'All the answers are correct.' This option asserts that each of the above statements (a, b, and c) accurately describes parts of the study. To accept this, one would need confirmation that the study indeed employed all three distinct methods (a doll-design task, EEG with face versus non-face stimuli, and a cognitive-imagery task paired with GSR). If even one of the earlier statements is inaccurate or not reported in the study, this all-encompassing option would be false.
Overall, when assessing the options, you should weigh the plausibility of each described method against what is typically reported in this line of face-perception research. Consider whether the combination of methods in a single study is common or whether the authors usually focus on one or two complementary techniques. If you recall the actual article details, you would use that to decide which option is truly supported by the study’s methods. If there is any uncertainty about option a’s described task, that would challenge option d as a whole, since all answers would require each individual claim to be correct.

PSYC 230 A SP25 Unit 10 Lecture

Looser and Wheatley (2010) pointed out that all human minds have faces, but not all faces have human minds. In their study:

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单