Analysis of variances and covariances is misleading as a guide to a common factor model

The “factor” analyses published by Schultz, Kaye, and Hoyer (1980) confused component and factor analysis and led in this case as in many others to unwarranted conclusions. They used component analysis to develop factor models that were subjected to restricted (confirmatory) maximum likelihood analysis, but the final models for which good fits with the observed correlations were obtained were not common factor models. They were, however, discussed as such and conclusions drawn accordingly. When their correlation matrices are analyzed by the principal factors method, two factors are sufficient to account for the intercorrelations. These two factors generally support the a priori expectation of a difference between intelligence tasks and spontaneous flexibility tasks. They are also quite similar in younger and older subjects, when similarity is judged in terms of factor pattern. Factor loadings for the younger subjects, however, are much smaller than expectations based on the respective ranges of talent in the two groups of subjects or on past experience with similar tests in undergraduate student populations.     

Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability

The accuracy of in-group and out-group variability judgments was examined by comparing those judgments with the variability of self-ratings provided by random samples of group members. Following Park and Judd (1990), perceptions of both group dispersion and group stereotypicality were examined. Accuracy was examined both by within-subject sensitivity correlations and by simple discrepancies between perceived and actual variability estimates. In-group-out-group differences in sensitivity were shown, particularly for judgments of stereotypicality. These differences were related to differences in the degree to which out-group variability is underestimated relative to in-group variability (i.e., the out-group homogeneity effect). Out-group stereotypicality judgments were overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. Whether dispersion judgments were over- or underestimated depended on their measurement.     

Relative salience of species maternal calls in neonatal gallinaceous birds: a direct comparison of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) and domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus)

Differential-approach tendencies of individual incubator-hatched chickens and Japanese quail were assayed using one exemplar of each of the species maternal calls in a simultaneous-choice paradigm. Within 24 hr after hatching, the birds received several short periods of exposure to rotating mounts of an adult female chicken and quail, which emitted the species-appropriate call. All birds were then tested with calls alone over the following 2 to 4 days. The test stimuli were played from speakers located behind pressure-sensitive panels so that approach behavior was recorded when a bird pushed against one of the panels. Both the chickens and the quail, as groups, spent significantly more time attempting to approach the exemplar of their own species maternal call, although there was considerable variation in the magnitude of the approach difference among individuals within each species. Sources of variation in preference scores are analyzed, and a simulation is used to interpret individual differences in response scores. This type of preference test is useful for a number of applications, notably for studying the behavior of quail-chick nervous system chimeras.