Psychology Review Paper
Psychology Review Paper
This paper will review the psychological article entitled “Gender Differences in Distance Estimates When Exposed to Multiple Routes” which appears in the Environment and Behavior journal. This article explores the accuracy of making distance estimations regarding a particular walked route when an individual has extra information about additional routes present. This research particularly focuses on comparing gender differences in estimation of distances when exposed to other routes. Thus, the central research question of this study is to determine how men and women compare when it comes to estimating distances in the event of exposure to multiple routes. The review paper will provide personal comments on the concept of information cognitive hypothesis that features prominently in the study.
This article provides an in-depth theoretical background regarding the estimation of distances based on several factors such as prior knowledge of the area in concern. The authors reckon that gaining extensive knowledge relating to a particular area can have a significant impact on an individual’s estimates of the distance of travel routes. Therefore, as much as this broad knowledge can be useful when considering route options, it can also affect the perception of distances around us. Personally, I think that an individual’s perception of distances is not entirely linked to his or her knowledge about the route and the surrounding area as a whole. As much as extensive knowledge of an area impacts heavily on distance perceptions, other factors are also involved. These include the number of route turns and intersections, age, familiarity of route names, and hormones.
Concerning the number of turns in a route, I think that the more the number of turns, the greater overestimation of distance. This thinking is grounded in a preliminary research conducted by Bregler and Morris (1996) which revealed a direct relationship between the complexity of a route and spatial learning. In other words, the more complex a root, the more complex the spatial learning involved. This translates into overestimation of distances among subjects exposed to more complex routes. This finding is corroborated by research done by Bohbot et al. (2012) which found similar results. In the latter study, subjects of different age-groups were requested to walk along bent paths. The findings revealed a direct relationship between the number of turns and the estimation of route distances. Bohbot et al. (2012) went on to formulate the following inferences.
I totally concur with the first reason which postulates that a path with more turns is usually perceived as being made up of several segments. These sections are typically viewed as separate units of distances thereby resulting in an overestimation of distance. Moreover, Bohbot et al. (2012) states that perception of route distance is directly related to the amount of information stored about the path. Therefore, a route with more turns is perceived to be longer since every turn represents additional information concerning the route. This hypothesis is based on the storage size concept first presented by Driscoll et al. (2005). I think this is true since the routes that I am used to usually appear shorter compared to newer routes.
The final reason submitted by Bohbot et al. (2012) suggests that the distances of routes with more turns are usually overestimated due to the increased physical effort required to traverse the routes. This explanation is verified by findings on distance presented by Koppen et al. (2015) which support the physical effort hypothesis. However, I do not support this hypothesis since the physical effort required to make turns is negligible. In my own opinion, I do not see how this negligible difference in physical effort can lead to vast overestimation in distance. Having walked along straight and convoluted paths to school every day, I have not noticed any differences in physical effort required to traverse the different routes.
Apart from the number of turns, I also think that the number of intersections present in a route might influence perceptions of distance. This thinking is based on results obtained by Bohbot et al. (2012). These results reveal that the more the number of route intersections, the greater the perception of route distance. Regarding intersections, I think they tend to delay movement which results in overestimation of distance. In a similar study conducted by Koppen, et al. (2015) the familiarity of route names was also shown to influence perceptions of route length. Familiar routes were associated with reduced estimation of route distance and vice versa. Results from the latter study are consistent with the cognitive load hypothesis which relates route information to distance estimation. I totally agree with the cognitive load hypothesis since new routes appear long at first but appear shorter as I become more familiar with them.
The study that I am reviewing focuses on the information cognitive load hypothesis and gender differences in assessing distance perceptions. According to Stone and McBeath (2010), the nature of previous studies in this area makes it difficult to differentiate the effects of physical effort and scaling. For instance, in the study investigating the effects of intersections, there was no stopping along the route hence physical effort would not have changed. Moreover, in the intersection name study, scaling would be null and void since the distances between intersections remained constant. Stone and McBeath (2010), however, reckon that the learning of new intersection names has an effect on cognitive load. This effect on cognitive load is the most significant factor in the perception of distance, according to Stone and McBeath (2010).
Hypotheses
This study presents the following hypotheses:
Null hypothesis: Extra information from having additional routes present will not produce overestimation or greater inaccuracy of distance estimations of a particular walked route.
Alternative hypothesis: Extra information from having additional routes present will produce overestimation or greater inaccuracy of distance estimation of a particular walked route.
Based on these hypotheses, the researchers are ruling out the effects of scaling or physical effort. This is because the actual paths traversed by the subjects are identically matched in the single versus multiple path conditions. Apart from investigating the information cognitive load hypothesis, this study also seeks to determine gender differences in distance perceptions.
Methodology
The methodology of this study is divided into five fundamental tenets namely: participants, measures, stimuli, design, and procedure. The participants involved in this study were six males and six females, bringing the total number of subjects to 12. These participants were volunteers recruited from the Arizona State University campus. The recruitment criteria included normal walking ability, normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and ignorance of study hypothesis. However, a crucial omission that this study leaves out is the statement regarding informed consent. The measures for this study involved subjects walking along bending pathways. As they traversed these pathways, they could observe their designated paths alone or include two additional nearby paths which were also visible. The experimental stimuli for this study involved four sets of pathways with three distinct pathways each. I think that these stimuli were very accurate since all paths in a set were of equal length with the same number of right-angled turns.
The design of the study involved subjects walking routes with only one route present (single condition) or with all three paths in a set present (multiple condition). Participants were randomly assigned the different conditions which means the study used a random sampling design in the allocation of subjects. However, to ensure consistency and viability, an equal number of men and women were in the different conditions at any one time. Finally, the procedure involved participants traversing the different routes until a total of 12 paths have been travelled and their distances estimated. I think that this methodology is straight-forward enough without being overly simplistic. However, a possible confound that the study might have failed to control is the mental capability of the subject. This variable might impact the estimation of route distance thereby influencing the results of the survey.
Data Analyses
Analysis of data was conducted using a four-way mixed-design ANOVA which analyzed between-participant independent variables of sex (2), within set (4), the number of visible routes (2), and route shape (3). The principle dependent measure that was used in this ANOVA analysis was the absolute value of accuracy of path-length estimations. I think that the main advantage of this kind of the four-way ANOVA design is that it controls for individual differences that exist among participants. Therefore, in this study, subject differences such as scaling and physical effort will be monitored to allow for analysis of cognitive load. However, I also know that ANOVA analysis is also associated with carry-over effects. This phenomenon means that a single score at one level of analysis may be carried over to the next level of analysis thereby influencing the findings of the study either positively or negatively. Moreover, this kind of analysis may induce boredom among the participants during the provision of scores. This boredom will result in deterioration of performance and inaccuracy of results.
Results
The study found no significance among the four main effects. However, the study revealed a two-way significant interaction between sex and the number of routes (F(1, 8)=5.71, p = .044). According to the study, these are the only variables which exhibited significance between each other. The study did not find any significant three-way interactions between any combination of variables; sex by number by route (F(2, 16) = 1.67, p = .204), sex by number by set (F(3, 24) = .84, p = .486), number by set by route (F(6, 48) = .83, p = .555), and sex by set by route (F(6, 48)=1.13, p = .360). Moreover, the study did not obtain any significant four-way interaction (F(6, 48) = 1.09, p = .380) neither did it find any significant two-way interactions. The significance between sex and number of routes was investigated further using post hoc tests. These tests revealed a significant interaction between women and the number of routes (F(1, 8) = 4.31, p = .071). As mentioned above, these results might be susceptible to errors of using a four-way ANOVA model.
Implications
This study does not find a significant tendency to overestimate distances as a result of having additional knowledge regarding a particular route. Therefore, these findings are in support of the null hypothesis. I think this might be true since women are more susceptible to inaccurate estimations when more routes are presented. However, these inaccuracies do not necessarily lean more towards overestimation of route lengths. In other words, I think women demonstrate greater variance in the multiple route condition as stated by Stone and McBeath (2010). These findings have various implications. First, it is possible that multiple routes tend to interfere with the memory of women regarding route length resulting in inaccuracies in estimation. Moreover, women might be utilizing more sophisticated spatial strategies than men resulting in huge variances in distance estimations. Lastly, differences in scale between male and female mentalities may cause gender differences in distance estimation. Regardless of the implication, it remains clear that awareness of multiple routes influences length estimation, at least for women.
References
Bohbot, V., McKenzie, S., Konishi, K., Fouget, C., Kurdi, V., & Schachat, K. (2012). Virtual navigation strategies from childhood to senescence: Evidence for changes across the life span. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 70, 311-317.
Bregler, R., & Morris, R. (1996). Landmark stability; Further studies pointing to a role in spatial learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 307-345.
Driscoll, I., Hamilton, D., Yeo, R., Brooks, W., & Sutherland, R. (2005). Virtual navigation in humans: The impact of age, sex, and hormones on place learning . Hormones and Behavior, 47, 326-335.
Koppen, J., Blankenship, P., Blackwell, A., Winter, S. S., Matuszewich, L., & Wallace, D. (2015). Comparison of direction and distance estimation across spatial tasks: Absence of sexually dimorphic self-movement cues processing. Learning and Motivation, 51, 11-24.
Stone, J. P., & McBeath, M. K. (2010). Gender differences in distance estimates when exposed to multiple routes. Environment and Behavior, 42, 469-478.
