Observation Report

Introduction

The Rouge Test was created to evaluate the understanding of Self by recognising one’s own reflection in a mirror. Two researchers independently developed this technique: Amsterdam, who used it with infants (1968 doctoral dissertation, first published in 1972), and Gallup (1970; Gallup, McClure, Hill & Bundy, 1971), who utilized it with chimpanzees and monkeys. Both researchers required a non-verbal test for their studies.

The Rouge Test consists of three phases in its structure:

1. observation of a child’s spontaneous behaviour in front of a mirror – before proceeding to the next phase, the child must look at her/ himself in the mirror at least once;
2. Rouge phase, when the experimenter or mother surreptitiously applies a rouge (or blue) mark on child’s cheek near the nose, where the child cannot see it);
3. observation of the children’s reactions to their own mirror images (altered by the rouge mark).

All children are observed for the same minimum period of time to determine if they exhibit any signs of attention to the rouge mark, which would indicate self-recognition according to Amsterdam (1972) and Gallup (1970). Amsterdam (1972) states that children between the ages of six and twelve months view their reflections as a “sociable playmate” and begin to admire themselves. They start showing embarrassment around twelve months old, and by the time they reach two years old, their self-recognition reaches 65%. In general, children typically pass the Rouge Test at around 18 months of age.

According to Asendorph (1993), children begin to exhibit self-awareness and self-consciousness at the age of two. This includes evaluating their behavior and appearance based on both their own standards and others’. Bertenthal and Fischer (1978) and Lewis and Brooks-Gunn (1979) suggest that by the age of two, children have already developed self-awareness before they start using verbal labels to refer to themselves. Furthermore, some individuals and animals who regain vision after being blind from birth may initially perceive their mirror image as a distinct entity (John, 1992).

Animals such as great apes, including humans, bonobos, and chimpanzees, have also shown the ability to pass mirror self-recognition tests. However, this ability typically develops after 18 months of age for humans (Archer, J. 1992) and has been observed with hostility in most other animals initially. Since the initial studies, there have been multiple replications of Amsterdam’s findings with infants. This particular study aims to partially replicate previous research by classifying children based on their success or failure in exhibiting rouge-related behaviors.

The primary objective of this small-scale study is to assess the usefulness and dependability of the coding scheme and measures employed.

Method Checklist Participants

Four babies, two males and two females aged between 9 months and 18 months, participated in this test along with a male chimpanzee named Rusty.

Procedure

The study was conducted using naturalistic observation and structured observation. The specifications for the study included conducting the test in a field setting and having the participants’ responses recorded on videotape by a friend or family member, while their mother supervised the process.

Result

The most common code observed was BTHLR, while the least common codes were BSR, BTOC, and BTRO. There were a total of N = .. 2.. participants who did not pass the Rouge Test. These participants were between 9-12 months old. The non-criterion categories, Codes A and B, had the following frequencies: frequent 1, infrequent 1, ambiguous 1, and useful 1 (IV).

A reliability check was conducted to assess the agreement between observers. This analysis focused only on the criterion categories for the Rouge Test.

As all categories measuring the same ability, an initial overall comparison was made between observers. This comparison was based on the total number of criterion events detected by each observer for each participant.

SR’s coding is provided as a second observer, but you can use data from another student if you prefer. In this case, you need to specify the student N of your colleague and replace SR’s values with theirs. The comparison between the two observers was based on the behavior onset time: Yes1? No1

Discussion

The results obtained from the participants confirmed prior studies that found babies under 18 months old do not recognize themselves in mirrors and perceive their reflections as another playmate. However, children at 18 months and slightly older are able to recognize themselves in mirrors and become aware of blemishes on their faces, attempting to remove them (Amsterdam, B. 1972).

Although the inter-observer agreement of 47% did support and confirm the previous findings, there was a lack of consistency between observers. This discrepancy can be attributed to slight variations in coding between the novice and original observer. The coding scheme, which was quite detailed, added to the confusion as it required separate columns for different codes. Despite this, the novice observer displayed thorough coding, noticing codes that the original observer did not record in some parts of the videos. Conversely, there were instances where the original observer identified more codes than the novice observer.

The observers did not consistently follow the coding scheme while watching the videos of the babies’ performances. Some of the codes, such as BTRO (Baby Touches Rouge with Object), did not make sense to the observer because either the baby showed no interest in their mirror image or they focused on touching the rouge mark with their own fingers instead of using an object. Overall, the codes were detailed but easy to understand and use, although a few of them may have been unnecessary.

BTOC was deemed unnecessary by the observer due to the baby’s inability to comprehend the concept of reflection. Removing these codes would not impact the overall results of the rouge test. Whether the observer was a novice or had specific codes assigned to them, there were minimal issues, as both groups spent the same amount of time observing and recording the babies’ reactions to the rouge marks on their faces.

References

1. Amsterdam, B. (1972). Mirror self-image reactions before age two. Developmental Psychobiology, 5 (4), 297-305.
2. Asendorph, J. B. (1993). Self-awareness and other-awareness: Mirror self-recognition and synchronic imitation among Unfamiliar peers. American psychological association, 29 (1), 88-95
3. Archer, J. (1992). Ethology and Human Development. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-389-20996-1
4. Berthental, B. I. , & Fischer, K. W. (1978). Development of self-recognition in the infant. Developmental Psychology, 14, 44-50 Coren, S. How dogs think. ISBN 0-7432-2232-6
5. Gallup, G. G. (1970). Chimpanzee self-recognition. Science, 167 (3914), 86-87.
6. Gallup, G. G. , McClure, M. K. , Hill, S. D. & Bundy, R. A. (1971). Capacity for self-recognition in differentially reared chimpanzees. The Psychological Record, 21(1), 69-74.
7. Lewis, M. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition of self. New York: Plenum Press
8. Miller, J. (2009). Minding the Animals: Ethology and the Obsolescence of Left Humanism. American chronicle. Retrieved 2009-05-21