An investigation reported in the November 2007 issue of Nature (Hamlin, Wynn, and Bloom) aimed at assessing whether infants take into account an individual's actions towards others in evaluating that individual as appealing or aversive, perhaps laying the foundation for social interaction. In one component of the study, each of sixteen 10-month-old healthy infants (in New England) were shown a "climber" character (a piece of wood with "google" eyes glued onto it) that could not make it up a hill in two tries. Then they were shown two scenarios for the climber's next try, one where the climber was pushed to the top of the hill by another character ("helper") and one where the climber was pushed back down the hill by another character ("hinderer"). Each infant was alternately shown these two scenarios many times. Then the child was presented with both pieces of wood (the "helper" and the "hinderer") and asked to pick one to play with. In the study 14 out of the 16 babies picked the "helper" toy. Does this provide evidence that such 10-month-old infants have a genuine preference for the helper toy?

Interpret the standardized statistic in the context of the study. (Hint: You need to talk about the value of your observed statistic in terms of standard deviations assuming ______ is true.)

Here, I solved for the standardized statistic and got 2.976, but I'm confused on what this is asking. What I said was:

If we assume that our null hypothesis is true (the babies are just randomly choosing a toy), then the standardized statistic of 2.976 tells us that our observed statistic is 2.976 standard deviations away from the long-term proportion of 0.5.

Is this correct?