attention: moray and simons & chabris

Question 1

moray method?

Answer 1

3 lab experiments

rmd, rmd, imd

Question 2

moray experiment one iv and dv?

Answer 2

iv: origin of words in recognition test
dv: number of words recognised

Question 3

moray experiment two iv and dv?

Answer 3

iv: whether instructions were prefixed by the P’s name
dv: number of effective instructions

Question 4

moray experiment three iv and dv?

Answer 4

iv: instructions given to the Ps (either that they would be asked qs about shadowed message or to recall numbers)
dv: number of digits correctly reported

Question 5

moray sample?

Answer 5

male & female undergraduates and research workers

expt 1 & 2: unknown

expt 3: 2 groups of 14

Question 6

moray overall procedure?

Answer 6

all dichotic listening/shadowing tasks

taped messages with same male voice speaking at 130/150 words/min

Question 7

moray experiment one procedure?

Answer 7

list of words in unattended each, repeated 35 times while shadowing prose

after, ps asked what they recalled from rejected message, then a recognition test, with 7 words from rejected, 7 from attended and 7 from neither

Question 8

moray expt one results?

Answer 8

shadowed words: 4.9

rejected words: 1.9

new words: 2.6

Question 9

moray expt two procedure?

Answer 9

used the affective cue of the Ps name

shadowed ten passages of light fiction, told responses would be recorded and they were to make as few mistakes as possible

passage started with p being asked to shadow right ear (in two of the ten trials, this was prefixed by saying they would later be told to change)

six passages had instructions embedded, three prefixed with name

Question 10

moray expt two results?

Answer 10

most ignored instructions as thought they were meant to be distractions

ps most likely to hear instructions when warned, by name, at the beginning of the message

Question 11

moray expt three procedure?

Answer 11

numbers always in shadowed message and some times in both

one group told they would be asked about shadowed passage, other told they would be asked for numbers

Question 12

moray expt three results?

Answer 12

not significantly different

Question 13

moray general conclusions?

Answer 13

when shadowing, almost all rejected content is blocked

block is apparent even when presented many times

subjectively important messages can penetrate block, but neutral material very hard to make important enough to penetrate

Question 14

moray research method evaluation?

Answer 14

lab experiment, extraneous variables controlled

volume matched to Ps individual ears

name checked to make sure it wasn’t stressed

recording of messages made sure they were spoken at a constant speed without expression

Question 15

moray data collected evaluation?

Answer 15

data only quantitative, easy comparisons between conditions

would be difficult to collection qualitative as process of blocking in unconcious

Question 16

moray ethicality evaluation?

Answer 16

very ethical

ps able to practice shadowing task to eliminate stress

Question 17

moray validity evaluation?

Answer 17

high internal validity due to control of extraneous variables

however ps may have responded to demand characteristics, helping hand (supposed to ignore rejected message)

ecological validity questionable as listening to two different sources with headphones is rare but act of blocking a message while simultaneous ones are presented is common

Question 18

moray sampling bias evaluation?

Answer 18

students and researchers, convenient

males and females leads to wider generalisability

however students/researchers pre-selected on cognitive abilities so may not be representative of general population

Question 19

moray link to theme?

Answer 19

links to theme of attention by providing empirical evidence into selective auditory attention, and shows that only important information such as a person’s name can break through the attentional barrier of attended and unattended message

also confirms cherry’s cocktail party effect

Question 20

moray link to area?

Answer 20

assumption: behaviour is explained in terms of mental processes

studies the mental process of attention, and if unattended material can break through the attentional barrier

Question 21

simons & chabris method?

Answer 21

lab expt w/ imd

Question 22

simons & chabris ivs?

Answer 22

type of video watched, either:

opaque gorilla
transparent gorilla
opaque umbrella woman
transparent umbrella woman

task required, either:

hard white
easy white
hard black
easy black

total of 16 conditions

Question 23

simons & chabris dv?

Answer 23

whether the p noticed the unexpected event

Question 24

simons & chabris sample?

Answer 24

228 volunteers, mostly undergraduates

some had no payment, some had large candy bar and some had a lump sum for this and other studies

Question 25

simons & chabris tape details?

Answer 25

all made with same camera

lasted 75 seconds, with 5 second unexpected event 44-48 seconds in

tall woman with umbrella or shorter woman in gorilla suit walking from left to right of film

two teams moved randomly in space, passing orange basketball (aerial and bounce passes)

Question 26

simons & chabris procedure?

Answer 26

21 experimenters tested the Ps individually, using a script and protocol for delivering video and collecting data

tv monitors ranged from 13-36 inches

after task, Ps asked questions to expose if they had noticed the unexpected event

ps asked if they had heard of or been in experiments like this before

then debriefed and given the opportunity to rewatch video

Question 27

simons & chabris tasks?

Answer 27

easy: follow either black or white teams passes, counting combined passes, silently
hard: follow either black or white teams passes, counting aerial and bounce passes separately, silently

Question 28

simons & chabris questions?

Answer 28

while doing the counting, did you notice anything unusual in the video?

did you notice anything other than the six players?

did you see anyone else (besides the six players) on the video?

did you see a gorilla/woman with an umbrella walk across the screen?

yes answers recorded

Question 29

simons & chabris results?

Answer 29

36 ps results discarded (heard of inattentional blindness or lost count), but those left spread equally between conditions

54% noticed unexpected event, 46% did not overall

more likely to notice in opaque condition, 67%

more likely to notice doing easy task, 64%

more likely to notice umbrella woman, 65%

more likely to notice gorilla if attending black team

Question 30

simons & chabris conclusions?

Answer 30

approximately half of ps fail to detect unexpected and unusual events when engaged in a different task of visual attention

while occurring in both superimposed and live action scenes, inattentional blindness is more common for the superimposed

more common in easy tasks

more likely to see unexpected events that are visually similar to what is being attended

objects can directly cross the area of focus but not be seen if they aren’t specifically being attended to

Question 31

simons & chabris method evaluation?

Answer 31

lab expt, possible to control extraneous variables, timings of videos and unexpected events the same

scripted & rehearsed moves ensured similarity between teams

Question 32

simons & chabris data collected evaluation?

Answer 32

quantitative only, from closed yes/no questions

easy comparisons between conditions

Question 33

simons & chabris ethicality evaluation?

Answer 33

few ethical issues

ps provided consent by being volunteers, while not informed

task unlikely to cause stress, and had opportunity to rewatch the video

Question 34

simons & chabris validity?

Answer 34

high internal validity, controlled extraneous variables (however screens an issue, 13-36 inches)

may have not reported that they’d seen similar videos, fabricated a number or lied about not seeing unexpected event due to demand characteristics

concurrent validity due to findings lining up with neisser’s study

although lacks ecological validity, videos aren’t the same as real life, counting passes non-typical attentional event, controlled setting unlike reality and a gorilla is very unexpected

Question 35

simons & chabris sampling bias evaluation?

Answer 35

students convenient and allow for large sample

homogeneity (students who volunteered) of sample reduces participant variables but lowers generalisability

also may be particularly vigilant as students

Question 36

simons & chabris link to theme?

Answer 36

links to theme of attention by studying how when attending a task, you can easily not notice something passing in front of you

the study provided empirical evidence for visual inattention in dynamic events

Question 37

simons & chabris link to area?

Answer 37

assumption: all behaviour can be explained in terms of mental processes

attention is a mental process, and simons & chabris is studying how inattentional blindness can lead to a dynamic event being missed completely

Question 38

moray and simons & chabris similarities?

Answer 38

both are highly controlled lab experiments

both only collected quantitative data

Question 39

moray and simons & chabris differences?

Answer 39

simons & chabris only use imd, while moray also uses rmd for two experiments

simons & chabris presented ps with a single media, while moray presented two simultaneously

Question 40

simons & chabris adding to understanding?

Answer 40

changes understanding of attention by showing it’s not just auditory material that can be filtered out, the principle of inattention also stands for visual attention

the finding are perhaps also more alarming, as a gorilla can pass right through your visual field, and be unaware of it