Cog: Moray - Dichotic listening

Question 1

Outline the aim

Answer 1

To test Cherry’s dichotic listening findings for:

• amount of info recognised in rejected msg
• effect of hearing own name in unattended msg
• effect of instructions to identify specific target in rejected msg

Question 2

Outline the research method

Answer 2

Lab experiment, with 3 separate studies

Question 3

Outline the participants, and their details for each study.

Answer 3

Study 1: no details recorded
Study 2: 12 pps
Study 3: two groups of 14 pps
All undergrads / research workers
Females and males

Question 4

Outline the general design and procedure

Answer 4

• all 3 studies used dichotic listening task
• msgs recorded onto tape in same male voice at rates of 130 or 150 words/min
• 2 controls: 1) rejected msg played at vol that seemed same as shadowed msg for pp. 2) two msgs always played through 🎧 directing separate msgs to each ear
• pps had 4 practice prose passages to shadow beforehand

Question 5

Outline study 1

Answer 5

• repeated measures design
• IV had 3 conditions: 1) shadowed msg. 2) rejected msg. 3) a control
• DV measured by: 1) pps asked to recall anything from unattended msg. 2) pps given recognition test including words from shadowed msg, rejected msg + control set of words not present in either
• pps heard short list of simple words repeated 35 times in unattended ear whilst shadowing prose msg in attended ear
• word list faded in after shadowing began, + faded out as attended msg ended

Question 6

Outline study 2

Answer 6

• IV = whether instructions in msg were preceded by pps own name (affective instructions) or not (non-affective)
• DV = frequency w/ which instruction was heard
• pps shadowed 10 short light fiction passages (each of a diff condition) having a diff set of instructions either at start / within passage, or both (in 2 conditions pps warned about this)
• pps told their responses would be recorded + object was to try ‘to score as few mistakes as poss’
• see table of 10 instructions in notes
• in 3/6 of conditions w/ instructions during passage, instruction began with own name
• all pls experienced all 10 conditions (repeated measures) w/ 4 ‘no instruction’ conditions interspersed randomly
• of remaining pairs, one without own name was presented before same instruction w/ name

Question 7

Outline study 3

Answer 7

• independent measures design
• msgs constructed w/ digits interspersed w/ words towards end of passage (experimental) + similar messages had no digits (control)
• pps heard either 2 experimental msgs or 1 experimental + 1 control
• IV had 2 conditions: pps always shadowed an experimental msg, but 1) one group told beforehand they’d be asked Qs about content of shadowed msg + 2) other told they should remember all no’s they could
• DV = mean no. of digits in msg + mean no. of digits reported were calculated

Question 8

Describe the results of study 1

Answer 8

• no evidence of words from rejected msg having been recognised
• mean recognition rate = much lower than for shadowed msg + even lower than that for words not present in either list
• mean no. of words appearing in shadowed msg recognised (out of 7) = 4.9
• mean no. of words appearing in rejected msg recognised (out of 7) = 1.9
• mean no. of new words from neither msg recognised (out of 7) = 2.6

Question 9

Describe the results of study 2

Answer 9

• 20/39 affective instructions (preceded by name) were heard
• 4/36 non-affective instructions (not preceded by name) were heard
• t-test showed diff between affective + non-affective instructions as highly significant (t= 3.05, p<0.01)
• data showed presence of name can cause instruction to be heard (affective content in rejected msg can break through attentional barrier)
• more likely following pre-passage warning that there’d be a msg to change ears, although this diff not significant
• mean frequency of hearing affective instruction ‘own name you may stop now’ in rejected msg = 0.33
• mean frequency of hearing affective instruction ‘own name change to your other ear’ in rejected msg = 0.33
• mean frequency of hearing affective instruction ‘own name, change to your other ear (after pre-passage warning)’ in rejected msg = 0.80

Question 10

Describe the results of study 3

Answer 10

• mean no. of digits reported when pps were told they’d be asked about content + when told to listen for digits, was not significantly diff (at p<0.05)
• this shows pps couldn’t be primed to respond to digits heard in rejected msg, unlike their spontaneous recognition of own name in rejected msg seen in study 2
• even when alerted to possibility of hearing digits, stimulus did not seem ‘important’ enough to break attentional barrier

Question 11

Describe the conclusions

Answer 11

• Moray observes that an ‘identification’ paradox exists (although rejected msg is not attended to + is blocked from conscious perception, this does not prevent response to one’s own name)
  1) when pp directs attention to a msg in one ear, rejecting msg in other, almost all vernal content of rejected msg is blocked
  2) rejection is apparent even when msg is repeated often: there’s no trace of a short list of simple words presented many times being remembered
  3) subjectively important msgs (e.g. own name) can penetrate block, so we may hear instructions containing own name even in rejected msg
  4) v diff (but perhaps not impossible) to make neutral material important enough to penetrate block

Question 12

Evaluate the research method

Answer 12

✅lab exp = poss to control extraneous variables = higher validity
✅loudness in each ear was individually matched to ensure diffs in msgs not caused by diffs in vol
✅msgs recorded to ensure spoken at constant speed + w/out expression
✅vol of pps own name spoken was checked, to be certain it wasn’t stressed

Question 13

Evaluate the data

Answer 13

quantitative data gathered = strengths + weaknesses
✅statistical analysis, allowing easy comparison of conditions, showing although digits can’t be noticed, one’s own name can be detected at least some of time in rejected msg when not expected
❌no analysis of qual data (although would be diff) as process of detecting particular stimuli in rejected msg is unconscious, so pps couldn’t give much indication of why they succeeded in directing diff types of stimuli, or failed to

Question 14

Evaluate the ethical considerations

Answer 14

✅lab exp that raises few ethical issues: pps were students, research workers + had practice sessions, so award of procedure
✅task, materials + findings all unlikely to cause distress

Question 15

Evaluate the validity

Answer 15

✅level of control achieved ensured any grater recall of name than other words was result of IV (affective nature of stimulus), not extraneous variables e.g. vol
❌situation may not have been realistic in sense that we rarely need to continuously listen to + repeat a msg
✅task tested by dichotic listening represents everyday situation of trying to follow one source of info, e.g. a convo, while ignoring distracting noise
✅use of everyday materials (light fiction) + individuals own name make task realistic, raising ecological validity

Question 16

Evaluate the reliability

Answer 16

✅controlling variables e.g. vol raised reliability + standardised procedures, allowing replication
❌some diffs in pps’ experiences arose e.g. only some heard + responded to ‘change ear’ instruction, so ‘shadowed’ passage unintentionally became ‘rejected msg’

Question 17

Evaluate the sampling bias

Answer 17

✅sampling method may be non-representative, but no reason to suppose students + research workers differ from general pop on for selective attention skills
✅sample of both male + female pps, good as poss there’s a gender diff in selective attention

Question 18

Evaluate the ethnocentrism

Answer 18

❌poss that in diff langs, words may be processed in diff ways, so conclusions could be considered ethnocentric
❌findings of Ke (1992) and Tabri et al (2010) on diffs between langs imply wider generalisations of results may not be valid

Question 19

Evaluate the practical applications

Answer 19

❌despite findings suggesting own names can overcome attentional blockade, it’s only partial, only some pps noticed it, so cannot generalise that people ‘always hear own name when not paying attention’, can only say they ‘often’ do
✅high validity + reliability provides strong scientific foundation, so study’s been used for research into process that we can selectively attend to some inputs + the nature of stimuli that can overcome attentional block
✅has led to useful research into areas e.g. driver safety (L+P), + also using directional attention to one’s own name as test of consciousness in long-term coma patients (Cheng et al 2013)