Cog: Simon & Chabris - Inattentional Blindness

Question 1

Outline the aim

Answer 1

• investigate influence of:
  1) effects of superimposition compared to live events within video recording
  2) task difficulty
  3) usualness of the unexpected event had impact on detection rates
  On inattentional blindness

Question 2

Outline the general method

Answer 2

• lab experiment

- independent measures design (pps took part in 1/16 conditions)

Question 3

Outline the participants

Answer 3

• 228 pps
• recruited using volunteer sampling
• most were undergrads
• offered reward of a candy bar or a single fee

Question 4

Outline the design and procedure

Answer 4

• IV had 3 conditions: 1) two unexpected events appearing 44-48 secs into videos (woman in gorilla costume + umbrella woman). 2) two styles of video (transparent + opaque). 3) team colours the pps were asked to follow,
  4) pps asked to count no. of passes made (easy) or no. of bounce + aerial passes made (hard) - level of difficulty
• four 75 second video clips created by researchers, where each showed two teams of 3 players (one team of white, one black) moving randomly + passing two orange basketballs to their team
• pps tested individually by 21 researchers whilst watching videos on a TV monitor
• instructions given via standardised script + procedure
• pps asked to write down their count passes + answer 4 surprise Qs (see notes) after watching vid
• pps then debriefed + given opportunity to rewatch vid

Question 5

Outline the results

Answer 5

• some data discarded, so remaining 192 pps distributed equally across 16 conditions of 2x2x2x2 design (12 per condition)
• 54% noticed unexpected event, 46% did not
• pps more likely to notice unexpected event in opaque (67%) condition that transparent (42%)
• more pps noticed unexpected event in easy (64%) condition than hard (45%)
• see notes for more results
• see notes for table of % of pps who noticed unexpected event in each condition

Question 6

Outline the conclusions

Answer 6

Overall, approx half observers fail to detect an ongoing unusual + unexpected event while engaged in a diff task of visual attention

1) inattentional blindness occurs more frequently in cases of superimposition rather than live action
2) inattentional blindness is more likely when primary task is hard
3) observer more likely to notice unexpected events of visually similar to event they’re paying attention to
4) objects can pass through spatial area of attentional focus + still not be ‘seen’ if not being specifically attended to

Question 7

Evaluate the research method

Answer 7

✅a no. of controls put in place to manage influence of extraneous variables e.g. timings of presentation of video were identical for each pp

Question 8

Evaluate the data

Answer 8

✅quant collected in form of ‘yes/no’ responses to Qs after video
❌method + data type produces simplistic data
✅calculating % who noticed unexpected event allows direct comparison of a no. of conditions

Question 9

Evaluate the ethical considerations

Answer 9

✅few ethical issues, each pps consent obtained prior to study
❌design of exp required that pps were not fully aware of task, so informed consent issue
✅video + questioning = v unlikely to cause distress
✅pps fully debriefed after completing exp
❌possibly frustrating when discovering they did not see unexpected event

Question 10

Evaluate the validity

Answer 10

❌low ecological validity as pps completed attention task watching a vid, in a controlled situation. Real life would actually have a no. of other environmental distractions
❌task of counting ball passes doesn’t reflect typical visual attention tasks
✅surprising events do happen in real life, so use of gorilla / umbrella woman are not aspects w/ low ecological validity
✅findings of study consistent w/ previous research, increasing likelihood we can generalise findings to other situations

Question 11

Evaluate the reliability

Answer 11

❌large no. of researchers conducting individual trials, potentially introducing reliability issues
✅standardised script used to consistently brief + question pps, controlling for reliability issues
❌21 diff experimenters, so a range of diff sizes of tv screens used (13-16 inches), poss creating inconsistencies

Question 12

Evaluate the sampling bias

Answer 12

❌volunteer sample of mainly undergrads, so poss diff to generalise, as likely they were young people who could be more vigilant than average
✅researchers controlled for variables e.g. knowledge of phenomenon being investigated, removing some bias

Question 13

Evaluate the ethnocentrism

Answer 13

❌findings possibly ethnocentric as pps all selected by student experimenters at Iowa state uni

Question 14

Evaluate the practical applications

Answer 14

✅useful in explaining why we may fail to notice certain events in real-world situations when our attention is focused on a diff goal
✅can also be used to identify situations that may increase likelihood of inattentional blindness e.g. when doing particularly challenging tasks
✅surgery (see book)
✅CCTV (see book)