Cognitive - Moray Flashcards
experiment 1 aim
to test Cherry’s findings in more detail
experiment 1 apparatus
modified tape recorder
headphones
male speaker
experiment 1 sample
undergraduate students
Oxford uni
male and female
no sample size
experiment 1 procedure
.participants had shadowed a message (the attended message)
.the other ear had a list of words playing (the rejected message)
.after the messages, participant completed a recognition task of 21 words
.these were split into 3 categories (7 from attended, rejected and neither)
experiment 1 results
mean recognised words (shadowed): 4.9
mean recognised words (rejected): 1.9
mean recognised words (neither): 2.6
experiment 1 conclusions
.Participants much more able to listen to words from the shadowed passage
.rejected passage cant break ‘barrier’ much
experiment 2 aim
to see if someones name will be strong enough to grab someones attention
experiment 2 sample
12 students
Oxford uni
experiment 2 procedure
.Two passages of light fiction were heard - one in each ear
.Some passages contained an instruction at the beginning and then another later
.Both passages were read in a steady tone at around 130 words per minute by a single male voice
.The participant had to shadow one of the passages
.They were told the aim was to make as few errors as possible
experiment 2 IV
.was preceded by participants name (effective)
.was not preceded by participants name (non effective)
experiment 2 DV
Are participants more likely to hear instructions they aren’t paying attention to if it’s preceeded by their name
operationalised by if they reported hearing the instruction or if they followed the instruction
experiment 2 results
instruction presented in rejected x affective instruction = 39
times instruction in rejected message heard x affective instruction = 20
20/39
instruction presented in rejected x non affective instruction = 36
times instruction in rejected message heard x non affective instruction = 4
4/36
experiment 2 conclusions
.participants name did get heard (broke through rejected)
.Person will hear instructions when presented with their own name
experiment 3 sample
2 groups of 14 students
Oxford Uni
experiment 3 design
independent measures
experiment 3 procedure
.2 groups of 14 were asked to shadow 1 of 2 simulataneous dichotic messgaes
.In some, digits were added towards the end
.Sometimes in both, sometimes shadowed, sometimes rejected
.Control passage had none
.One group told they’d answer Q on shadowed
.One group told remember as many digits as possible
experiment 3 results
no difference in mean number of digits recalled between the 2 conditions
experiment 3 conclusion
numbers (unlike own name in ex 2) are not important enough to break trough the ‘block’ of the rejected message
Overall conclusions (4)
.Almost impossible to for rejected message to break through when listening to someone in each ear
.A short list of simple words (in rejected) shows no trace of being remembered even when repeated
.Subjectively important messages (e.g name) can penetrate ‘block’ even as rejected message
.Very difficult to make neutral material important enough to break through ‘block’ set up in dichotic shadowing
Ethics kept
Withdrawal
Protection from harm
Confidentiality
Consent
Ethics Broken
Informed consent
Deception
Debriefing
Ethics Broken
Informed consent
Deception
Debriefing
internally reliable
yes- highly controlled lab experiment
externally reliable
no- small samples (ex1= ?, ex2= 12, ex3= 28)
Population validity
yes- cognitive study - most likely represents species as a whole
no- culture could have an effect, study is ethnocentric
yes- both genders used
ecological validity
no- all other noise blocked out
no- shadowed passage not true to life
yes- often in situations when having a conversation with someone and someone else wants your attention
