Cognitive Study - Simons and Chabris Flashcards
What is inattentional blindness?
The failure to see an event or object in your field of vision because you are focused on other elements
What does sustained mean?
Lasts multiple seconds but still unnoticed
What two types of research does Simons and Chabris refer to?
Computer based dynamic and video based dynamic
Why did Neisser’s task lack ecological validity?
The people in the video were practically transparent so it lacks ecological validity
How/why was Neisser’s task an example of sustained inattentional blindness?
The women that walked across lasted a few seconds (but still unnoticed) making it sustained
What were the aims or hypothesis?
To confirm that inattentive blindness occurs in a realistic complex situation and they wanted to go further than the earlier research by testing a number of variables including would the event have an effect on inattentional blindness? Would an unusual event be more likely to be detected? Etc.
What was the research method?
Lab experiment
What was the IV?
Instructions or videos given
What was the DV?
If they saw the unexpected event
What were the controls?
Always had same actors, unexpected event always happened, same location, lasted 75 seconds, 2 players in white/black t-shirt, passed the ball (1-2,2-3,3-1), between 44 and r8 seconds the unexpected event began, the event lasted 5 seconds
What was the experimental design?
Independent measures
What was the sample?
228 participants - mainly undergraduate students from Harvard Uni
What rewards did the participants get for taking part?
Some volunteered for free, some for a large candy bar and others got a payment for taking part in this and another study
What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: opaque or transparent?
Opaque - 66.5% compared to 41.6%
What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: white T-shirts or black T-shirt?
Black - 67% compared to white 8%
What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: difficult task or easy task?
Easy - 63.5% compared to difficult 44.6%
What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: showing the gorilla or the lady with the umbrella?
Lady with umbrella - 65.5% compared to 42.6%
Were participants tested individually or in groups?
Individually
What instructions were participants given before viewing the clip?
Count the number of passes for one team
Whilst watching the video, how did participants keep score of the passes?
They kept score by making mental notes
How did they score the passes after the video was finished?
On paper / questionnaire
What 3 questions could participants be asked?
‘While you were counting, did you notice anything unusual in the video?’
‘Did you notice anything other than the 6 players?’
‘Did you see a gorilla/woman carrying umbrella walking across the screen?’
If participants answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, what were they instructed to do?
They were asked for more detail
What happened to the questions if the participants mentioned the unexpected event at any point?
They were not asked the later questions
How did the researcher stick to ethical guidelines at the end of the procedure?
They were given a full debrief and were able to watch the video again
What was the overall level of inattention blindness?
46%
What percentage of the participants did see the unexpected event?
54%
What conclusions do Simons and Chabris draw?
Inattentional blindness occurs in dynamic events that are sustained
This is not simply the result of a transparent video - as seen in opaque condition too
‘There is no conscious perception without attention’
What ethical guidelines were upheld?
Debrief, confidentiality, consent, harm
What ethical guidelines were broken?
Informed consent, deception, harm
Points for internal reliability
It was a video (or set of 4 videos) that could easily be played to people individually
Point for external reliability?
Sample of 228 should be large enough but data was only analysed from 192 participants
Across 16 conditions they were left with 12 participants per conditions (suspicion?)
Point for internal (construct) validity
If they had heard of Neisser’s research, they could have affected them
Points for External (population) validity
They were all students. Assuming they were young adults, they may have better eyesight that older adults (affecting observance)
Point for external (ecological) validity
It may be correct that the opaque video was more try to life than the Neisser style transparent video
However, counting basketball passes is more ecologically valid
Is this study applicable only to the culture in which the research was carried out, or could the findings apply elsewhere?
Cognitive processes outght to work in the same way anywhere as they relate to the physiognomy of the brain (how it works) and this ought to not change from culture to culture
