Core study five Moray-cognitive area Flashcards
Background
Attention is a limited resource. When our attention is focused on certain things, a ‘barrier’ is put up that stops us from focusing on other things.
Cherry (1953) was interested in how people put up an inattentional barrier at a party with multiple conversations going on.
This is where you only listen to the conversation you’re participating in and not the conversations around you.
The cocktail party effect is when this barrier can be broken only by the sound of your name.
Cocktail party effect
The concept originally suggested by Cherry in which we would hear it when our own name is said within a crowded room
Dichotic listening
When headphones are worn by a participant and a different message is played to each ear
Shadowing
When a participant is told to focus on a passage of text and repeat it out
loud as they hear it
Affective instruction
When a person is asked to do something,
preceded by their name being said
Non-affective instructions
When a person is asked to do something, but their name is not used
Overall Aims (experiment one aim)
To test Cherry’s findings on the intentional barrier more thoroughly.
Experiment one sample
Undergraduate students
Both genders
From Oxford University
Experiment one procedure
Participants had to shadow a piece of prose that they could hear in one ear. This is the attended message because participants were focusing on it.
In the other ear (the message that they were NOT paying attention to) a list of simple words was repeated 35 times. This is the rejected message.
At the end of the task, participants completed a recognition task. Participants had to indicate what they recognised from a list of 21 words (7 from the shadowed passage, 7 from the rejected passage and 7 similar words that were in neither passage).
Results of experiment one
Shadowed passage: Participants recognized on average 4.9/7 words from the shadowed passage
Rejected passage: Participants recognised on average 1.9/7 words from the rejected passage
Similar words: Participants recognised on average 2.6/7 words that were in neither passage
Conclusions of experiment one
Participants are much more able to recognise words from the shadowed passage. Almost none of the words from the rejected message are able to break the ‘inattentional barrier’.
Aim of experiment two
This experiment wanted to find out if an affective cue (their name) would break the inattentional barrier.
Sample of experiment two
12 Undergraduate students
Both genders
From Oxford University
IV of experiment two
Affective instructions- (When a person is asked to do something, preceded by their name being said) or a non-affective- (instruction When a person is asked to do something, but their name is not used.)
DV of experiment two
Whether participants were more likely to hear an instruction in a message they’re not paying attention to if it is preceded by their name. (either by reporting so or following the instruction).
Procedure of experiment two
- Passages- Participants heard 10 passages of light fiction including both affective and non-affective instructions (repeated measures)
- Instructions- Participants were told to either change ear or to stop. They were told to make as few errors as possible.
- Order- The instructions were at the start and/or the end of the passage
- Controls- Passages were ready at a steady monotone with a pace or 130 words per minute by a single male voice
Results of experiment two
Affective instructions- Participants heard/followed the instructions preceded by their name 20/39 times
Non-affective instructions- Participants heard/followed the instructions not preceded by their name 4/36 times
Conclusions of experiment two
Affective messages (such as names) are able to break the ‘inattentional barrier’. This backs up the previous work by Cherry.
Reflections from experiment two
Warning-Participants were given a warning in passages 8 and 10.
Effect- There was a slight increase in how many times the rejected message instruction was heard.
Interested- Moray was interested whether pre-warning could help break the inattentional barrier
Aim of experiment three
This experiment wanted to find out if pre-warning would help neutral material break the inattentional barrier.
Sample of experiment three
28 Undergraduate students
Both genders
From Oxford University
Split into 2 groups of 14
Independent variable of experiment three
Warning (Participants were told they should memorise as many digits they heard as possible.) or no warning (Participants were told they’d be asked questions at the end about the shadowed passage.)
Dependent Variable of experiment three
How many digits the participants were able to recall from the rejected message.
Experiment three procedure
Participants were asked to shadow one message
The messages sometimes contained digits towards the end
The digits were sometimes only in the shadowed passage, sometimes only in the rejected passage, sometimes in both and sometimes there were no digits (control)
Results of experiment three
There was no significant difference between the groups in how many digits they were able to recall from the rejected passage.
Conclusions of experiment three
Warnings do not help neutral information break the inattentional barrier. The information must be meaningful in order to do this.
Overall conclusions
Almost none of the verbal content from a rejected message penetrates a block when attending to another message.
‘Important’ messages like names can penetrate the barrier.
A short list of simple words cannot be remembered even when repeated several times.
It is difficult to make ‘neutral’ material (e.g. digits) important enough to break the inattentional barrier.
Validity
Internal validity or construct validity: Controlled (e.g passages used, pace and voice of speaker, recognition task in experiment 1) BUT results may have been down to understanding of the passages, hearing ability etc and not attention
Population validity: All students from a single area and occupation BUT both males and females
Ecological validity: Realistic to hear multiple conversations at once BUT not isolated, wearing headphones and tested afterwards
Reliability
Internal reliability: The internal reliability is high as a standardised produce was used because the same monotone voice (male) at the same pace. They shadowed the same passage this means that the produce was standardised as consistent across all participants.
External reliability: The study had low external reliability because there was a small number of participant’s in experiment one and two there was twelve participants and in experiment three it was fourteen people per condition. The sample was too small to establish consistent effects could be a fluke.
Ethics
Informed consent: Students had the tasks clearly explained prior to participation, they knew the aim was to break the intentional barrier.
No psychological harm: No real stress to the tasks themselves, all they had to do was read a passage which does not cause high level of stress
The participants were kept confidential: the names were not reaved in experiments two all we know is that they were oxford undergratudes.
Deception was broken in experiment three as the control group as they were not told about the questions on the digits as they were informed the questions would only be on the shadowed passage.
Ethnocentrism
It could be seen as ethnocentric because it was only done in the UK which a western culture and attention could be different in other cultures which we cannot assume.
It could not be seen ethnocentric because of the ability to process bit of information is universal due to attention being a limited rescore.
What area does Moray link to
Moray’s study falls within the cognitive area because it is investigating the cognitive process of attention. Specifically it aimed to investigate selective attention by trying to find out whether (and what types of) ‘unattended’ material could break through the attentional barrier that is set up when a person focuses their listening on a spefic task.
