Moray Flashcards
key theme
attention
(a cognitive process)
Colin Cherry
noted however deep a convo is at a party if your name is mentioned by someone in a diff convo, this would get ur attention.
why did Moray want to test Colin Cherry?
to see if hearing own name would break ‘barriers’ put up in process of focusing attention during shadowing a task.
Dichotic listening tasks
present 2 diff auditory stimuli into diff ears via headphones
Shadowing
Cherry (1953) devised this method to study attention in listening.
Ps listen dichotically to 2 stimuli , usually spoken words or text and are instructed to listen to one of stimuli and repeat out loud as listening.
Focusing attention on task to be shadowed (attended task) whilst blocking the ‘rejected’ task.
Aim of Experiment 1
To test Cherry’s original results more vigorously
Aim of Experiment 2
To see if some kinds of messages (e.g your name) break the attentional block to rejected ear.
Aim of experiment 3
To see if expectations set might affect the way the message to the rejected ear is processed.
Sample
undergrad students & research workers
(both M and F)
Moray does not provide sample size for 1st experiment.
12 ps in experiment 2
2 groups of 14ps in experiment 3 (28ps)
procedure
3 lab experiments.
All were dichotic listening tasks requiring ps to shadow one message whilst 2 messages played, one each ear.
We set up a block when our attention is on one selected message.
Moray was interested in type of message that would break this block.
Common apparatus for the 3 experiments
-Messages were recorded onto tape in same male voice- approx 150 words per minute.
-Loudness matched to earpiece by asking ps to say when they seemed equal volume.
-2 messages always played through headphones directing separate message each ear.
-before each experiment ps had 4 practice prose passages to shadow
experiment 1
ps heard short list simple words repeated 35x in unattended ear whilst shadowing a prose message in attended ear.
At end of shadowing ps were asked to recall they could remember of rejected msg.
Approx 30s after the completion of task ps were given recognition task of 21 words- 7 of these were in rejected msg, 7 were similar words but not present in either passage. (control condition)
experiment 1 IV:
there was 3 conditions of the IV-
shadowed message,
rejected message,
control message.
experiment 1 DV:
measured in 2 ways-
ps asked to recall all they could remember from rejected msg
and were given a recognition task after.
results of experiment 1
Mean number of words recognised—
7 words taken from shadowed msg: 4.9
7 words taken from ‘rejected’ msg: 1.9
7 similar words not appeared: 2.6
Could ps recall words from unattended msg?
NO- despite it being repeated 35 times during unattended.
Mean recognition rate much lower than shadowed message, even lower than for words NOT present in either list.
Discussion
Moray concluded; in a situation when a ps directs their attention to the reception of a message from one ear and rejects a message from other ear-
almost NONE of verbal content of REJECTED message is able to break block set up.
Experiment 2
Moray reports there is anecdotal evidence that the block built up by shadowing one msg that enables other msg to be rejected can be broken down if the material in rejected msg is IMPORTANT TO THE LISTENERS.
what did the 2nd experiment aim to test?
Whether an affective cue (strong meaning to the ps) would penetrate the ‘block’ and be attended to.
how many ps in experiment 2?
12 ps
what was the affective cue?
the ps name, given alongside instructions
e.g ps may hear;
“John Smith, change to your other ear”
The affective cue alongside instruction were compared with ‘non-affective instructions’ :
Non affective instructions did NOT start with ps name.
e.g “Change to your other ear”
Experiment 2 procedure
ps shadowed 10 short passages of light fiction(each being different condition having a different set of instruction either at start or within passage or both)
In ALL cases passages began with an instruction to ps to listen to their RIGHT ear.
In 2 cases( passage VIII & passage X) this initial instruction was immediately followed by a WARNING that ps would receive instructions to CHANGE EARS.
Ps were told their responses would be recorded and that the objective was ‘to try score as few mistakes as possible’ (DECEPTION)
The instructions that were contained within the passage took 3 forms
-3 contained AFFECTIVE instructions (Ps own name prefixed the instruction) passages: III & VII & X
-3 contained NON AFFECTIVE instructions (ps name NOT mentioned) passages I & V & VIII
-In 4 cases there were NO INSTRUCTIONS within passages. (passages II & IV & VI & IX)
affective cues (3)
start of passage; “ listen to your right ear”
end of passage; “John Smith, you may stop now”
start; “listen to your right ear”
end; “John Smith, change to your other ear”
start; “Listen to your right ear, you will receive instructions to change ears”
end; “John Smith, change to your other ear”
non affective cues (3)
start of passage; “Listen to your right ear”
end of passage; “All right, you may stop now”
start; “Listen to your right ear”
end; “Change to your other ear”
start; “Listen to your right ear: You will receive instructions to change ears”
end; “Change to your other ear”
Control (4)
start of passage; “Listen to your right ear”
end of passage; No instruction
(4 passages)
Repeated measures
All ps heard all 10 passages
Results of experiment 2
1) AFFECTIVE instructions (preceded by name) no of times presented= 39
no of times heard= 20
2) NON-AFFECTIVE instruction (no name said)
no of times presented=36
number of times heard=4
did ps name break the block on rejected message?
YES- this supports claim that a person will hear instructions if they are presented with their own name.
Experiment 3
Moray noted that when ps were given warning at start of passage to expect instructions to change ears there was slight increase in mean frequency which they heard instruction in rejected msg.
This led Moray to think this may mean being given a pre-warning of instructions before shadowing a task might mean a ps is more likley to hear material in rejected msg.
EXPERIMENT 3 TESTS THIS THEORY.
Sample of experiment 3
2 groups of 14ps
Procedure of experiment 3
they were asked to shadow 1 of 2 simultaneous dichotic msgs.
In some msgs numbers were spoken(digits) towards the end of message.
Sometimes numbers were in both msgs, sometimes only in shadowed msg, sometimes only in rejected msg.
Control passages with NO digits were also included.
experimental design of experiment 3
independent measures
IV in experiment 3
1- group one were told they would be asked questions about shadowed message.
2- other group were specifically told to remember as many of digits as possible
DV in experiment 3
The mean number of digits in the msg and the mean number of digits reported were calculated.
Results of experiment 3
There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES between no of digits recalled by either of the groups.
what does no significant differences suggest?
This suggests neutral material does NOT become important enough to break through cognitive ‘barrier’ even when expectations were increased by telling some ps they had to recall all details.
Conclusions
1- in a situation where a subject directs attention to reception of a msg from one ear and rejects msg from other, almost none of verbal content of rejected ear can break block set up.
2- a short list of simple words presented as rejected message shows NO trace of being remembered even when presented many times.
3- subjectively ‘important’ msgs like own ps name can break block, thus a person will hear instructions if presented with own name as part of rejected msg.
4- its very difficult to make neutral material important enough to break block. (e.g digits)
