Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Moray > Flashcards

Moray Flashcards

1
Q

Background (Attention)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Background (Previous Research)

A
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Key Terms

Cocktail Party Effect

A

The concept originally suggested by Cherry in which we would hear it when our own name is said within a crowded room

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Key Terms

Dichotic Listening

A

When headphones are worn by a participant and a different message is played to each ear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Key Terms

Shadowing

A

When a participant is told to focus on a passage of text and repeat it out loud as they hear it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Key Terms

Affective Instructions

A

When a person is asked to do something, preceded by their name being said

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Key Terms

Non-affective Instructions

A

When a person is asked to do something, but their name is not used

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Overall Aim

A

To test Cherry’s findings on the inattentional barrier more thoroughly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Apparatus

A
  • Brenell Mark IV stereophonic tape recorder
  • Headphones
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Experiment 1

Sample

A
  • Undergraduate students
  • Male and female
  • From Oxford University
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Experiment 1

Procedure

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Experiment 1

Results

A

Average words /7 recognised from each passage:
* Shadowed - 4.9
* Rejected - 1.9
* Neither - 2.6

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Experiment 1

Conclusions

A

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’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Experiment 2

Aim

A

This experiment wanted to find out if an affective cue (their name) would break the inattentional barrier

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Experiment 2

Sample

A
  • 12 Participants
  • Undergraduate students
  • Male and female
  • From Oxford University
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Experiment 2

Independent Variable

A
  • Affective Instructions
  • Non-affective Instructions
17
Q

Experiment 2

Dependent Variable

A

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)

18
Q

Experiment 2

Procedure

A
  1. Passages - Participants heard 10 passages of light fiction including both affective and non-affective instructions (repeated measures)
  2. Instructions - Participants were told to either change ear or to stop. They were told to make as few errors as possible
  3. Order - The instructions were at the start and/or the end of the passage
  4. Controls - Passages were ready at a steady monotone with a pace or 130 words per minute by a single male voice
19
Q

Experiment 2

Results

A

Times participants followed affective or non-affective instructions:
* Affective - 20/39
* Non-affective - 4/36

20
Q

Experiment 2

Conclusions

A

Affective messages (such as names) are able to break the ‘inattentional barrier’. This backs up the previous work by Cherry

21
Q

Experiment 3

Aim

A

This experiment wanted to find out if pre-warning would help neutral material break the inattentional barrier

22
Q

Experiment 3

Sample

A
  • 28 Participants
  • Undergraduate students
  • Male and female
  • From Oxford University
  • Split into 2 groups of 14
23
Q

Experiment 3

Independent Variable

A
  • Warning - Participants were told they should memorise as many digits they heard as possible
  • No warning - Participants were told they’d be asked questions at the end about the shadowed passage
24
Q

Experiment 3

Dependent Variable

A

How many digits the participants were able to recall from the rejected message

25
Q

Experiment 3

Procedure

A
  • 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)
26
Q

Experiment 3

Results

A

There was no significant difference between the groups in how many digits they were able to recall from the rejected passage

27
Q

Experiment 3

Conclusion

A

Warnings do not help neutral information break the inattentional barrier. The information must be meaningful in order to do this

28
Q

Overall Conclusions

A
  1. Almost none of the verbal content from a rejected message penetrates a block when attending to another message
  2. ‘Important’ messages like names can penetrate the barrier
  3. A short list of simple words cannot be remembered even when repeated several times
  4. It is difficult to make ‘neutral’ material (e.g. digits) important enough to break the inattentional barrier
29
Q

Ethical Guidelines Kept

A
  • Deception - Students had some the tasks clearly explained prior to participation
  • Protection from Harm - No real stress to the tasks themselves
  • Debrief - Most participants were debriefed
  • Consent - Participants signed up and gave consent.
  • Confidentiality - No names used or private information
30
Q

Ethical Guidelines Broken

A

Deception
* One group not told about digits in experiment 3
* The participants are told to make as few errors as possible

31
Q

Ethnocentrism

A
  • Ethnocentric as only conducted in one culture (U.K)
  • Perhaps not ethnocentric as attention is universal, it is a mental process and we all have the same brain process
32
Q

Reliability

A
  • Internal (HIGH) - Standardised procedures such as passages used, pace and voice of speaker, recognition task in experiment 1 etc.
  • External (LOW) - Sample sizes very small (unknown, 12 and 28 split into two groups of 14)
33
Q

Validity

A
  • Internal/Construct (HIGH/LOW) - 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 (LOW/HIGH) - All students BUT both males and females
  • Ecological (HIGH/LOW) - Realistic to hear multiple conversations at once BUT not isolated, wearing headphones and tested afterwards

Psychology (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions