Moray (1959): Attention in dichotic listening

Question 1

What is shadowing?

Answer 1

Repeating a message as its heard

Question 2

What is Cherry’s cocktail party phenomenon?

Answer 2

Cherry found that no matter how deep in conversation you are, if someone mentions your name in another conversation, this would draw your attention.

Question 3

Background of the study

Answer 3

Cherry’s (1953) method of ‘shadowing’ one of two dichotic messages for his study of attention, found participants were ignorant of the rejected message.
Other researchers moved on from Cherry by investigating why so little was remembered from the rejected message.

Question 4

Materials used in the study

Answer 4

Brenell Mark IV stereophonic tape recorder modified with two amplifiers to give two independent outputs.
Matching for loudness was approximate, by asking participants when the two messages sounded equally loud.

Question 5

Sample

Answer 5

Undergraduates and consisted of both sexes
E1: Unsure
E2: 12 participants
E3: Two groups of 14 participants

Question 6

Control measures

Answer 6

Before each experiment the participants were given passages of prose to shadow for practice. All passages throughout the study were recorded by one male speaker.

Question 7

Research methods of each experiment

Answer 7

E1: RMD

E2 & 3: IMD

Question 8

Aim of experiment 1

Answer 8

To test Cherry’s findings more rigorously

Question 9

IV and DV of E1

Answer 9

IV:
1. The dichotic listening test
2. The recognition test
DV: The number of words recognised correctly in the rejected message

Question 10

Procedure of E1

Answer 10

A short list of words was repeated into one ear, whilst they shadowed a prose message in the other ear.

• It was a 21 list of words repeated 35 times
• Participants were then asked to report as much as they could remember from the rejected message
• The recognition test used similar materials, neither used in the list or passage as a control.
• The gap between the end of shadowing and the recognition test was 30 secs

Question 11

Results of E1

Answer 11

Words presented in shadowed message= 4.9/7 words remembered
Words in rejected message=1.9/7 words remembered
Words presented in recognition test= 2.6/7 words remembered

Question 12

Conclusions of E1

Answer 12

• No trace of material from the rejected message being recognised.
• The difference between the new material and that from the shadowed message was significant at 1%
• Findings support those found by Cherry (`1953)

Question 13

Aim of E2

Answer 13

To investigate whether an affective cue would break the inattentional barrier

Question 14

IV and DV of E2

Answer 14

IV: Whether or not instructions were prefixed by the participant’s own name
DV: Number of affective instructions

Question 15

Procedure of E2

Answer 15

• This experiment was conducted to find out the limits of the efficiency of the attentional block
• Participants shadowed ten short passages of light fiction
• They were told that their response would be recorded and that they had to try and make as few as mistakes as possible
• In some passages the names of participants were included, but in two instances the participants were not aware of it
• In half of the cases with the instructions these were prefixed by the participants own name
• The passages were read in a steady monotone voice at about 130 words per minute
• The participant’s responses were tape-recorded and later analysed

Question 16

Result of E2

Answer 16

• The mean number of instructions heard when presented in the rejected message was calculated, and the difference between the ‘names’ and ‘no names’ was significant: t=3.05
• Only 4 out of 20 occasions in which ‘names’ instructions were heard by participants actually make a change to the other message

Question 17

Conclusion of E2

Answer 17

Most participants ignored the instructions that they were presented in the passages they were shadowing, and said they thought this was to distract.

Question 18

Aim of E3

Answer 18

To see whether instructions prior to the task help break the inattentional

Question 19

IV and DV of E3

Answer 19

IV:

1. Whether digits were inserted into both messages or only one
2. Whether participants had to answer questions about the shadowed message at the end of each passage or whether participants had to merely remember all the numbers they could

DV: The number of digits remembered correctly

Question 20

Procedure of E3

Answer 20

• Two groups of 14 participants shadowed one of two simultaneous dichotic messages
• In some messages digits were inserted towards the end of the message. They were sometimes present in both or only one message. The position of the numbers varied and controls with no numbers were inserted.
• One group of participants was told that it would be asked questions about the content of the rejected message, after it ended. The other group was specifically instructed to remember all the numbers that it could

Question 21

Results of E3

Answer 21

The difference between the mean number of digits reported under the two conditions analysed and submitted a t test. In none of the cases, whether the score was the mean number of digits spoken during shadowing, nor in he number reported or the sum of the two was the difference significant even at the 5% level of confidence

Question 22

Overall Conclusions

Answer 22

• If a participant has their attention on one thing, nothing is remembered from the rejected message.
• The short list of simple words were not remembered, no matter how many times it was repeated
• ‘Important’ messages, such as a person’s own name could penetrate through the block; thus a person will hear instructions if they are presented with their own name in the rejected message
• It is difficult to make ‘neutral’ material important enough to break through the block set up in dichotic shadowing