Moray (classic study) Flashcards
What is attention
Attention is the ability to select specific information and reject unnecessary information we are constantly bombarded with
Cherry’s theory of attention
There are channels of attention:
1) attended channel we focus on
2) Unattended channel of information we reject, barriers are put up called inattentional barrier
Background of this study: Cherry’s research
Cherry wanted to research what could penetrate in attentional barrier and so he created a dichroic listening task where he found that many didn’t notice details of rejected message but certain cues could (ie name) theorised cocktail party effect
Cocktail party effect
Hearing an affective cue (your name) can break inattentional barrier in place against rejected message
Moray’s aim of the study
To test Cherry’s findings using a dichotic listening task to see if the cognitive process of switching ‘channels’ (rejected or attended) is accurate after hearing an affective cue
What is a dichotic listening task?
Playing 2 different passages into different ears
Where participant is asked to ‘shadow’ a certain ear (attended channel)
Other ear is rejected
3 main experiments that took place
Experiment 1 = recognise words from rejected channel
Experiment 2 = recognise name from rejected channel
Experiment 3 = recognise numbers from rejected channel
What was the wanted message in all experiments that participants would shadow?
A light piece of fiction
What is shadowing?
Reading the passage aloud as it is being heard
How were the messages standardised?
The loudness was 60db above participants hearing threshold for all messages
150 words/min (at same pace)
Same male speaker
Apparatus of all experiments
A stereophonic tape recorder modified to give 2 independent outputs to each ear
Headphones with dichotic listening task
Experiment 1 set up
The shadowed wanted message = in right ear with a piece of light fiction
The rejected message = a short list of words repeated 35 times in left ear
What happened in experiment 1 immediately after participants shadowed the wanted message?
Completed a survey 30s after which had 21 words total:
7 from shadowed message
7 from rejected message word list
7 words similar to in shadowed message but not in either (control)
Why was the control list of 7 words set up in experiment 1
Because it was to identify that participants had rejected words from unwanted message and identified words from wanted message rather than guessing
Mena number of words identified in experiment 1from shadowed passage
4.9 out of 7
Mean number of words identified in experiment 1 from rejected passage
1.9 out of 7
Mean number of words identified in experiment 1 from neither passage/control
2.6 put of 7
Sample used in experiment 1
Unknown number of students from Oxford University
Conclusion from experiment 1
Despite words being repeated in unwanted message, participants recalled no words from it so in a situation where participants directs attention away from wanted channel, almost no information penetrates inattentional barrier set up
Aim of experiment 2
To see if an affective instruction is strong enough to penetrate the inattentional barrier put up to rejected message
What is an affective instruction?
An instruction telling participants to do something with their name in it
Sample of experiment 2
12 participants from Oxford University (students)
What was the set up in experiment 2?
A piece of light fiction in right ear as the shadowed passage
In the rejected message, there is a piece of light fiction with instruction embedded in the middle
Both contained instruction at start to look out for instructions in the middle
How many trials did participants go through in experiment 2?
10 because each instruction in middle of rejected passage contained a different instruction to see which participants picked up on
List of instructions in experiment 2
3 contained an affective instruction (began with name)
3 contained a non affective instruction
4 had no instruction
Results for experiment 2
20/39 participants heard affective instruction
4/36 participants heard non affective instruction
Conclusion for experiment 2
A person will hear an instruction which can break the barrier put up if it is affective (has name)
Why did experiment 3 take place?
Because participants were given a warning to receive instructions in middle of the passage, so did it make affective due more powerful? Can you make a neutral cue become affective?
Experiment 3 aim
To see whether numbers ( a neutral cue) were important enough to break inattentional barrier and be heard if given a pre warning to look out for numbers
Experiment 3 set up
Light fiction in shadowed passage (wanted channel)
Light fiction in rejected channel with numbers dispersed throughout it
Experiment 3 sample
14 students from Oxford uni
Split into 2 groups of 7
Independent variable of experiment 3
The manipulation of instructions told to each group of participants:
One group told to look out for numbers
Other group told to recall shadowed passage after
Dependent variable in experiment 3
Number of numbers recounted from rejected passage as a result of being told different instructions
results of experiment 3
No difference in mean score of digits recalled between either group
Conclusion of experiment 3
Numbers are not significant enough compared to your name to break inattentional barrier
Final overall conclusions about diverting attention
When a person has 2 channels (1 rejected and diverted attention away, 1 attended to) none of the info of rejected message can penetrate the block
Final overall conclusion about recalling repeated words from rejected passage
Not recalled in rejected message even if repeated
Final overall conclusion about affective instruction
Your name is a powerful enough affective cue to break inattentional barrier
Final overall conclusion about making a neutral cue important
It is very difficult or even impossible to make an affective cue important enough to penetrate block on rejected message
