Moray on Auditory Attention Evaluation

Question 1

lab experiment: strengths

Answer 1

1. high control for extraneous variables- sound and rate of talking levels kept constant

Question 2

lab experiment: weaknesses

Answer 2

1. low ecological validity- control for extraneous variables may not replicate how unpredictable a scenario could be in real life
2. demand characteristics- ptcpts may guess aims of study so act in a certain way so they may pay attention to rejected message

Question 3

quantitative data: strengths

Answer 3

1. easy comparison and analysis of conditions- just numerical values involved
2. findings can be generalised

Question 4

ethical considerations: weakness

Answer 4

informed consent may not have been given as it would have led to demand characteristics

Question 5

ecological validity: strength

Answer 5

high- may be due to events where people may have to listen to one particular conversation on one side over alot of noise on the other, like a party

Question 6

ecological validity: weakness

Answer 6

low- may be due to control for extraneous variables make it unlikely to represent unpredictability of reality

Question 7

validity: strength

Answer 7

good- to a certain extent proved Cherry’s results, but only partially followed through with looking at set expectations effects on breaking through the attentional block

Question 8

reliability: strength

Answer 8

highly standardised procedure with clear set instructions, allowing experiment to be repeated

Question 9

sampling bias: strengths

Answer 9

1. easily accessible sample as the undergraduates were from the same school Moray worked at
2. saves time

Question 10

sampling bias: weakness

Answer 10

1. lack of population validity- undergraduates around same age, from one area, and relatively same class
2. small sample size