Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > Simon & Chabris > Flashcards

Simon & Chabris Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

key theme

A

attention (visual attention)

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

change blindness

A

refers to surprising difficulty observers have in noticing large changes to visual scenes- failure to detect that an object has moved/gone

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

inattentional blindness

A

when we are attentive to another object or task we often fail to notice an unexpected object even if it appears at the point of fixation.

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

previous research by Neisser et al

A

a method was created that would test inattentional blindness using a video recording where 2 teams of basketball players appeared, each team passed a ball from one player to next, ps would be instructed to watch either team in white or team in black, and press a key each time a pass was seen (focussed their attention) Approx 30 secs into video an ‘unexpected event’ happened in form of a woman carrying an open umbrella walking across screen. (appeared for 4 seconds)

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

Findings of Neisser’s research

A

out of 28 ps, 6 reported seeing the umbrella lady and 22 did NOT see her.
(evidence for inattentional blindness)
A group of ps that just watched the video (without basketball players) spotted umbrella woman 100% of time.

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

problems with Neisser’s research

A

Isn’t generalisable to everyday real-life experiences-unrealistic because of way it was recorded. 2 basketball teams separately recorded and transposed onto each other. Umbrella woman was separately recorded and superimposed.
This meant video was ‘transparent’ -made unexpected event even harder to see (would not be case in realistic setting)
Findings from lab studies of inattentional blindness LACK ecological validity.

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

Aim of Simon & Chabris study

A

Using Neisser’s video-based method as a model, Simon & Chabris aimed to confirm that inattentional blindness occurs in a realistic, complex situation, a video recording of events, and that this is sustained; that is, the unexpected event lasts for 5 secs or more but is nonetheless unnoticed by observers (Ps).

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

Additionally, the study sought to identify the effect of a number of variables on the rate of inattentional blindness: variable 1=

A

1- Neisser;s work included versions of video where umbrella woman wore either white or black, but findings suggested that similarity of unexpected event to event being focused on did NOT mean she was noticed more. Simon & Chabris wanted to investigate further and aimed to see if similarity of unexpected event to attended event would have an effect on inattentional blindness.

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

effects on rate of inattentional blindness: variable 2=

A

2- the study aimed to find out whether events that are particularly unusual are more likely to be detected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

effects on rate of inattentional blindness: variable 3=

A

3- The level of difficulty of the task was also to be tested- would a more difficult task increase the rate of inattentional blindness?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

effects on rate of inattentional blindness: variable 4=

A

4-Finally, study aimed to investigate the effect of the unusual superimposition and ‘transparency’ of characters in the video used by Neisser; would a more realistic video give similar or different findings?

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

DV

A

did they see the unexpected event? (gorilla)

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

Participants

A

228 ps- referred to as ‘observers’
-almost ALL undergraduate students.
-each ps either volunteered without compensation/ received large candy bar for participating/ or were paid a single fee for participating in larger testing session including another unrelated experiment.
-Researchers were based at Harvard University.

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

36 ps were discarded, why?

A

Either lost count of passes or had seen the study before. So results were used from 192 participants.
(equally distributed across the 16 conditions)

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

experimental design

A

lab experiment, independent measures design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

4 independent variables ( 4 videos )

A

1- transparent / umbrella woman
2- transparent / gorilla
3- opaque (natural, realistic) / umbrella
4- opaque / gorilla

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

for each of the 4 displays there were 4 task conditions:

A

1- white/easy
2-white/hard
3-black/easy
4-black/hard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

how many individual conditons overall?

A

16

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Dependent variable

A

The number of ps in each of the 16 conditions who NOTICED the unexpected event (umbrella woman or gorilla)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Materials - 4 video tapes were created

A

-same actors, same day, same location
-each video 75 seconds long
-each video showed 2 teams of 3 players, one white shirt team, one black shirt team
-players moved around in relatively random fashion, in open area in front of 3 lift doors.
-members of each team passed orange basketball to each other in standardised order; player 1 to player 2 to player 3 to player 1 etc…
-Passes were either bounce or aerial (thrown)players would also dribble the ball, wave arms and do other movements.
-After 44-48 secs f action either of 2 unexpected events occured: umbrella woman condition= TALL woman with open umbrella walked from left to right .
Gorilla condition= SHORTER woman in gorilla costume that fully covered her body walked left to right.
(in both cases event lasted 5 seconds and players continued their actions during & after unexpected event)

21
Q

There were 2 styles of video:

A

1-Transparent condition (similar to Neisser) the white team, black team and unexpected event were all filmed separate and all 3 videos were superimposed onto each other in a way that each character was transparent.
2- Opaque condition ( more realistic ) After rehearsal to avoid collision and make events look natural, all 7 actors (2 teams of 3 players and either umbrella woman or gorilla) were recorded at the same time.

22
Q

how many experimenters?

A

21

23
Q

procedure was…

A

scripted and standardised

24
Q

ps were tested individually and gave…

A

informed consent in advance

25
Q

before viewing video tape pas were told…

A

they would be watching 2 teams of 3 players passing basketballs and that they should pay attention to either the team in white (white condition) or team in black (black condition)

26
Q

easy condition

A

ps were told to keep a silent mental count of total number of passes made by attended team

27
Q

hard condition

A

ps were told to keep a separate silent mental count of number of bounce passes and aerial passes (throws) made by attended team

28
Q

after viewing video tape and performing monitoring task…

A

ps were immediately asked to write down their counts on paper

29
Q

Ps were then asked the following 3 additional questions…

A

1- while you were counting did you notice anything unusual in the video?
2-did you notice anything other than the 6 players?
3-did you see a gorilla/woman carrying an umbrella walk across the screen?

30
Q

If ps answered ‘yes’ to any of the questions…

A

they were asked to provide details of what they noticed, if ps mentioned unexpected event at any point the remaining questions were skipped.

31
Q

After questioning ps were asked if they’d previously participated in similar experiment, heard of or heard of general phenomenon- if ‘yes’…

A

then they were replaced and their data was discarded.

32
Q

ps were debriefed…

A

this included replaying video upon request

33
Q

how long did each testing session last?

A

5-10 minutes

34
Q

after discarding to 192 ps left, how many ps in each of the 16 conditions?

A

12 per condition

35
Q

results easy task, transparent

A

transparent condition, umbrella:
white team= 58% noticed
black team=92% noticed
transparent condition gorilla:
white team= 8% noticed
black team= 67% noticed

36
Q

results easy task, opaque

A

opaque, umbrella:
white team=100% noticed
black team= 58% noticed
opaque, gorilla:
white team= 42% noticed
black team= 83% noticed

37
Q

results hard task, transparent

A

umbrella:
white= 33% noticed
black= 42% noticed
gorilla:
white=8% noticed
black= 25% noticed

38
Q

results hard task, opaque

A

umbrella:
white= 83% noticed
black= 58% noticed
gorilla:
white= 50% noticed
black= 58% noticed

39
Q

out of all 192 ps…

A

54% noticed unexpected event, 46% failed to notice

40
Q

more ps noticed the unexpected event in which condition?

A

opaque condition

41
Q

how many noticed in the transparent condition?

A

42%

42
Q

how many noticed in the opaque condition?

A

67%

43
Q

how many failed to report the event in the opaque condition? (despite good visibility & repeated questions)

A

33%

44
Q

more ps noticed event in easy condition…

A

64%

45
Q

how many noticed in hard condition?

A

45%

46
Q

umbrella woman was noticed MORE often than gorilla overall regardless of the video, task or attended team…

A

65% compared to 44%

47
Q

gorilla was noticed more by ps who attended BLACK team than those that attended white…

A

black 58%
white 27%
(per condition)

48
Q

there was little difference between those attending black and those attending white in noticing umbrella woman

A

black 62%
white 66%
(per condition)

49
Q

conclusions:

A

-individuals have a sustained (Lasting over 5s) inattentional blindness for dynamic events & fail to notice an ongoing & highly salient but unexpected event if engaged in a monitoring task.
-level of inattentional blindness depends on difficulty of primary task
-ps more likely to notice if they are visually similar to event they’re paying attention to
-objects can pass through spatial extent of attentional focus (and fovea) and still not be seen if they aren’t specifically being attended to.
-there is NO conscious perception without attention.

Psychology (32 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions