Simons and Chabris Flashcards
What year was this study done
1999
What’s inattentional blindness
when you fail to see something because your paying attention to something else
What happened in Neissers study in 1970s
Participants watched videos of basketball teams and counted no of passes.
22/28 failed to see a women with an umbrella walk across screen.
3 vids were overlayed - transparent effect
Aims
Investigate wether transparency of vid affects attention
Investigate effects of nature of unexpected event, what told to focus on and difficulty of task
Sample
228 undergrad students
36 removed
192 remained (12 per condition)
Procedure
75 sec video and asked questions
16 conditions based on 4 IVs
independent measures
what we’re the 4 IVs
- vid appearance (transparent/opaque)
- event (woman & umbrella/gorilla)
- similarity of task (count white/black team)
- difficulty (no of passes/no of bounce and aerial passes)
What was the DV
if participants reported the unexpected event or not
results
overall 46% level of inattentional blindness
opaque 66.5%/transparent 41.6%
woman 65.5%/gorilla 42.6%
black 67%/white8%
easy 63.5%/difficult 44.6%
conclusions
Paying attention to one task may result in people failing to see an unexpected event nearly half the time
Provides evidence for sustained inattentional blindness
Which was more likely to see the unexpected event - opaque or transparent
opaque - easier to see and clearer
which was noticed more out of gorilla and woman
woman - more likely to notice something usual
which team when focused on was more likely to see gorilla
black - similar to what focusing on
easy or hard task more likely to see event?
easy - wont focus so much
sample size (external reliability)
228 is large so can establish consistent effect but 12 per condition isn’t enough
population validity
all Harvard students so isn’t generalisable
link to usefulness
can be used to aid attention of students by altering tasks and stimuli
link to holism
looks at multiple reasons attention can be broken - task difficulty/similarity…
link to determinism
attention was determined by task and video presented to them
similarity between classic and contemporary studies (sample)
both has students in sample
-Moray used oxford uni
-S&C used mostly harvard
similarity between classic and contemporary studies (deception)
both included deception
-Moray didn’t tell about aim of rejected passage
-S&C weren’t told about unusual event
difference between classic and contemporary studies (design)
different exp designs
-Moray repeated measures
-S&C independent groups
difference between classic and contemporary studies (attention)
different types of attention
-Moray audible
-S&C visual
How has this study changed our understanding of attention
-tells us about new type of attention
-tells us how you might miss something rather than notice it
how has this study not changed our understanding of attention
tells us the same thing in that if we are focused on one thing we are likely to miss something else
how has this study not changed our understanding of individual diversity
both studies showed individual differences in attention but didn’t investigate why this was the case
how has this study not changed our understanding of social diversity
both studies were carried out on similar types of people
how has this study changed our understanding of cultural diversity
S&C investigated attention in US rather than UK
how has this study not changed our understanding of cultural diversity
both studies found similar results so shows there seems to be no difference
