Simons and Chabris

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

Build on previous research by Neisser and investigate factors that may affect visual detection rates such as
- task difficulty
- nature of unusual event
- visual similarity of unexpected object and attended one
- superimposed version of the display vs live version

Question 2

Participants

Answer 2

Self selected sample of 228 (mainly) university students from an amercian uni. Final used sample = 196 students split equally across the 16 conditions (some were aw\re of the research so not included) 12 pp took part in a controlled observation.

Question 3

Method, Design, IVs and DVs

Answer 3

lab expt
independent measures design
16 conditions used so 4 IVs could be studies:
1- umbrella woman/gorilla
2- transparent/opaque
3- easy/hard
4- black/white team

Question 4

Materials/ Apparatus

Answer 4

4 video tapes created of 2 teams throwing a basketball. each videotape:
- lasted 75 secs (unexpected event occurred 44-48 secs in, lasting 5 secs)
- 2 teams with 3 players each
- showed players passing a basketball from 1 to 2 to 3 then back to 1.
- transparent = 2 teams of actors are superimposed, opaque = all actors filmed simultaneously.

Question 5

Procedure

Answer 5

1) all tested individually in 1/16 conditions.
2) told to watch black or white team.
3) told to keep count of number of passes in total (easy) or number of bounce and chest passes (hard) of their team.
4) immediately after video, pp told to write down their counts.
5) surprise series of qs afrerwards to see if they saw unexpected event e.g did you notice anything unusual? did you see anything else apart from 6 players? did you see a gorilla/ woman with an umbrella walk through? asked to provide details if yes.
6) asked if they’d been in research similar, if yes then results omitted.
7) debriefed and gave informed consent at beginning.

Question 6

Results

Answer 6

• 54% noticed unexpected event.
• woman noticed more than gorilla (66%)
• unexpected event noticed in opaque more (67%)
• noticed more in easy condition (64%)

Question 7

Conclusions

Answer 7

Observers are less likely to notice unexpected similar event if these events are dissimilar to the events they are paying attention to.
Even when the unexpected object passes through the area of attentional focus in the eye, it may be undetected. This shows that there is no conscious perception without attention.

Question 8

Link to cognitive area

Answer 8

Internal mental processes such as memory, attention and perception are key to understanding behaviour. This links to Simons and Chabris’ study as they look to investigate inattentional blindness to an unexpected event.