Simons and Chabris (1999) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Background of the study

A

-S&C were interested in inattentional blindness, when we don’t see something in our field of vision because we are focused on something else
-Originally investigated by Neisser (1970s), discovering sustained inattentional blindness
-Neissers video had a transparent affect to it

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

Aims of the study

A

-Wanted to investigate whether Neisser’s results were affected by his video being transparent
-Investigate how the nature of the unexpected event, task difficulty, and what participants were told to look at affected the results

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

Sample

A

-228 students at Harvard university in the USA
-36 of these students not used, due to various reasons
-So 16 groups of 12 people, each group assigned to a condition

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

Procedure

A

-Each participant watched a 75 second video, based on their condition
-Asked questions on what they had seen
-Were in one of 16 conditions based on the manipulation of four independent variables

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

What were the four independent variables?

A

-The video appeared either opaque or transparent
-The unexpected event was either a woman holding an umbrella or a gorilla
-Participants told to count the passes of the team in white, or the team in black
-Participants told to do either an easy task or a hard task

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

What was the easy task?

A

To count the number of passes made by ‘their’ team

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

What was the hard task?

A

To keep two separate counts of the aerial passes and bounce passes made by ‘their’ team

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

What were the overall findings?

A

-54% of the time participants noticed the unexpected event
-46% of the time participants failed to see the unexpected event

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

What were the findings for the type of video?

A

-Saw the unexpected event 66.5% of the time in the opaque video
-Saw the unexpected event 41.6% of the time in the transparent video
-As the unexpected event was clearer in the opaque video

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

What were the findings for how unusual the event was?

A

-Saw the woman with the umbrella 65.5% of the time
-Saw the gorilla 42.6% of the time
-As they were more likely to see something that was ‘normal’ or a part of day-to-day life

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

What were the findings for the similarity of the unexpected event to the attended event?

A

-67% saw the gorilla when watching the black team
-8% saw the gorilla when watching the white team
-As those watching the white team ‘blocked out’ anyone wearing black, including the gorilla

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

What were the findings for the level of difficulty of the task?

A

-63.5% of those doing the easy task saw the unexpected event
-44.6% of those doing the difficult task saw the unexpected event
-As it required less attention to do the easy task, so were able to spare attention to see the unexpected event

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

What was the overall conclusion for the study?

A

-Paying attention to a primary task can lead to people not seeing an unexpected event despite it being in their field of vision for an extended period of time
-It provides further evidence for sustained inattentional blindness

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

External validity of the study

A

-Overall sample (228) large enough to establish a consistent effect
-Only 12 in each condition, so not large enough to establish a consistent effect

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

Population validity of the study

A

-Mainly Harvard students, so not easily generalisable
-Eg-to older people, people with a lower education level, people from outside America

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

Links to usefulness debate

A

Can be used to show phones shouldn’t be used when driving, as we can only focus on one task at a time

17
Q

Links to holism

A

-Investigated multiple factors influencing attention
-Such as: task difficulty, task similarity, video transparency, and the unexpected event

18
Q

Links to determinism

A

The attention of the participants was determined by the task and video presented to them

19
Q

Similarity between the two studies

A

-Both have students in their study
-Moray-unknown, 12, 28 from Oxford
-S&C-228 from Harvard

20
Q

Similarity between the two studies

A

-Both lab experiments
-Moray-had the listening device set up
-S&C-created videos for the participants
-Outside of natural setting

21
Q

Difference between the two studies

A

-They used different experimental designs
-Moray-repeated measures, ex2 had passages with and without their names
-S&C-used independent measures with 16 groups

22
Q

Difference between the two studies

A

-Studied different types of attention
-Moray-auditory attention
-S&C-visual attention

23
Q

How the study has changed our understanding of attention

A

-Tells us about visual vs auditory attention
-It tells us how you’d miss something rather than notice it

24
Q

How the study hasn’t changed our understanding of attention

A

-Tells us the same thing
-If we are focused on one thing, we are likely to miss something else

25
Q

How it hasn’t changed our understanding of individual diversity

A

-Both shows individual differences in attention
-But didn’t investigate why this was the case

26
Q

How it hasn’t changed our understanding of social diversity

A

-Both carried out on similar types of people
-Harvard/Oxford students

27
Q

How it has changed our understanding of cultural diversity

A

S&C investigated attention in the US rather than the UK

28
Q

How it hasn’t changed our understanding of cultural diversity

A

Both found similar results, so shows there seems to be no cultural differences