Simons & Chabris (1999) Flashcards

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

(Simons & Chabris) Define the term ‘inattentional blindness’.

A

When you fail to see something because you’re paying attention to something else.

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

(Simons & Chabris) Background: Explain Neisser’s research.

A

Participants watched a video of 2 basketball teams (3 players on each team) and being asked to count the number of passes made to each other.

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

(Simons & Chabris) Background: What were the results of Neisser’s research.

A

22/28 participants failed to see a woman carrying an umbrella walk across the screen even though this event lasted 4 seconds of the video (this is called sustained inattentional blindness).

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

(Simons & Chabris) What are the aims of this study?

A

To investigate whether the transparency of a video (like in Neisser’s research) affected attention.
To investigate the effects of the nature of the unexpected event, what participants were told to focus on and the difficulty of the task given.

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

(Simons & Chabris) Describe the sample of this study.

A

228 participants - most were undergraduate students from Harvard University (USA).
The data from 36 participants was removed for a range of reasons leaving 192 participants within the data analysis (12 per condition).

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

(Simons & Chabris) Describe the procedure of this study.

A

Individually, each participant was shown a 75 second video clip and asked questions on what they had seen.

There were 16 conditions of the experiment with participants only taking part in one condition.

The 16 conditions were based around the 4 independent variables.

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

(Simons & Chabris) What are the 4 independent variables?

A

Video appearance
The event
Similarity of task
Difficulty of task

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

(Simons & Chabris) Explain the independent variable ‘video appearance’.

A

Whether the video was transparent or opaque.

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

(Simons & Chabris) Explain the independent variable ‘the event’.

A

Whether the video included a woman carrying an umbrella or a gorilla.

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

(Simons & Chabris) Explain the independent variable ‘similarity of task’.

A

Whether they were asked to count the number of passes made by the white or black team.

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

(Simons & Chabris) Explain the independent variable ‘difficulty of task’.

A

Whether they were asked to count the number of passes or the number of bounce and aerial passes.

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

(Simons & Chabris) What was the dependent variable?

A

Whether the participant reported seeing the unexpected event or not.

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

(Simons & Chabris) What are the overall results?

A

46% level of inattentional blindness.

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

(Simons & Chabris) What are the result for ‘video appearance’?

A

Opaque: Overall 66.5% saw the unexpected event.

Transparent: Overall 41.6% saw the unexpected event.

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

(Simons & Chabris) What are the result for ‘the event’?

A

Woman with umbrella: Overall 65.5% saw the unexpected event

Gorilla: Overall 42.6% saw the unexpected event.

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

(Simons & Chabris) What are the result for ‘similarity of task’?

A

Black Team: 67% saw the unexpected event.

White Team: 8% saw the unexpected event.

17
Q

(Simons & Chabris) What are the result for ‘difficulty of task’?

A

Easy: Overall 63.5% saw the unexpected event.

Difficult: Overall 44.6% saw the unexpected event.

18
Q

(Simons & Chabris) Explain the conclusion of this study.

A

The study shows how paying attention to one task may result in people failing to see an unexpected event nearly half of the time (even when it is right in front of them and lasts for a sustained period of time).
This provides further evidence for sustained inattentional blindness.

19
Q

(Simons & Chabris) Evaluate the sample regarding external reliability.

A
20
Q

(Simons & Chabris) Evaluate the sample regarding population validity.

A

The sample size overall (228) is large enough to establish a consistent effect but the number in each condition (12) is not large enough.

21
Q

(Simons & Chabris)

A

The sample was mainly students from Harvard so not very generalisable to other groups (e.g older individuals may have lower attention levels).

22
Q

(Simons & Chabris) Evaluate how this study links to the debate of ‘usefulness’.

A

Can be used as evidence why we should NOT use phones or any device while we are driving.

23
Q

(Simons & Chabris) Evaluate how this study links to the debate of ‘holism’.

A

Investigated multiple factors influencing attention such as task difficulty, task similarity, video transparency and the unexpected event itself.

24
Q

(Simons & Chabris) Evaluate how this study links to the debate of ‘determinism’.

A

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

25
Q

(Simons & Chabris) How is this study similar to ‘Moray’? (4)

A

Both included deception
Both were lab experiments
Both had students within their sample
Both had small samples for the conditions

26
Q

(Simons & Chabris) How is this study different to ‘Moray’? (3)

A

Different experimental designs (repeated vs independent)
Different types of attention being studied (auditory vs visual)
Different countries studied (UK vs USA)

27
Q

(Simons & Chabris) How HAS this study changed our understanding of attention? (2)

A

It tells us about a new type of attention (visual vs auditory)
It tells us about how you might miss something rather than notice it

28
Q

(Simons & Chabris) How HASN’T this study changed our understanding of attention? (1)

A

Tells us the same thing in that if we are focused on one thing we are likely to miss something else

29
Q

(Simons & Chabris) How has/hasn’t this study changed our understanding of diversity, regarding individual diversity?

A

HASN’T: Both showed individual differences in attention but did not investigate why this was the case.

30
Q

(Simons & Chabris) How has/hasn’t this study changed our understanding of diversity, regarding social diversity?

A

HASN’T: Both were carried out on similar types of people (Oxford/Harvard students).

31
Q

(Simons & Chabris) How has/hasn’t this study changed our understanding of diversity, regarding cultural diversity?

A

HAS: S+C investigated attention in the US rather than the UK

HASN’T: Both found similar results so shows there seems to be no cultural differences