SEARCH
You are in browse mode. You must login to use MEMORY

   Log in to start

level: Simons and Chabris (C)

Questions and Answers List

level questions: Simons and Chabris (C)

QuestionAnswer
Aim- To build on previous research into divided visual attention - To investigate inattention blindness for complex objects and events in dynamic scenes
What is inattentional blindness- The failure to see an event or object in your field of vision because you are focused on other element of what you can see
Who conducted the previous research on inattentional blindness whereby a video based dynamic event was used? (background)- Neisser
How did Neisser test inattentional blindness?- Recorded video of basketball players passing a ball between them - During this a women walked across carrying an umbrella - dynamic event - Only 6/28 observers noticed her
What are computer based dynamic displays?- P's were asked to judge line lengths that made up crosses and data was collected on whether P's would miss 'unexpected events' such as a smiley face
What are video based dynamic events?- Known as 'selective looking', research investigated inattentional blindness using a more realistic event (a basketball match between 6 players) which were superimposed on each other and data was collected on whether P's would notice a woman walking through the match with an umbrella
Research method- Lab experiment using an independent measures design
IVs1. The Transparent/Umbrella Woman condition 2. The Transparent/Gorilla condition 3. The Opaque/Umbrella Woman condition 4. The Opaque Gorilla condition. - For each of the four displays there were four task conditions: (i) White/Easy (ii) White/Hard (iii) Black/Easy (iv) Black/Hard - Overall there were 16 conditions
DVs- No. participants in each of the 16 conditions who noticed the unexpected event (Umbrella Woman or Gorilla)
Materials- 4 video tapes, 75 secs, 2 teams of three players, one dressed in white t shirts and one in black t shirts - After 44-48 seconds of action either of two unexpected events occurred - There were two styles of video: transparent and opaque
Sample- 228 participants, undergraduate students - Volunteered, paid - 36 participants were discarded
Procedure- After viewing the video, asked to write down the number of passes - Did you notice anything unusual in the video? - Did you notice anything other than the six players? - Did you see a gorilla/woman carrying an umbrella?
Key findings- 54% noticed the unexpected event - Opaque condition (67%), Transparent condition (42%) - Easy (64%), Hard (45%)
Main conclusions- Individuals have inattentional blindness for dynamic events - Individuals are more likely to notice unexpected events if these events are visually similar to the events they are paying attention to
Evaluate the research method used- Controlled lab experiment - High design validity, as extraneous variables are highly controlled - However, participants may have been affected by demand characteristics
Evaluate the data collected- Quantitative data - Easily summarised + can compared - Statistically analysed, easily repeated in order to establish reliability
Ethical issues- The study was conducted within the ethical guidelines
Validity- Highly controlled lab experiment, high design validity - Knew they were in a study, demand characteristics - The findings of this study were concurrently valid with both the computer based studies and Neisser's earlier umbrella women video
Ecologically validity- Not ecologically valid as responding to a filmed task is competently different as focusing in a real life setting
Reliability- High internal reliability, standardised, laboratory experiment, replicated - Establishes test-retest reliability
Evaluate the sample used- Large sample, allowed to establish trends - Cheaply and quick - Narrow age gap and narrow socio-economic background, not representative
Discuss the sampling method and sampling biases- Volunteered, some received payment others no - Self selected, convenient, time + cost effective, open to volunteer bias which may limit generalisability
Ethnocentricism- Cognitive processes such as inattentional bias depend upon the physiognomy of our brain - Not ethnocentric as they are not investigating a specific behaviour - Findings may only represent highly educated uni students
Individual vs situational debate- The overall inattentional blindness was 46%, more than half of the saw unexpected event and did not experience inattentional blindness - This suggest individual differences in attention
Free will vs determinism debate- Our cognitive processes determine what see, no conscious control over that - You have the free will to focus attention on what we want
Psychology as science- Used a controlled lab experiment and fulfilled scientific criteria
Link to the cognitive area- It investigates the negative process of attention, specifically selective attention - Seeing if an unexpected event can be missed
Link to the key theme- Visual selective attention - It confirms inattentive blindness in dynamic events
Similarities- Highly controlled lab experiments - Uni students - Selective attention - Ethical studies - Quantitative data
DifferencesMoray - Investigating auditory inattention - Smaller sample - Used a modified taper recorder. Simons and chabris - Investigating visual inattention - Larger sample - Used sophisticated video technology
How does the study of Simon and Chabris improve our understanding of attention?- Attention, we process info around us - Selective attention, paying more attention to certain pieces of info - S + C study proves that we don’t always notice all of the info around us - We can miss events that we aren’t paying attention to
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY- S + C see how individuals process stimulus in their environment differently, individual differences - This extends the classic research into auditory info to visual info - Some individuals are more likely to be affected by inattentional blindness than others
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? SOCIAL DIVERSITY- Both utilise students for their sample and therefore may not be generalisable
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? CULTURAL DIVERSITY- S + C Harvard uni students only applies to American culture, Moray applies to English culture - However, other studies are not included in either study which limits their representativeness