Cognitive Study - Simons and Chabris

Question 1

What is inattentional blindness?

Answer 1

The failure to see an event or object in your field of vision because you are focused on other elements

Question 2

What does sustained mean?

Answer 2

Lasts multiple seconds but still unnoticed

Question 3

What two types of research does Simons and Chabris refer to?

Answer 3

Computer based dynamic and video based dynamic

Question 4

Why did Neisser’s task lack ecological validity?

Answer 4

The people in the video were practically transparent so it lacks ecological validity

Question 5

How/why was Neisser’s task an example of sustained inattentional blindness?

Answer 5

The women that walked across lasted a few seconds (but still unnoticed) making it sustained

Question 6

What were the aims or hypothesis?

Answer 6

To confirm that inattentive blindness occurs in a realistic complex situation and they wanted to go further than the earlier research by testing a number of variables including would the event have an effect on inattentional blindness? Would an unusual event be more likely to be detected? Etc.

Question 7

What was the research method?

Answer 7

Lab experiment

Question 8

What was the IV?

Answer 8

Instructions or videos given

Question 9

What was the DV?

Answer 9

If they saw the unexpected event

Question 10

What were the controls?

Answer 10

Always had same actors, unexpected event always happened, same location, lasted 75 seconds, 2 players in white/black t-shirt, passed the ball (1-2,2-3,3-1), between 44 and r8 seconds the unexpected event began, the event lasted 5 seconds

Question 11

What was the experimental design?

Answer 11

Independent measures

Question 12

What was the sample?

Answer 12

228 participants - mainly undergraduate students from Harvard Uni

Question 13

What rewards did the participants get for taking part?

Answer 13

Some volunteered for free, some for a large candy bar and others got a payment for taking part in this and another study

Question 14

What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: opaque or transparent?

Answer 14

Opaque - 66.5% compared to 41.6%

Question 15

What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: white T-shirts or black T-shirt?

Answer 15

Black - 67% compared to white 8%

Question 16

What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: difficult task or easy task?

Answer 16

Easy - 63.5% compared to difficult 44.6%

Question 17

What condition was participants most likely see the unexpected event: showing the gorilla or the lady with the umbrella?

Answer 17

Lady with umbrella - 65.5% compared to 42.6%

Question 18

Were participants tested individually or in groups?

Answer 18

Individually

Question 19

What instructions were participants given before viewing the clip?

Answer 19

Count the number of passes for one team

Question 20

Whilst watching the video, how did participants keep score of the passes?

Answer 20

They kept score by making mental notes

Question 21

How did they score the passes after the video was finished?

Answer 21

On paper / questionnaire

Question 22

What 3 questions could participants be asked?

Answer 22

‘While you were counting, did you notice anything unusual in the video?’
‘Did you notice anything other than the 6 players?’
‘Did you see a gorilla/woman carrying umbrella walking across the screen?’

Question 23

If participants answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, what were they instructed to do?

Answer 23

They were asked for more detail

Question 24

What happened to the questions if the participants mentioned the unexpected event at any point?

Answer 24

They were not asked the later questions

Question 25

How did the researcher stick to ethical guidelines at the end of the procedure?

Answer 25

They were given a full debrief and were able to watch the video again

Question 26

What was the overall level of inattention blindness?

Answer 26

46%

Question 27

What percentage of the participants did see the unexpected event?

Answer 27

54%

Question 28

What conclusions do Simons and Chabris draw?

Answer 28

Inattentional blindness occurs in dynamic events that are sustained
This is not simply the result of a transparent video - as seen in opaque condition too
‘There is no conscious perception without attention’

Question 29

What ethical guidelines were upheld?

Answer 29

Debrief, confidentiality, consent, harm

Question 30

What ethical guidelines were broken?

Answer 30

Informed consent, deception, harm

Question 31

Points for internal reliability

Answer 31

It was a video (or set of 4 videos) that could easily be played to people individually

Question 32

Point for external reliability?

Answer 32

Sample of 228 should be large enough but data was only analysed from 192 participants
Across 16 conditions they were left with 12 participants per conditions (suspicion?)

Question 33

Point for internal (construct) validity

Answer 33

If they had heard of Neisser’s research, they could have affected them

Question 34

Points for External (population) validity

Answer 34

They were all students. Assuming they were young adults, they may have better eyesight that older adults (affecting observance)

Question 35

Point for external (ecological) validity

Answer 35

It may be correct that the opaque video was more try to life than the Neisser style transparent video
However, counting basketball passes is more ecologically valid

Question 36

Is this study applicable only to the culture in which the research was carried out, or could the findings apply elsewhere?

Answer 36

Cognitive processes outght to work in the same way anywhere as they relate to the physiognomy of the brain (how it works) and this ought to not change from culture to culture