Simons and Chabris (1999)

Question 1

Background of the study

Answer 1

-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

Question 2

Aims of the study

Answer 2

-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

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

-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

Question 4

Procedure

Answer 4

-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

Question 5

What were the four independent variables?

Answer 5

-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

Question 6

What was the easy task?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

What was the hard task?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

What were the overall findings?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What were the findings for the type of video?

Answer 9

-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

Question 10

What were the findings for how unusual the event was?

Answer 10

-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

Question 11

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

Answer 11

-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

Question 12

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

Answer 12

-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

Question 13

What was the overall conclusion for the study?

Answer 13

-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

Question 14

External validity of the study

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Population validity of the study

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Links to usefulness debate

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Links to holism

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Links to determinism

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Similarity between the two studies

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Similarity between the two studies

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Difference between the two studies

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Difference between the two studies

Answer 22

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

Question 23

How the study has changed our understanding of attention

Answer 23

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

Question 24

How the study hasn’t changed our understanding of attention

Answer 24

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

Question 25

How it hasn’t changed our understanding of individual diversity

Answer 25

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

Question 26

How it hasn’t changed our understanding of social diversity

Answer 26

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

Question 27

How it has changed our understanding of cultural diversity

Answer 27

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

Question 28

How it hasn’t changed our understanding of cultural diversity

Answer 28

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