Moray Flashcards
(40 cards)
key theme
attention
(a cognitive process)
Colin Cherry
noted however deep a convo is at a party if your name is mentioned by someone in a diff convo, this would get ur attention.
why did Moray want to test Colin Cherry?
to see if hearing own name would break ‘barriers’ put up in process of focusing attention during shadowing a task.
Dichotic listening tasks
present 2 diff auditory stimuli into diff ears via headphones
Shadowing
Cherry (1953) devised this method to study attention in listening.
Ps listen dichotically to 2 stimuli , usually spoken words or text and are instructed to listen to one of stimuli and repeat out loud as listening.
Focusing attention on task to be shadowed (attended task) whilst blocking the ‘rejected’ task.
Aim of Experiment 1
To test Cherry’s original results more vigorously
Aim of Experiment 2
To see if some kinds of messages (e.g your name) break the attentional block to rejected ear.
Aim of experiment 3
To see if expectations set might affect the way the message to the rejected ear is processed.
Sample
undergrad students & research workers
(both M and F)
Moray does not provide sample size for 1st experiment.
12 ps in experiment 2
2 groups of 14ps in experiment 3 (28ps)
procedure
3 lab experiments.
All were dichotic listening tasks requiring ps to shadow one message whilst 2 messages played, one each ear.
We set up a block when our attention is on one selected message.
Moray was interested in type of message that would break this block.
Common apparatus for the 3 experiments
-Messages were recorded onto tape in same male voice- approx 150 words per minute.
-Loudness matched to earpiece by asking ps to say when they seemed equal volume.
-2 messages always played through headphones directing separate message each ear.
-before each experiment ps had 4 practice prose passages to shadow
experiment 1
ps heard short list simple words repeated 35x in unattended ear whilst shadowing a prose message in attended ear.
At end of shadowing ps were asked to recall they could remember of rejected msg.
Approx 30s after the completion of task ps were given recognition task of 21 words- 7 of these were in rejected msg, 7 were similar words but not present in either passage. (control condition)
experiment 1 IV:
there was 3 conditions of the IV-
shadowed message,
rejected message,
control message.
experiment 1 DV:
measured in 2 ways-
ps asked to recall all they could remember from rejected msg
and were given a recognition task after.
results of experiment 1
Mean number of words recognised—
7 words taken from shadowed msg: 4.9
7 words taken from ‘rejected’ msg: 1.9
7 similar words not appeared: 2.6
Could ps recall words from unattended msg?
NO- despite it being repeated 35 times during unattended.
Mean recognition rate much lower than shadowed message, even lower than for words NOT present in either list.
Discussion
Moray concluded; in a situation when a ps directs their attention to the reception of a message from one ear and rejects a message from other ear-
almost NONE of verbal content of REJECTED message is able to break block set up.
Experiment 2
Moray reports there is anecdotal evidence that the block built up by shadowing one msg that enables other msg to be rejected can be broken down if the material in rejected msg is IMPORTANT TO THE LISTENERS.
what did the 2nd experiment aim to test?
Whether an affective cue (strong meaning to the ps) would penetrate the ‘block’ and be attended to.
how many ps in experiment 2?
12 ps
what was the affective cue?
the ps name, given alongside instructions
e.g ps may hear;
“John Smith, change to your other ear”
The affective cue alongside instruction were compared with ‘non-affective instructions’ :
Non affective instructions did NOT start with ps name.
e.g “Change to your other ear”
Experiment 2 procedure
ps shadowed 10 short passages of light fiction(each being different condition having a different set of instruction either at start or within passage or both)
In ALL cases passages began with an instruction to ps to listen to their RIGHT ear.
In 2 cases( passage VIII & passage X) this initial instruction was immediately followed by a WARNING that ps would receive instructions to CHANGE EARS.
Ps were told their responses would be recorded and that the objective was ‘to try score as few mistakes as possible’ (DECEPTION)
The instructions that were contained within the passage took 3 forms
-3 contained AFFECTIVE instructions (Ps own name prefixed the instruction) passages: III & VII & X
-3 contained NON AFFECTIVE instructions (ps name NOT mentioned) passages I & V & VIII
-In 4 cases there were NO INSTRUCTIONS within passages. (passages II & IV & VI & IX)
