Moray

Question 1

Background

Answer 1

Attention is a limited resource. When attention is focussed on certain things a ‘barrier’ is put up, stopping us focus on other things.
Cocktail party effect (Cherry, 1953)- if you were talking to someone at a party you probably wouldn’t listen to people around you. This is an inattentional barrier.
Cherry noticed that the sound of your own name grabs your attention.
She found it interesting that while a place is full of information we can automatically pay attention if someone says our name- even if we weren’t listening to them before.

Question 2

Dichotic listening

Answer 2

Playing different outputs to each ear.

Question 3

Shadowing.

Answer 3

Repeating out loud what they could hear in one ear.

Question 4

Affective instructions

Answer 4

An instruction which is meaningful (e.g. preceded by their name).

Question 5

Aims of research

Answer 5

To test Cherry’s findings more rigorously.

Question 6

Apparatus used

Answer 6

Brenell Mark IV stereophonic tape recorder.

Headphones.

Question 7

Pre-test completed by all participants.

Answer 7

Before each experiment the subjects were given 4 passages of prose to shadow for practice.
These were approximately 60dB with a speech rate of 150 words per minute. They were all spoken by one male.

Question 8

Sample in all three experiments.

Answer 8

1.
Undergraduate students of both genders from Oxford university.

2.
12 undergraduate students from Oxford university of both genders.

3.
28 undergraduate students of both genders from Oxford university split into two groups of 14.

Question 9

Experiment 1 procedure

Answer 9

• The participants had to shadow a piece of prose that they could hear in one ear. This is the attended message because participants were focussed on it.
• In the other ear (the message they weren’t paying attention to) a list of simple words was repeated 35 times. This is the rejected message.
• At the end of the task, the participants completed a recognition task.
• They were given a list of 21 words and asked which ones they recognised.

Question 10

Results of experiment 1 and conclusion

Answer 10

21 words altogether, 7 from each passage.

• mean number of words recognised from shadowed passage: 4.9.
• mean number of words recognised from the rejected message: 1.9.
• mean number of similar words (that appeared in neither passage) recognised: 2.6.

Participants were much more able to recognise words from the shadowed passage. Almost none of the words from the rejected message are able to break the ‘inattentional barrier’.

Question 11

Aim of experiment 2

Answer 11

What could break the inattentional barrier?
The experiment wanted to find out if an affective cue ( a message that is meaningful to the listener e.g. their name) would break the inattentional barrier.

Question 12

IV and DV in experiment 2

Answer 12

IV:
Whether an instruction within a rejected passage:
-was preceded by the participants name ( i.e it was affective).
-was not preceded by the participants name ( I.e. it was non-affective).

DV:
Whether participants were more likely to hear an instruction in a message they’re not paying attention to if it is preceded by their name.
This was operationalised by whether they reported hearing the instruction or whether they actually followed the instruction.

Question 13

Experiment 2 procedure

Answer 13

• Two passages of light fiction were heard: one in one ear; the other in the other ear.
• 6 passages that the participant heard contained an instruction at the start and then another instruction within them.
• Both passages were read in a steady monotone at a pace of about 130 words per minute by a single male voice.

Passage 3, 7 and 10 had affective instructions (included their name).
Passage 1,5 and 8 had the non affective instruction (no name).
The rest has no instruction (control).

-In passage 8 and 10 participants were given warning at the start to expect instructions to change ear. This caused an increase in the mean frequency of who heard instructions in the rejected message.

• they each shadowed 10 passages of light fiction.
• Each participant experienced the same in the same order- repeated measures design.
• they were told the aim was to make as few errors as possible in their shadowing of the passage.

Question 14

Experiment 2 results and conclusion.

Answer 14

• Affective instructions were presented 39 times in the rejected passage- the instruction was heard 20 times.
• Non-affective instructions were presented 36 times in the rejected passage- the instruction was heard 4 times.

-The use of a participants own name broke the inattentional barrier.

Question 15

Aim of experiment 3.

Design of experiment 3

Answer 15

Whether instructions prior to the task help break the inattentional barrier.

Independent measures design.

Question 16

IV and DV of experiment 3.

Answer 16

IV
Instructions given either:
-Told they’d be asked about the shadowed message.
-Told to remember as many of the digits as possible.

DV
-Number of digits heard in rejected message.

Question 17

Experiment 3 procedure

Answer 17

• Once again, participants were presented with a dichotic listening task and had to shadow one of them.
• In these messages, however, spoken numbers (digits) were said out loud towards the end of the message.
• Digits were chosen as these would be fairly neutral (unlike a persons name, they might not be heard anyway).

The digits were:

• Sometimes present in both shadowed message and the rejected message.
• Sometimes present only in the shadowed message.
• Sometimes present only in the rejected message.
• Not present in either message (control).

Question 18

Results and conclusions from experiment 3.

Answer 18

• There was no significant difference between the groups.

- Numbers are unable to break the inattentional barrier in the same way that the participants own name can.

Question 19

Overall conclusions from all 3 experiments.

Answer 19

• Almost none of the verbal content from a rejected message penetrates a block when attending to another message.
• A short list of simple words cannot be remembered even when repeated several times.
• Important messages like names can penetrate the barrier.
• It is difficult to make neutral material (e.g. digits) important enough to break the inattentional barrier.

Question 20

Ethics

Answer 20

Uphold:
Confidentiality however were told what uni they were from
Informed consent
Right to withdraw 
Debriefing 
Deception 

Break:
Protection from harm- cause stress listening to multiple things at once.

Question 21

Internal reliability

Standardised and replicable?

Answer 21

Yes, it was controlled: same male voice, passages, speed.

Highly replicable.

Question 22

External reliability

Sample large enough to suggest consistent effect?

Answer 22

No
1:?
2:12
3:28
Not large enough.
Perhaps can’t suggest a consistent effect.

Question 23

External (population) validity

Were participants representative of the wider population?

Answer 23

Not representative.
These are intelligent or wealthy British people so they might have a better attention.
Late teens to early 20s university students might have higher attention levels than older people.

Question 24

External (ecological) validity.

Resemble real life situations?

Answer 24

Not realistic because the headphones meant there was no background noise.

But it’s realistic to be surrounded by different conversations.

They didn’t see the person and there was no human contact which isn’t realistic.

Question 25

Internal validity

Answer 25

Low demand characteristics and social desirability bias: just saying what they recognise and remember in experiment 1 and 3. In experiment 2 hearing their name is operationalised by whether they follow instructions. However it is self report in 1 and 3