Simons and Chabris (1999) Flashcards
(28 cards)
Background of the study
-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
Aims of the study
-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
Sample
-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
Procedure
-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
What were the four independent variables?
-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
What was the easy task?
To count the number of passes made by ‘their’ team
What was the hard task?
To keep two separate counts of the aerial passes and bounce passes made by ‘their’ team
What were the overall findings?
-54% of the time participants noticed the unexpected event
-46% of the time participants failed to see the unexpected event
What were the findings for the type of video?
-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
What were the findings for how unusual the event was?
-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
What were the findings for the similarity of the unexpected event to the attended event?
-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
What were the findings for the level of difficulty of the task?
-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
What was the overall conclusion for the study?
-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
External validity of the study
-Overall sample (228) large enough to establish a consistent effect
-Only 12 in each condition, so not large enough to establish a consistent effect
Population validity of the study
-Mainly Harvard students, so not easily generalisable
-Eg-to older people, people with a lower education level, people from outside America
Links to usefulness debate
Can be used to show phones shouldn’t be used when driving, as we can only focus on one task at a time
Links to holism
-Investigated multiple factors influencing attention
-Such as: task difficulty, task similarity, video transparency, and the unexpected event
Links to determinism
The attention of the participants was determined by the task and video presented to them
Similarity between the two studies
-Both have students in their study
-Moray-unknown, 12, 28 from Oxford
-S&C-228 from Harvard
Similarity between the two studies
-Both lab experiments
-Moray-had the listening device set up
-S&C-created videos for the participants
-Outside of natural setting
Difference between the two studies
-They used different experimental designs
-Moray-repeated measures, ex2 had passages with and without their names
-S&C-used independent measures with 16 groups
Difference between the two studies
-Studied different types of attention
-Moray-auditory attention
-S&C-visual attention
How the study has changed our understanding of attention
-Tells us about visual vs auditory attention
-It tells us how you’d miss something rather than notice it
How the study hasn’t changed our understanding of attention
-Tells us the same thing
-If we are focused on one thing, we are likely to miss something else
