| Aim | - To build on previous research into divided visual attention
- To investigate inattention blindness for complex objects and events in dynamic scenes |
| What is inattentional blindness | - The failure to see an event or object in your field of vision because you are focused on other element of what you can see |
| Who conducted the previous research on inattentional blindness whereby a video based dynamic event was used? (background) | - Neisser |
| How did Neisser test inattentional blindness? | - Recorded video of basketball players passing a ball between them
- During this a women walked across carrying an umbrella - dynamic event
- Only 6/28 observers noticed her |
| What are computer based dynamic displays? | - P's were asked to judge line lengths that made up crosses and data was collected on whether P's would miss 'unexpected events' such as a smiley face |
| What are video based dynamic events? | - Known as 'selective looking', research investigated inattentional blindness using a more realistic event (a basketball match between 6 players) which were superimposed on each other and data was collected on whether P's would notice a woman walking through the match with an umbrella |
| Research method | - Lab experiment using an independent measures design |
| IVs | 1. The Transparent/Umbrella Woman condition
2. The Transparent/Gorilla condition
3. The Opaque/Umbrella Woman condition
4. The Opaque Gorilla condition.
- For each of the four displays there were four task conditions:
(i) White/Easy
(ii) White/Hard
(iii) Black/Easy
(iv) Black/Hard
- Overall there were 16 conditions |
| DVs | - No. participants in each of the 16 conditions who noticed the unexpected event (Umbrella Woman or Gorilla) |
| Materials | - 4 video tapes, 75 secs, 2 teams of three players, one dressed in white t shirts and one in black t shirts
- After 44-48 seconds of action either of two unexpected events occurred
- There were two styles of video: transparent and opaque |
| Sample | - 228 participants, undergraduate students
- Volunteered, paid
- 36 participants were discarded |
| Procedure | - After viewing the video, asked to write down the number of passes
- Did you notice anything unusual in the video?
- Did you notice anything other than the six players?
- Did you see a gorilla/woman carrying an umbrella? |
| Key findings | - 54% noticed the unexpected event
- Opaque condition (67%), Transparent condition (42%)
- Easy (64%), Hard (45%) |
| Main conclusions | - Individuals have inattentional blindness for dynamic events
- Individuals are more likely to notice unexpected events if these events are visually similar to the events they are paying attention to |
| Evaluate the research method used | - Controlled lab experiment
- High design validity, as extraneous variables are highly controlled
- However, participants may have been affected by demand characteristics |
| Evaluate the data collected | - Quantitative data
- Easily summarised + can compared
- Statistically analysed, easily repeated in order to establish reliability |
| Ethical issues | - The study was conducted within the ethical guidelines |
| Validity | - Highly controlled lab experiment, high design validity
- Knew they were in a study, demand characteristics
- The findings of this study were concurrently valid with both the computer based studies and Neisser's earlier umbrella women video |
| Ecologically validity | - Not ecologically valid as responding to a filmed task is competently different as focusing in a real life setting |
| Reliability | - High internal reliability, standardised, laboratory experiment, replicated
- Establishes test-retest reliability |
| Evaluate the sample used | - Large sample, allowed to establish trends
- Cheaply and quick
- Narrow age gap and narrow socio-economic background, not representative |
| Discuss the sampling method and sampling biases | - Volunteered, some received payment others no
- Self selected, convenient, time + cost effective, open to volunteer bias which may limit generalisability |
| Ethnocentricism | - Cognitive processes such as inattentional bias depend upon the physiognomy of our brain
- Not ethnocentric as they are not investigating a specific behaviour
- Findings may only represent highly educated uni students |
| Individual vs situational debate | - The overall inattentional blindness was 46%, more than half of the saw unexpected event and did not experience inattentional blindness
- This suggest individual differences in attention |
| Free will vs determinism debate | - Our cognitive processes determine what see, no conscious control over that
- You have the free will to focus attention on what we want |
| Psychology as science | - Used a controlled lab experiment and fulfilled scientific criteria |
| Link to the cognitive area | - It investigates the negative process of attention, specifically selective attention
- Seeing if an unexpected event can be missed |
| Link to the key theme | - Visual selective attention
- It confirms inattentive blindness in dynamic events |
| Similarities | - Highly controlled lab experiments
- Uni students
- Selective attention
- Ethical studies
- Quantitative data |
| Differences | Moray
- Investigating auditory inattention
- Smaller sample
- Used a modified taper recorder.
Simons and chabris
- Investigating visual inattention
- Larger sample
- Used sophisticated video technology |
| How does the study of Simon and Chabris improve our understanding of attention? | - Attention, we process info around us
- Selective attention, paying more attention to certain pieces of info
- S + C study proves that we don’t always notice all of the info around us
- We can miss events that we aren’t paying attention to |
| How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY | - S + C see how individuals process stimulus in their environment differently, individual differences
- This extends the classic research into auditory info to visual info
- Some individuals are more likely to be affected by inattentional blindness than others |
| How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? SOCIAL DIVERSITY | - Both utilise students for their sample and therefore may not be generalisable |
| How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? CULTURAL DIVERSITY | - S + C Harvard uni students only applies to American culture, Moray applies to English culture
- However, other studies are not included in either study which limits their representativeness |
