Moray

Question 1

Background (Attention)

Answer 1

Attention is a limited resource. When our attention is focused on certain things, a ‘barrier’ is put up that stops us from focusing on other things

Question 2

Background (Previous Research)

Answer 2

• Cherry (1953) was interested in how people put up an inattentional barrier at a party with multiple conversations going on.
• This is where you only listen to the conversation you’re participating in and not the conversations around you.
• The cocktail party effect is when this barrier can be broken only by the sound of your name.

Question 3

Key Terms

Cocktail Party Effect

Answer 3

The concept originally suggested by Cherry in which we would hear it when our own name is said within a crowded room

Question 4

Key Terms

Dichotic Listening

Answer 4

When headphones are worn by a participant and a different message is played to each ear

Question 5

Key Terms

Shadowing

Answer 5

When a participant is told to focus on a passage of text and repeat it out loud as they hear it

Question 6

Key Terms

Affective Instructions

Answer 6

When a person is asked to do something, preceded by their name being said

Question 7

Key Terms

Non-affective Instructions

Answer 7

When a person is asked to do something, but their name is not used

Question 8

Overall Aim

Answer 8

To test Cherry’s findings on the inattentional barrier more thoroughly

Question 9

Apparatus

Answer 9

• Brenell Mark IV stereophonic tape recorder
• Headphones

Question 10

Experiment 1

Sample

Answer 10

• Undergraduate students
• Male and female
• From Oxford University

Question 11

Experiment 1

Procedure

Answer 11

• Participants had to shadow a piece of prose that they could hear in one ear. This is the attended message because participants were focusing on it
• In the other ear (the message that they were NOT paying attention to) a list of simple words was repeated 35 times. This is the rejected message
• At the end of the task, participants completed a recognition task. Participants had to indicate what they recognised from a list of 21 words (7 from the shadowed passage, 7 from the rejected passage and 7 similar words that were in neither passage)

Question 12

Experiment 1

Results

Answer 12

Average words /7 recognised from each passage:
* Shadowed - 4.9
* Rejected - 1.9
* Neither - 2.6

Question 13

Experiment 1

Conclusions

Answer 13

Participants are 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 14

Experiment 2

Aim

Answer 14

This experiment wanted to find out if an affective cue (their name) would break the inattentional barrier

Question 15

Experiment 2

Sample

Answer 15

• 12 Participants
• Undergraduate students
• Male and female
• From Oxford University

Question 16

Experiment 2

Independent Variable

Answer 16

• Affective Instructions
• Non-affective Instructions

Question 17

Experiment 2

Dependent Variable

Answer 17

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 (either by reporting so or following the instruction)

Question 18

Experiment 2

Procedure

Answer 18

1. Passages - Participants heard 10 passages of light fiction including both affective and non-affective instructions (repeated measures)
2. Instructions - Participants were told to either change ear or to stop. They were told to make as few errors as possible
3. Order - The instructions were at the start and/or the end of the passage
4. Controls - Passages were ready at a steady monotone with a pace or 130 words per minute by a single male voice

Question 19

Experiment 2

Results

Answer 19

Times participants followed affective or non-affective instructions:
* Affective - 20/39
* Non-affective - 4/36

Question 20

Experiment 2

Conclusions

Answer 20

Affective messages (such as names) are able to break the ‘inattentional barrier’. This backs up the previous work by Cherry

Question 21

Experiment 3

Aim

Answer 21

This experiment wanted to find out if pre-warning would help neutral material break the inattentional barrier

Question 22

Experiment 3

Sample

Answer 22

• 28 Participants
• Undergraduate students
• Male and female
• From Oxford University
• Split into 2 groups of 14

Question 23

Experiment 3

Independent Variable

Answer 23

• Warning - Participants were told they should memorise as many digits they heard as possible
• No warning - Participants were told they’d be asked questions at the end about the shadowed passage

Question 24

Experiment 3

Dependent Variable

Answer 24

How many digits the participants were able to recall from the rejected message

Question 25

# Experiment 3 Procedure

Answer 25

* Participants were asked to shadow one message * The messages sometimes contained digits towards the end * The digits were sometimes only in the shadowed passage, sometimes only in the rejected passage, sometimes in both and sometimes there were no digits (control)

Question 26

# Experiment 3 Results

Answer 26

There was no significant difference between the groups in how many digits they were able to recall from the rejected passage

Question 27

# Experiment 3 Conclusion

Answer 27

Warnings do not help neutral information break the inattentional barrier. The information must be meaningful in order to do this

Question 28

Overall Conclusions

Answer 28

1. Almost none of the verbal content from a rejected message penetrates a block when attending to another message 2. ‘Important’ messages like names can penetrate the barrier 3. A short list of simple words cannot be remembered even when repeated several times 4. It is difficult to make ‘neutral’ material (e.g. digits) important enough to break the inattentional barrier

Question 29

Ethical Guidelines Kept

Answer 29

* Deception - Students had some the tasks clearly explained prior to participation * Protection from Harm - No real stress to the tasks themselves * Debrief - Most participants were debriefed * Consent - Participants signed up and gave consent. * Confidentiality - No names used or private information

Question 30

Ethical Guidelines Broken

Answer 30

Deception * One group not told about digits in experiment 3 * The participants are told to make as few errors as possible

Question 31

Ethnocentrism

Answer 31

* Ethnocentric as only conducted in one culture (U.K) * Perhaps not ethnocentric as attention is universal, it is a mental process and we all have the same brain process

Question 32

Reliability

Answer 32

* Internal (HIGH) - Standardised procedures such as passages used, pace and voice of speaker, recognition task in experiment 1 etc. * External (LOW) - Sample sizes very small (unknown, 12 and 28 split into two groups of 14)

Question 33

Validity

Answer 33

* Internal/Construct (HIGH/LOW) - Controlled (e.g passages used, pace and voice of speaker, recognition task in experiment 1) BUT results may have been down to understanding of the passages, hearing ability etc and not attention * Population (LOW/HIGH) - All students BUT both males and females * Ecological (HIGH/LOW) - Realistic to hear multiple conversations at once BUT not isolated, wearing headphones and tested afterwards