classic study of dichotic listening and affective cues
What was Moray's background part 1?
selective attention occurs when someone is presented with two or more simultaneous messages and are instructed to selectively attend to one (process it) and reject the other
Broadbent found that in the aviation industry, awareness of the importance of air traffic controllers being able to selectively attend to important messages from pilots whilst rejecting others to avoid the likelihood of error and catastrophe.
What was Moray's background part 2?
3. Cherry researched dichotic listening tasks related to the Cocktail Party Phenomenon. Participants heard two messages one in each ear, and ps had to shadow one to repeat out loud, and reject the other, setting up an attentional block
4. Moray replicated Cherry's work, further look at what and how much info could penetrate the attentional block set up to be remembered from the rejected message as C found very little is remembered overall
What was Moray's aim?
investigate amount of information recognised in the rejected message, the affect of having one's own name in the unattended message, the affect of instructions to identify a specific target in the rejected message
Describe Moray's sample
male and female research workers and undergraduates,12 in exp 2 and two groups of 14 in exp 3
What was Moray's research method?
A lab experiment with repeated measures in exp 1 (listen to shadowed and rejected message simultaneously), repeated measures in exp 2 (experience either affective, non-affective cues or no instructions) and 3 (whether or not they were given instructions).
What materials did Moray use?
Brenell Mark IVstereophonic tape recorder fitted with two amplifiers with one output in each earpiece of a pair of headphones, volume matched within 1 dcb of 60 dcbs above the ps hearing threshold. The male speaker spoke at approx 150 words a minute
What was the procedure of Experiment 1?
A list of simple words was repeated 35 times in one ear (rejected), and a piece of light fiction was played (and shadowed) in the other ear. Ps were told to report all remembered content from the rejected message. P then after 30 seconds given recognition test using similar material not present in the list or fiction (control).
What was the procedure of experiment 2?
Ps listened to 10 passages, each a dichotic listening task. There were three conditions; affective instructions where cue was the p's own name given alongside instructions e.g. "John Smith, you may stop now", non-affective instructions which don't begin with their name "Alright, you may stop now", or no instruction given at all. The passages with cues contained an instruction at the start and within it, told to listen to right ear.
What was the procedure of experiment 3?
Dichotic listening task to see if instructions given at start to listen out for digits would make a difference and break a block, some were told to listen out for digits and others were not.
What were the results of experiment 1?
Mean number of words recognised: 4.9/7 in shadowed message vs 1.9/7 from rejected message, supports Cherry
What were the conclusions of experiment 1?
When directing attention to reception of one message and rejecting message from other ear, almost none of content from rejected message can penetrate the block set up.
What were the findings from experiment 2?
Ps deemed to have heard/followed instruction if they have reported hearing it or followed instruction and changed ear. Affective 20/39, non-affective 4/36.
What were the conclusions from experiment 2?
A person's name acts as an affective cue to break the block in the rejected message, when ps given warning at start of passage to expect instructions, there was sight increase in the mean frequency in which they heard instructions in rejected message, pre-warning meant ps more likely to hear rejected message
What were the results of experiment 3?
No significant differences in the mean scores of digits recalled between two conditions.
What were the conclusions of experiment 3?
Even when ps primed to remember digits, numbers (unlike names) weren't important enough to break through the 'block' of rejected message.
What were the overall conclusions?
When ps direct attention to reception of message from one ear and reject message from another, none of the content of the rejected message is able to penetrate the block. A short list of words in the rejected message shows no trace of being remembered. Important messages e.g. own name can penetrate block-p will hear instructions if name is part of rejected message. It's very difficult to make 'neutral' material important enough to break through the block set up in dichotic shadowing.
What is job enrichment?
Giving employees greater responsibility and recognition