Simon + Chabris

• What to include in background Q

  1. briefly reference Moray + his work into auditory attention
  2. define inattention blindness + how this allows us to study visual attention
  3. briefly describe Mack + Rock's Computer-based dynamic events + how this was intended to be more realistic
  4. briefly describe Neissers Video-based dynamic events + how this was intended to be more realistic
  5. end with how both methods are unrealistic + why + how Simons + Chabris aimed to add to this research by using a more realistic video-based display
• Example background Q

  
• Aim

  
• Research method

  primarily a lab experiment that used an IMD
• IVs

  whether Ps took part in:

  • the transparent/umbrella woman condition
  • the transparent/gorilla condition
  • the opaque/umbrella women condition
  • the opaque gorilla condition
• For each of the 4 displays there were 4 task conditions

  • white/easy
  • white/hard
  • black/easy
  • black/hard

  so overall there were therefore 16 individual conditions
• DV

  the number of Ps in each of the 16 conditions who noticed the unexpected event (umbrella woman or gorilla)
• More on research method

  a controlled observation was subsequently conducted in which Ps watched a different video + had to attend to the White team + engage in the easy monitoring task
• Materials pt1

  
• Materials pt2

  
• Sample

  228 Ps in total + almost all were undergraduate students (the researchers were based at Harvard Uni). they were recruited using volunteer sampling. some volunteered w/o payment, while some were offered a large candy bar for participating, or were paid a single fee for participating in this + another, unrelated experiment.

  Data from 36 Ps were discarded so results used were from 192 Ps, these were equally distributed across the 16 conditions.

  For the controlled observation 12 different Ps watched the video in which the gorilla thumped its chest.
• Data from 36 Ps were discarded for the following reasons:

  • they admitted to having heard of inattention blindness and/or the experimental paradigm (n=14)
  • they reported losing count of the passes (n=9)
  • passes were incompletely or inaccurately recorded (n=7)
  • answers couldnt be clearly interpreted (n=5)
  • the Ps total pass count was more than 3 SDs away from the mean of the other Ps in the condition (n=1)
• Results (need to learn)

  out of the 192 Ps across all conditions, 54% noticed the unexpected event + 46% failed to notice the unexpected event. this supports existing research findings, with Ps demonstrating a substantial level of inattention blindness for a dynamic event.

  this also suggests there are indv diffs in inattention blindness
• Findings + conclusions

  
• Procedure pt1

  
• Procedure pt2

  
• What is inattentional blindness

  when attention is diverted to another object or task meaning you can fail to see something in your field of vision
• What is change blindness

  when people don't detect large changes to objects + scenes from one view to the next, particularly if those objects aren't the centre of interest in the scene.
• Usefulness

  
• Evaluation table

  
• Link to key theme

  
• Link to approach

  
• Another example background Q

  
• Example Q

  
• Example Q

  
• Example Q

  
• More on the controlled observation/comparison group

  -12 different Ps watched another clip of gorilla condition (gorilla thumping it's chest)

  -given easy/white task

  -unexpected event lasted longer

  wanted to see whether, if the unexpected event was long, it would impact rates of inattention blindness
• What debates do Simon + Chabris link to

  • holism = looking at multiple situational factors e.g. task difficulty, type of unexpected event etc
  • scientific = control over EVs, manipulation of IV, standardised procedure, replicability
  • determinism = the Ps ability to see the unexpected event (inattention blindness) was predetermined by the task difficulty