Simon and Chabris

• Background

  Loftus was interested in the fragility of memory - how easily we can forget information

  She was also heavily interested in the validity of eyewitness testimony. She believed stress could influence the memory of the event they had witnessed as well as the way the interview was carried out.
• Aims

  1. To investigate if inattentional blindness would be more likely if the unexpected event was similar to the attended event.
  2. To find out if particularly unusual events are more likely to be seen
  3. Whether participants would have trouble noticing unexpected events when the task given was more difficult.
  4. To investigate the effect of the 'transparent' video and compare if the same level of blindness would occur in an opaque one.
• Sample

  • 228 participants
  • Almost completely undergraduates from Harvard
  • Data from 36 participants was not used.
• Procedure

  • Individually, participants were shown a short clip (75 seconds) and was then asked questions about them
  • There were 16 conditions
• Independent variables

  1. Whether participants are counting the number of passes the black shirt team made or the white shirt team.
  2. Whether the unexpected event was the gorilla or the lady with the umbrella
  3. Whether the task was easy or difficult
  4. Whether the video was transparent or opaque
• Aim one carried out

  • Was the attended event - the amount of passes the team they were observing made
  • Unexpected event - gorilla
  • The White team saw the gorilla 8 times
  • Black team saw the gorilla 67 times
• Aim two carried out

  • Unexpected event - the woman with the umbrella or gorilla
  • Amount of time gorilla was seen: 42.6%
  • Amount of times the woman with the umbrella was seen: 65.5%
• Aim three carried out

  • Participants were asked to count the number of passes the team made (easy task) or to keep two counts of bounce passes/chest passes made (difficult task)
  • Easy tasks: 63.5%
  • Difficult tasks: 44.6%
• Aim four carried out

  • Opaque or transparent condition - like from Neisser
  • Transparent video: 41.6%
  • Opaque video: 66.5%
• Conclusion

  • Overall participants noticed the unexpected event 54% of the time and failed to see the unexpected event 46% of the time