Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Moray - Coggle Diagram
Moray
experiment 3
aim
this experiment wanted to find out if pre-warning would help neutral material break the inattentional barrier
-
-
-
-
procedure
-
-
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)
results
there was no significant difference between the groups in how many digits they were able to recall from the rejected passage
conclusion
warnings do not help neutral information break the inattentional barrier. The information must be meaningful in order to do this
experiment 2
-
-
IV
whether an instruction within a rejected passage:
- was preceded by the participant's name (i.e. it was affective)
- was not preceded by the participant's name (i,e. it was non-affective
DV
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
this was operationalised by whether they reported hearing the instruction or whether they actually followed the instruction
procedure
-
6 passages that the participant heard contained an instruction at the start and then another instruction within them
both passages were read in a steady monotone at a pace of about 130 words per minute by a single male voice
-
conclusions
affective messages (such as names) are able to break the inattentional barrier. This backs up the previous work by Cherry.
led to a 3rd experiment because Moray was interested whether pre-warning would help break the inattentional barrier
experiment 1
-
procedure
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 they weren't 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.
results
word list
- 7 words from the shadowed passage
- 7 words from the rejected passage
- similar words that did not appear in either passage
-
conclusions
Participants are much more able to recognise words from the shadowed passage. Almost none of the words from the rejected messages broke the inattentional barrier
overall conclusions
almost none of the verbal content from a rejected message penetrates a block when attending to another message
-
-
it is difficult to make 'neutral' material (e.g. digits) important enough to break the inattentional barrier
background
Attention is a limited resource. When our attention is focused on certain things a 'barrier' is put up that stops us from focusing on their thing.
Cherry was interested in how people put upon an intentional 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 can be broken only by the sound of your name.
-
-
-
reliability
internal reliability.
standardised procedures such as passages used, pace, and voice of speaker
external reliability
sample sizes very small (unknown, 12 and 28 split into two groups of 14)
validity
internal validity
Controlled (e.g. passages used, pace, and voice of speaker, recognition task in experiment) but results may have been down to understanding of the passages, hearing ability etc and not attention
external validity
-
ecological validity
realistic to hear multiple conversations at once but not isolated, wearing headphones and tested afterwards
-