TB6 P&C Tutorial; Change Blindness (Fenn et al)

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: mint75
  • Created on: 22-10-15 14:47
View mindmap
  • Fenn et al (2011) Change deafness in a telephone conversation
    • Experiment 1
      • To test whether listeners would detect changes in talker during a normal phone conversation
        • Found that only 1 pp detected the change.
        • In the voice recognition test (15/16 pps), there was no preference for either experimenter voice (60/40%)
        • Results suggest that even whilst actively attending to the message, listeners often fail to detect a change in talker voice.
        • Potentially support the idea that a 'gist'/general memory of voices is encoded.
    • Experiment 2
      • To test memory for a voice encountered in the conversation compared to a novel voice
        • Testing whether experiment 1  results were due to chance. (If pps had no general memory of either voice they should NOT be able to discriminate between the heard and novel voice).
          • The results suggest that the pps DID encode/retain some general information about the heard voice, enough to significantly distinguish from the novel voice.
            • These findings are also consistent with change blindness research which states that both voices will be encoded but change will NOT be automatically detected.
        • Found that only 1/24 pps noticed the voice change.
        • In the voice test, 74% of pps who did not notice the change manage to correctly identify the the experimenter rather than the novel voice
    • Experiment 3
      • To test whether pps could detect the change in voice after a warning that 50% of pps will have 2 talkers, even though 100% actually did.
        • Testing the role of expectation on change deafness
        • Found that 75% of participants detected a change and the majority of these interrupted the experiment at the correct place
          • This is a SIGNIFICANTLY higher detection rate than both 1 and 2
        • Because the conversation clearly did not impose a cognitive load that prevented change detection, these results suggest that listeners do not normally expect a talker change and so do not moniter at an analytical level.
          • When this expectation is suspended (with the warning), change detection increases; expectation may influence how listeners interpret voice detection.
    • Experiment 4
      • To test the effect of expectation on talker change detection with the actual change occurrence manipulated
        • The same methodology as 3 except that 100% of pps were expecting a  talker change even though it actually only happened to 50% of them.
        • All but one participants in the group that changed talker detected the change.
        • In the same talker group, many pps were confused and 'assumed' there was a change without being able to concretely confirm
        • These results again confirm that the way listeners attend/encode information is influenced by expectation
    • Experiment 5
      • To investigate what sort of changes pps spontaneously notice
      • Changed the gender of the talker
      • Found that 11/12 pps reported the gender change
        • Significantly more detection than any other group
          • Concurrent with Cherry (1953) in that significant elements are still noticed even when unattended
    • General evaluation points
      • Strong theoretical background to findings, concurrent with earlier research which does NOT suggest automatic encoding/ detection
      • Small sample sizes (n=12) used, small external validity/ statistical power
        • e.g only non-parametric tests were used, may see a significant result when there isn't
      • A control needed for male/female ratio? Female pps may find it easier to identify female voices
        • Should have used female/female, male/male, male/female?
      • Well controlled; conditions were counterbalanced andthe same voices were often used to reduce extraneous acoustic variables
        • Controlled for hearing/ speech impediments
      • Although necessary as not to inform the pp of the study, time/day may also be important. If pp is working then may be paying less attention to researcher


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all TB6 P&C resources »