simon and chabris
- Created by: lance hanson
- Created on: 08-06-18 09:06
View mindmap
- simon and chabris
- inattentional blindness: being unable to see an event or object in your line of sight because you are focused on other elements.
- conclusion: inattentional blindness can occur for period of time
- controls: same number of passes , same models, same time span before unexpected event occurred.
- standardised procedure = high reliability due to easy replicability
- inattentional blindness: being unable to see an event or object in your line of sight because you are focused on other elements.
- exerimental design= independent measures
- sample= 228 participants undergraduates at harvard university
- rewards: some no payment some had large candy bar, some had a payment in cash.
- independent variables: 1. transparent/opaque video. 2. black or white teams. 3. easy or difficult. 4. the gorilla or the umbrella woman.
- 3 questions asked: 1. while you were counting- did you notice anything unusual/ 2. did you notice anything other than the 6 players/. 3. did you see a gorilla/ woman carrying an umbrella- walking across the screen?
- the participants were fully debriefed after watching the video and being asked the questions, if needed to they would also be shown the video again.
- conclusion: the level of inattentional blindness depends on the difficulty of the primary task.
- conclusion: individuals are more likely to notice unexpected events if these events are visually similar to the events they are paying attention to.
- conclusion: objects can pass through the area we are focused on and still not be "seen" if they are not specifically being attended to.
- conclusion: individuals are more likely to notice unexpected events if these events are visually similar to the events they are paying attention to.
- conclusion: the level of inattentional blindness depends on the difficulty of the primary task.
- the participants were fully debriefed after watching the video and being asked the questions, if needed to they would also be shown the video again.
- 3 questions asked: 1. while you were counting- did you notice anything unusual/ 2. did you notice anything other than the 6 players/. 3. did you see a gorilla/ woman carrying an umbrella- walking across the screen?
- results: overall findings : across all conditions, the unexpected event was missed by 46% of participants
- data from 36 out of the original 228 participants were omitted because they had either seen the video before, lost count or made an inaccurate count of passes.
- ethics upheld: informed consent, debriefing.
- validity: highly controlled, could have demand characteristics
- ecological validity: no, not true to life video.
- reliability: replicable , number of ppts suggest trend.
Comments
No comments have yet been made