moray (1959)

?
background?
Cherry (1953) presented participants with a selective attention, dichotomous listening task (presenting two different streams of audio, via headphones, to each ear, and instructing participants to shadow- pay attention- to one
1 of 30
what did cherry's experiment measure and find?
measuring what they recall from the message in the other, unattended ear). The study found participants could not remember the message from the unattended ear.
2 of 30
aim of experiment 1?
To investigate whether Cherry’s (1953) results could be replicated in a more standardised/ controlled procedure
3 of 30
aim experiment 2?
To investigate the cocktail party effect- that hearing an affective cue (your name) in the rejected message can penetrate the attentional block.
4 of 30
aim experiment 3?
To investigate whether instructing participants they would be tested on the rejected message beforehand would result in greater ability to divide attention.
5 of 30
what were the sampling method of all experiments?
Opportunity sample of undergraduates/researchers of both sexes from Oxford Uni
6 of 30
sample experiment 1?
No sample size reported
7 of 30
sample experiment 2?
12 Ps
8 of 30
sample experiment 3?
2 groups of 14 Ps
9 of 30
whats the method in all experiments?
lab experiment
10 of 30
design experiment 1?
Repeated (amount of words recognised from shadowedattended to- message, from word list presented to unattended ear, and from control- words not in either)
11 of 30
design experiment 2?
Repeated (amount recalled from unattended ear when message preceded by name and when not)
12 of 30
design experiment 3?
Independent (amount recalled from unattended ear in group instructed they would be tested on unattended message and in uninstructed group
13 of 30
what materials were used in all experiments?
Brenell Mark IV stereophonic tape recorder modified with twin amplifiers to give two independent outputs through attenuators, one output going to each of the earpieces of a pair of headphones.
14 of 30
what were the controls of all experiments?
Matching for loudness in each ear was approximate- the P reported when they sounded equal. • All passages recorded by one male speaker at the rate of 150 words/min
15 of 30
procedure experiment 1?
Shadowed prose message • Word list repeated 35 times in unattended ear- faded in after start, and faded out before end, of prose message
16 of 30
second step procedure experiment 1?
• Word recognition test containing words from the prose passage, word list in unattended ear, and words not present in either.
17 of 30
procedure experiment 2?
10 trials involving shadowing 10 short passages of light fiction. They were told the object was for them to score as few mistakes as possible (deception)
18 of 30
second step, procedure experiment 2?
In 6 of the trials, instructions were given, in the unattended ear, during the task, to stop shadowing or change to shadowing the message in the other ear (3 were preceded by the P’s name).
19 of 30
third step, procedure experiment 2?
Measured whether participants responded to the instruction in the unattended ear and whether they reported hearing it.
20 of 30
procedure experiment 3?
Participants were instructed either to recall all the numbers they could (control) or that they would be tested on the content of the unattended message- the one they weren’t shadowing.
21 of 30
step 2 procedure experiment 3?
There were multiple trials with numbers inserted into the messages near the end of the shadowed message, and/or the unattended message, and in some, control trials, there were no numbers inserted.
22 of 30
step three procedure experiment 3?
The numbers they shadowed were recorded, and the numbers they reported hearing.
23 of 30
results experiment 1?
They reported recognising, on average, 4.9/7 words from the shadowed passage, compared to 1.9/7 from the rejected list of words, and 2.9/7 of the control words (words not present in either).
24 of 30
results experiment 2?
When their name was mentioned participants reported hearing the instruction in the unattended ear significantly more often than when it was not: 20/39 times compared to 4/36 times
25 of 30
results experiment 3?
There was no significant difference in the numbers shadowed or recalled, from the unattended message, in the groups.
26 of 30
conclusions experiment 1?
This shows that when someone’s auditory attention is directed to one thing, an attentional block is set up, and information from the rejected ear is not processed. I.e. Word lists cannot be recognised, even when repeatedly presented.
27 of 30
what are the conclusions from experiment one consistent with?
Consistent with Cherry (1953) showing external reliability.
28 of 30
conclusions experiment 2?
Supports cocktail party effect: name, which is important to the individual, can penetrate the attentional block
29 of 30
conclusions experiment 3?
Numbers weren’t personally important enough to the participant to penetrate the attentional block, even when participants were warned they would be tested on the unattended message beforehand
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

what did cherry's experiment measure and find?

Back

measuring what they recall from the message in the other, unattended ear). The study found participants could not remember the message from the unattended ear.

Card 3

Front

aim of experiment 1?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

aim experiment 2?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

aim experiment 3?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

14sjebri

Report

what about the links to debates (i.e.reductionism/holism individual/situational)? 

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Core studies resources »