Background: Aim: Ethics
Visual attention is when people tend to To build on previous -Gave informed
believe what they see preserves the research by Neisser and Consent.
richness of visual environment. investigate factors that -Were debriefed by
-Change blindness = Situation where may affect visual rewatching video.
observer fails to notice large changes to -Weren’t deceived.
objects from one view to the next. Method: -Had the right to
-Inattentional blindness = Where -Lab experiment withdraw if they
people fail to perceive unexpected object -Independent measures. felt they needed to
when attention is diverted, even if object -16 conditions do so.
appears in the centre. -IV’s: Unexpected event
-Neisser = Did the Umbrella woman Film (transparent/opaque)
where 48% noticed the woman with Task (easy or hard )
Team followed (black or
Sample: Reliability
white)
228 self-selected undergraduate students +High internal reliability as there was high levels of
DV= no. of ppts who
from America. They were rewarded control of how long each tape lasted and when
noticed unexpected
through candy food. unexpected event happened, making it reliable.
36 ruled out from already knowing about Simons and +High external reliability as S+C reinforced what
study. Neisser found so can replicate study outside to a
Chabris wider population.
Materials: Results
4 video tapes of 2 teams throwing basket -54% noticed Validity
balls. Each tape lasted 75s and after 45s unexpected event. +High internal validity as there wasn’t a chance of
unexpected event occurred lasting 5s. -umbrella was noticed demand characteristics as if ppts saw gorilla or
Woman/ gorilla walked left to right. more in opaque and umbrella woman they would have figured out what
easy. the study was investigating.
Procedure -Black team noticed +High population validity as it was a large sample of
All tested individually. gorilla more than 228 ppts from America. However, they were all
Observers were told to watch black or white white team. undergraduate students so may lack population
team and silently kept count of number of -Little difference validity, as the results cannot be generalised to a
passes. between black and wider age range of people.
Had to write down count immediately and white with umbrella -Lacks ecological validity as counting number of
then asked a surprise set of questions after to woman. passes made if not part of student’s everyday life and
see if they saw unexpected event or heard of -No correlation does not reflect a real basketball game. Also,
experiment before. between noticing
Ethnocentrism
-Easy task = Number of passes made to unexpected event and
Is ethnocentric as all ppts used were American so only
attended team. poor counting, so poor
looked at visual attention from one culture
-Hard task = Number of passes and ariel counting did not affect
perspective.
passes made. them seeing
Isn’t ethnocentric as cognitive processes, such as
Gave informed consent in advance and unexpected event.
attention, are universal.
Visual attention is when people tend to To build on previous -Gave informed
believe what they see preserves the research by Neisser and Consent.
richness of visual environment. investigate factors that -Were debriefed by
-Change blindness = Situation where may affect visual rewatching video.
observer fails to notice large changes to -Weren’t deceived.
objects from one view to the next. Method: -Had the right to
-Inattentional blindness = Where -Lab experiment withdraw if they
people fail to perceive unexpected object -Independent measures. felt they needed to
when attention is diverted, even if object -16 conditions do so.
appears in the centre. -IV’s: Unexpected event
-Neisser = Did the Umbrella woman Film (transparent/opaque)
where 48% noticed the woman with Task (easy or hard )
Team followed (black or
Sample: Reliability
white)
228 self-selected undergraduate students +High internal reliability as there was high levels of
DV= no. of ppts who
from America. They were rewarded control of how long each tape lasted and when
noticed unexpected
through candy food. unexpected event happened, making it reliable.
36 ruled out from already knowing about Simons and +High external reliability as S+C reinforced what
study. Neisser found so can replicate study outside to a
Chabris wider population.
Materials: Results
4 video tapes of 2 teams throwing basket -54% noticed Validity
balls. Each tape lasted 75s and after 45s unexpected event. +High internal validity as there wasn’t a chance of
unexpected event occurred lasting 5s. -umbrella was noticed demand characteristics as if ppts saw gorilla or
Woman/ gorilla walked left to right. more in opaque and umbrella woman they would have figured out what
easy. the study was investigating.
Procedure -Black team noticed +High population validity as it was a large sample of
All tested individually. gorilla more than 228 ppts from America. However, they were all
Observers were told to watch black or white white team. undergraduate students so may lack population
team and silently kept count of number of -Little difference validity, as the results cannot be generalised to a
passes. between black and wider age range of people.
Had to write down count immediately and white with umbrella -Lacks ecological validity as counting number of
then asked a surprise set of questions after to woman. passes made if not part of student’s everyday life and
see if they saw unexpected event or heard of -No correlation does not reflect a real basketball game. Also,
experiment before. between noticing
Ethnocentrism
-Easy task = Number of passes made to unexpected event and
Is ethnocentric as all ppts used were American so only
attended team. poor counting, so poor
looked at visual attention from one culture
-Hard task = Number of passes and ariel counting did not affect
perspective.
passes made. them seeing
Isn’t ethnocentric as cognitive processes, such as
Gave informed consent in advance and unexpected event.
attention, are universal.
