Moray: Research Method
Laboratory Experiment
Moray: Experimental Design
1. Repeated Measures
2. Independent Measures
3. Repeated
... [Show More] Measures
Moray: Independent Variables
1. Dichotic Listening Test, recognition test
2. Instructions prefixed by participants name or not
3. Digits in both messages of only one AND answer question about shadowed message or remember the numbers
Moray: Dependent Variables
1. number of words recognised in rejected message
2. number of affective instructions
3. number of digits recalled
Moray: Sample
Undergraduates and research workers
2: 12
3: 28
Moray: Procedure 1
short list of simple words in one ear, shadowed prose message in other. Words repeated 35 times. Reported rejected message. Given recognition test, material in neither list or passage as a control. Gap between shadow and recognition - 30 seconds.
Moray: Procedure 2
Participants shadowed ten short passages. Responses recorded, told aim was to make few mistakes possible. Some passage instructions were interpolated. Half participant's instructions prefixed with their name.
130 words/min.
Moray: Procedure 3
Two groups shadowed one of two simultaneous dichotic messages. In some, digits were interpolated. The positions of the numbers varied. One group asked about content of shadow, other remembered numbers.
Moray: Results 1
Mean number of words recognised = 7
Shadowed = 4.9
Rejected = 1.9
No trace of rejected material being recognised.
Moray: Results 2
Most ignored instructions.
Affective instructions presented 39 times, heard 20 times
Non-affective presented 36 times, heard 4 times.
Three turned over
Difference between names and no names was significant (3.05)
4/20 names instructions heard, participants changed to other message.
Moray: Result 3
In none of the cases was the difference significant at 5% level in the t-test
Moray: Conclusion
Almost none of the verbal content in a rejected message is able to penetrate the block set up.
Moray: Conclusion
Subjectively important message like names can penetrate the block
Simons and Chabris: Research Method
Laboratory Experiment
Simons and Chabris: Experimental Design
Independent Measures
Simons and Chabris: Independent Variables
Transparent/Opaque
Umbrella Woman/Gorilla
Black or White Team
Easy (count number of passes) or Hard (number of each type of pass)
(16 conditions)
Simons and Chabris: Dependent Variable
Number of participants who noticed the unexpected event
Simons and Chabris: Sample
228, mostly undergrads
Volunteered for candy or cash.
Simons and Chabris: Materials
4 video tapes, 75 seconds, 2 teams of 3, black and white t-shirts. Players moved randomly in front of 3 elevator doors. Passed basketball in standardised order. After 44 seconds unexpected event occurred, entered left-right, 5 seconds. SVHS camera used, edited with non-linear digital system.
Simons and Chabris: Procedure
After watching tape, asked to write down counts, and asked questions like; Did you notice anything unusual? Yes answers required explanations. Also asked if they had heard of similar experiments, 'yes' - data discarded. Debriefed with replay of videos. Lasted 5-10 minutes.
Simons and Chabris: Results
36 discarded
54% noticed the event
67% in opaque, 42% in transparent
64% in easy, 45% in hard
Umbrella noticed more.
Simons and Chabris: Conclusion
Individuals have sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events
Simons and Chabris: Conclusion
People fail to notice an ongoing event if they are engaged in a primary monitoring task.
Simons and Chabris: Conclusion
People are more likely to notice unexpected events visually similar to events they are paying attention to.
Milgram: Research Method
Controlled Observation in a laboratory
Milgram: Sample
40 male participants, 20-50 years from New Haven.
Self-selected from newspapers for a $4.50 reward.
Milgram: Procedure
Participants given role of 'teacher' in a fixed lottery. witnessed 'learner' being strapped to chair with electrodes. 'Teacher' sat in front of an electric shock generator with 30 switches, 15-450 volts.
Milgram: Procedure
'Learner's' responses were predetermined and experimenter prods were standardised. All were debriefed. Data was gathered through a one-way mirror.
Milgram: Results
100% to 300volts
65% to 450volts
26 obedient, 14 disobedient
Showed signs of extreme stress - sweating, trembling. three had seizures.
Milgram: Conclusion
Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people.
Milgram: Conclusion
People will obey those they consider a legitimate authority figure, even if it goes against moral beliefs.
Bocchiaro: Research Method
Scenario Study in laboratory
Bocchiaro: Sample
149 undergraduates from VU University Amsterdam.
Self-selected by flyers for course credit of 7euro
Bocchiaro: Procedure - pilot tests
8 pilot tests. 92 undergrads said procedure was morally acceptable. Comparison group were asked what they would do.
Bocchiaro: Procedure
Greeted by Dutch, male experimenter who asked for names of fellow students. A cover story of sensory deprivation studies in Rome, where 6 people had their cognitive abilities temporary impaired. A research committee wanted reviews from student to whether the study could be approved again, with the named participants participating.
Bocchiaro: Procedure
Three minutes given to reflect and then asked to write enthusiastic statements on computers. Participants then went under personality tests, suspicion tests and a full debrief.
Bocchiaro: Results
Comparison: 3.6% obey, 18.8% of the average student would obey.
Scenario study:
76.5% obeyed
14.1% disobeyed
9.4% blew the whistle
Bocchiaro: Conclusion
People tend to obey authority figures even if authority is unjust. [Show Less]