Studied by 2 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Change Blindness
Phenomenon of visual perception
What you are perceiving Infront of you. Not what actually happened
Happens a lot in legal settings
Things move quick so you miss the obvious
Stimulus changes without it being noticed by the observer
Significant change in the environment that’s not notices
Methods Used to Study Change Blindness
Saccade-Contingent Changes
Flicker Paradigm
Film Clips/Real-Life Interactions
Saccade-Contingent Changes
Movement going from one focal point to the next
New information is excluded from processing during motion
can’t see change
supposed to give us a sense of stability in the visual world
Rapid eye movement
There is a time where you can’t see a change happening
Its an intentional task - told them to expect change
McConkie & Currie (1996)
Given practice photos and told them the type of changes that could've happened
Although they practiced they missed a lot of things that they missed
What are Cognitive Factors that influence change detection?
Meaningfulness of the Image
more likely to know the difference if it means something to you
Visual Imagery Skills
you actually can detect the differences looking at the photos
Instructions
if told, youll notice differences more
Flicker Paradigm
Blank display between two matched photos (fraction of a second)
Told to expect a change
Timed until they notice the change
The shorter the blank interference the less change blindness there is
More likely to notice the change
The Longer the blank interference the More change blindness there is
More likely to not notice the change
its an intentional Task - told them to expect change
Humphreys, Hodsell and Campbell (2005)
saw pictures of a group of 4 women
different races (2 were white and 2 were Indian)
Changes in Indian faces detected more quickly by indian participants
same pattern found for white faces and white participants
Cross Race Identification Effect
Can better recognize differences in face with people of the same race instead of strangers of a different races
Intentional Encoding Tasks
participants are told to expect a change and are tasked with noticing when the change happens and what it is
Incidental Encoding
participants are not told specifically that there will be a change
instead tested on whether they notice the change occurring at all
Informed to Expect Change
self explanatory
your told what to expect dumb bitch
Change Probability Effect
Changes are easier to detect when they are expected
Film Clips/Real-Life Interactions
Incorporate realistic elements instead of computer or still images
Researchers manipulate moving people/objects
changes can be missed with central, attended to objects/people
most likely to not occur ouside of a experiment
Incidental Encoding - not told, figure it out
relevant to eyewitness testimony
uses real moving people
Levin and Simons (1998) - Task
Experimenter dresses as a construction worker
Approach students on campus & ask for directions
2 confederates dressed as construction workers carry a door & interrupt
One confederate switches with experimenter & continues conversation
Levin and Simons (1998) - Results
4/12 participants noticed the switch
People are more likely to notice changes within their in-group (students) and less likely to detect differences in members of an out-group (construction worker)
They thought the construction worker was the same despite the switch as they werent focusing on his features
social factors could be important in change blindness.
Unconscious Transference
Transfer of one persons identity to that of another person from a different setting, time or context
relevant to eyewitness cases
Illusion of Continuity
when two individuals are seen in close temporal and spatial proximity
in a way that one might assume that the two individuals are a single person
occurs because human minds have expectations about how the world works
including expectations that motions are continuous
e.g if we see an object moving toward an obstruction, and then that object disappears behind the obstruction, we expect that object to appear again on the other side of the obstruction
Inattentional Blindness
Failure to see an unexpected object that one may be looking at directly when one’s attention is elsewhere
fail to detect unexpected salient objects that are in their visual fields
seeing is different than percieving
Difference btwn Change and Inattentional Blindness
Inattentional
The thing that changes comes and goes while youre paying attention to something else
e.g focusing on basketball players/ amount of passes and you miss the stupid monkey
Change
thing that your focusing on changes and stays the same
e.g watching a man get up to answer the phone and in the next clip its a different man (levin & Simons)
Methods used to study Inattentional Blindness
Visual Array Task - lab settings
Lifelike visual situations - staged events
Visual Array Task
present target array of items
after short interval, show items again
participant decides if anything has changed
Lifelike Visual Situations
Simon and Chabris - stupid monkey experiment
the gorilla is the lifelike thing
not seeing an object is not the result of not looking at that object
Memmert (2006)
Tracked children’s eye movements watching the dumb gorilla video
Children who failed to notice gorilla, spent as much time
looking at it as those who noticed gorilla
Seeing is different from perceiving
found that not seeing an object is not necessarily a result of not looking at that object.
Attention Capture
what a shock - its shit that captures your attention
the inverse of inattentional blind- ness.
Clifasefi, Takarangi & Bergman (2006)
Group A: told Alcohol/got Alcohol and Group B: told Alcohol/got Placebo
Group C: told Placebo/got Alcohol and Group D: told Placebo/got Placebo
After all groups saw the edited version gorilla clip
Rate the extent they experienced cognitive/physiological effects
Clifasefi, Takarangi & Bergman (2006) Results
Intoxicated subjects: more likely to show ‘inattentional blindness’
A third of all participants noticed the gorilla amongst the basketball players
Intoxicated participants noticed the gorilla only 18% of the time
Sober participants noticed it 46% of the time
Witnesses could be less likely to experience weapon focus
slower to notice weapon in their visual field
Cross-Paradigm Research
a method that involves using multiple research paradigms or perspectives to study a subject.
Davis & Hine (2007) - Learning Phase
combined Change bllindness and eyewitness testimony paradigms
participants watch a burglary video
intentional condition (grp 1): told they were completing a memory test after
Incidental condition (grp 2): told they were completing watching a safety video
Identify if the burglar changed halfway - neither group told this info
Davis & Hine (2007) - Testing Phase
Completed questionnaire about content of the video
asked: Did you notice anything unusual about the burglar?
they had to Pick burglar from a lineup
Davis & Hine (2007) - Results
39% of participants noticed the change of actors, majority was from intentional
condition (26 of 31)
49 participants who failed to notice the change
none picked both burglars from the lineup
Intentional group recalled more details from the video
Participants who noticed the change did better on the lineup task
Davis & Hine (2007) - Implications
“witnesses may confuse an offender seen entering a building with an innocent person seen leaving it later.”
Link between eyewitness & change blindness
Poor accuracy of eyewitnesses can show for unfamiliar people seen in brief
encounters
