Mondriaan Aura College Bachelor of Science in Psychology Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines

MONDRIAAN AURA COLLEGE
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines
Change in Blindness
An Experimental Psychology written output submitted to the

Faculty of Psychology
Doles, Ara Mae D.

Fragata, Jaline
Mangalonzo, Jan Ric Lester A.
Nool, Ma. Cozette D.
Ombao, Patrick Gabriel C.
Sevilla, Pearl Christine M.
Stroh, Judiel Y.
Ugbinada, Hasser Dave P.
Vanta, Charles Victor M.
Villanueva, Annalyn G.
Villarde, Darlene C.
Viterbo, Aljen Ellaine T.
Mondriaan Aura College, SBFZ
In Partial Fulfilment for the Requirement

For the Subject Experimental Psychology
February, 13, 2019
“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

1
Abstract
The students of Mondriaan Aura College, psychology department in experimental
psychology have conducted an experiment inside the school premises. The experiment
was first conducted by McConkie in 1970. The experiment measures the people’s ability
to detect changes and to reflect fundamental limitations of human attention. In the
change blindness experiment, the participants were simply asked to sit and watch a
short clip of a group of guys with black and white shirt. the participants was asked to
count how many ball passes the white team can make and if they saw the moonwalking
bear pass by while the two groups were passing the ball. In this extent of difficulty is
what we call the change blindness. A common explanation for the change blindness is a
phenomenon that occurs when a change in visual stimuli is introduced and the observer
does not notice it. For example, observers often fail to notice major differences when
they are too focused at something. Change blindness has become a highly researched
topic and some argued that it may have practical implications in areas such as eye
witness testimony and distractions while driving.

2
Acknowledgement
With boundless love and appreciation the experimenters would like to thank first
our dear Lord for the knowledge, protection and guidance all throughout the experiment.
The experimenters would also like to extend their heartfelt gratitude and
appreciation to the people who helped them bring this experiment into reality.
To their Experimental Psychology Professor, Miss Jacqueline, for guiding and
supervising the experiment. For her unending patience and understanding, the
experimenters are grateful.
To all the participants who give their time and cooperated fully, the experimenters
are thankful because if it’s not by them, they would not be able to finish the experiment.
The experimenters would also like to show their gratitude to their family and
friends who never ceased to help and support them in terms of financial, prayers and
love.

3
Table of Contents
Title Page ........................................................................................................................ 1
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgement ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Paradigm of the Study .......................................................................................... 5
Statement of the Problem ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Hypothesis ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: Design and Methodology ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Population and Locale of the Study ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Data Gathering Tool ............................................................................................. 8
Data Gathering Procedure .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Summary of the Debriefing ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Treatment of Data................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 3: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data ........ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conclusion ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Observations ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Recommendations................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
References ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendices ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4
Introduction
The students of Mondriaan Aura College, Psychology department in
Experimental Psychology class have conducted an experiment inside the school
premises. The experiment is called the Stroop Effect Experiment named after John
Ridley Stroop and was published in 1935. It is one of the most famous used
psychological experiments ever conducted. This experiment measures the cognitive
interference through the reaction time of the participants in the task given. In the Stroop
test, the participants simply look at color words, such as blue, black, red, or green and
read it aloud, then the participants are asked by the instructor to name the color of the
ink in the words were it is printed in, while fully ignoring the actual word meaning. It
turns out that this quite difficult, and the participants find out exactly how difficult this is.
It is very easy to name the color of the word "black" when it is printed in black (most text
is written in black ink). It is also very easy to name the color of the word "red" printed in
red ink color. It is difficult, though, when the word and the ink color are different. In this
extent of this difficulty is what we call the Stroop effect.
A common explanation for the Stroop effect is that observers have automatized
the process of reading. Thus, the color names of the word are always processed very
quickly, regardless of the color of the ink. On the other hand, identifying colors is not a
task that observers have to report on very often, and because it is not automatized it is
slower. The fast and automatic processing of the color name of the word interferes with
the reporting of the ink color. The actual words have strong influence over our ability to

5
say the color of the words. There are two theories that may explain the Stroop effect.
First is the Speed of Processes Theory which suggests that the interference occurs
because words are read faster than colors are named. Second is the Selective Attention
Theory that suggests that the interference occurs because the process of naming colors
requires more attention than reading words. In this experiment, the experimenters aim
to prove the Stroop Effect theory, and to investigate how interference affects the
participants’ ability in conditions.
Paradigm of the Study
Independent Variables Dependent Variables
1. Video Clip
1. Participants Response
Extraneous Variables
1. Quality of the Video (sounds)
2. Environment of the experiment
(ceiling fan, instructor, observer,
documenter and Clicker.
Statement of the Problem
1. Is there a significant difference between the sample reaction time under the
verbal and intrinsic stimuli?

6
intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli?
verbal and verbal-intrinsic stimuli
Hypothesis
1. There is no significant difference between the sample reaction time under the
verbal and intrinsic stimuli.
2. There is no significant difference between the sample reaction time under
intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli.
3. There is no significant difference between the sample reaction time under
verbal and verbal-intrinsic stimuli.
Significance of the Study
This study shows the experiment of the Stroop Effect. In this paper, the reader
can know basic ideas about the Stroop Effect Experiment. The Stroop Effect experiment
helps psychologists understand how the brain evaluates information. Experimental
research like this also allow researchers to target and observe cognitive processes that
underlie thought. The Stroop Effect experiment reveals the functioning of the
unconscious brain and reduces some of the biases that can otherwise emerge in
testing. Using this paradigm, the experimenters can access individual’s cognitive
processing speed, their attentional capacity, and their level of cognitive control. These
skills and facets are implicit in so many ways in which people interact with the world,

7
suggesting that this test reveals a brief, yet incisive, view into the human thought and
behavior.
Design and Methodology
Population and Locale of the Study
The experimenters invited students from senior high school and different college
departments of Mondriaan Aura College to participate in the experiment. There is also
one senior high participant from St. Joseph College who participated in the said
experiment. It was conducted at the alpha 103 room of MAC on February 1, 2019. The
total number of students who participated in the experiment were 46 but the experiment
only used the result from 40 valid participants. The remaining 6 participants were
considered invalid because 4 of them said that they also became participants from the
last year experiment. the other 2 invalid participants said that they have seen the video
clip before.
Data Gathering Tool
The experimenters used three cardboards: Two of those three cardboards have
names of colors written on them; one was written using a black marker (verbal
stimulus). The other one has written colors using red, blue, yellow, green, and black; in
each words it did not correspond with the colors written in them (verbal-intrinsic
stimulus). The third board have rectangular boxes made of black, yellow, red, blue and
green special colored paper (intrinsic stimulus). The experimenters used yellow paper to
record the time duration of each participants on the three tasks. They also used a cell

8
phone timer to get the precise time that the participants finished. The documenter used
mobile phone in capturing the images of the experiment. They also gave snacks to the
participants after the experiment.
Data Gathering Procedure
In verbal stimulus, the participants was ask to read each words aloud and fast as
they can from left to right down to bottom right. They will only start after the instructor
say the signal which is “go”.
Second was the intrinsic stimulus. The task in this stimulus is that the participants
will identify the colors of the boxes and say it aloud as fast as they can from left to right
down to bottom right. They will only start after the instructor say the signal which is
“go”.
The last stimulus was the verbal intrinsic stimulus. The participants will identify
the ink of the words not the words written on the board as fast as they can from left to
right down to bottom right. They will only start after the instructor say the signal which is
“go”.
Summary of the Debriefing
The 46 participants were debriefed before and after the experiment by the
"callers" (the experimenters responsible for inviting participants) and “de-briefers" (the
experimenters who were responsible in asking questions about how the participants
experience the experiment). Before the experiment, the participants were asked three
questions. First, is if they have a class or free time. Second, is if they are willing to
participate in the experiment. Lastly, they were asked if they have eye problems

9
especially “color blindness” since the experiment is about correct identification of colors.
After the experiment the participants were instructed to proceed in the feedback area.
The participants were also instructed to answer the form with questions provided by the
de-briefers that would give them information about their experience in the experiment.
The questions are as follow: 1. Was it hard for you? Yes or No 2. What part of the
experiment did you find the most difficult? A. Verbal Stimulus B. Intrinsic Stimulus C.
Verbal-Intrinsic Stimulus. 3. Does the instructor carefully and clearly say the instruction?
Yes or No 4. How was your experience in the experiment? Happy or anxious 5. Do you
have any suggestions for the experiment?
Treatment of the Data
The experimenters used the paired sample t-test to determine if the difference
between the means of the reaction time of the participants under the verbal, intrinsic
and verbal-intrinsic stimuli are significant.
Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
The SPSS result of the Paired-Sample t-test
Paired Samples Test
Critical
Df t Value
Pair 1 Verbal -
29 -2.602 2.045
Intrinsic
There is a significant difference between the sample means of verbal stimulus
and intrinsic stimulus because the computed t value of -2.602 is greater than the critical

10
value of 2.045 at .05 level of significance for two-tailed test with a degree of freedom of
29. Therefore, the experimenters rejected the null hypothesis.
Paired Samples Test
Critical
Df t Value
Pair 2 Verbal - Verbal

29 -8.534 2.045
Intrinsic
There is significant difference between the sample means of verbal stimulus and
verbal-intrinsic stimulus because the computed t value of -8.534 is greater than the
critical value of 2.045 at .05 level of significance for two-tailed test with a degree of
freedom of 29. Therefore, the experimenters rejected the null hypothesis.
Paired Samples Test
Critical
Df t Value
Pair 3 Intrinsic -
29 -8.283 2.045
Verbal Intrinsic
There is significant difference between the sample means of intrinsic stimulus
and verbal intrinsic stimulus because the computed t value of -8.283 is greater than the
critical value of 2.045 at .05 level of significance for two-tailed test with a degree of
freedom of 29. Therefore, the experimenters rejected the null hypothesis.
Based on the findings of the experimenters, the participants took longer to finish
task under the verbal-intrinsic stimulus than in the intrinsic. According to the findings of

11
Hubel and Wiesel, many brain cells respond only to lines of a certain width or
orientation (Coon, 1995). These same cells didn’t get the least bit ‘excited’ over a dot of
light or overall illumination. Other cells responded only to lines at certain angles, or lines
at certain lengths, or lines moving in a particular direction. The upshot of these findings
is that cells in the brain seem to first analyse incoming information into such sequence:
lines-angles-shading-movement-and other basic features. These findings explain why
we process written words and shapes faster than colors, since words and shapes have
more definite lines and angles we tend to recognize them more quickly than colors.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion
By using the t-test, the experimenters concluded that there are significant
difference between the sample reaction time under the intrinsic, verbal, and verbal-
intrinsic stimuli. Therefore, the experimenters rejected the null hypotheses.
Observations
The experimenters conducted the experiment and found out some observations.
First, is that the instructor was nervous as she kept on stuttering when she delivered the
instructions to the participants. Second is that during the second day of the experiment,
the instructor was not wearing the proper uniform, hence the group decided to substitute
her to a different instructor. The group had to repeat the experiment because the last
three participants were invalid due to the reason that the instructor was a different
person from the last experiment. Third, there was a lack of entertainment for the
participants who were waiting outside the experiment room and the callers were using

12
their phones during the experiment. Fourth, the de-briefers noted that they needed to
buy tokens for the participants while the experiment was ongoing because the
experimenters do not have extra tokens for the additional participants in case of having
invalid participants. Fifth, the tools that have been used in the experiment are effective.
There were no issues of having confusions with the colors except from one participant
who has color blindness.
When the experimenters started the experiment and showed the first card which
was the verbal stimulus, the participants managed to read the list of words without any
effort. Then the experimenters showed the second card which was the intrinsic stimulus,
then the participants still managed to identify easily what the colors of the boxes were.
On the last card which was the verbal intrinsic stimulus, most of the participants seem to
have difficulty in reading the board. Some of the participants were hesitant in their
speech while under the verbal intrinsic stimulus.
Recommendations
The experimenters have some suggestions and recommendations for the next
experimenters who will conduct the same experiment. These are:
 The experimenters would recommend a sign board outside the experiment room
for the next participants and for the students passing by to be silent due to the
on-going experiment.

13
 The experimenters would recommend for them to be alert when a participant
inside finishes the experiment they should immediately call the next participant to
enter the room for not waste of time.
 The experimenters would like to recommend a sign board outside the experiment
room for the next participants and for the students passing by to be silent due to
the on-going experiment.
 The experimenters would recommend for them to be alert when a participant
inside finishes the experiment they should immediately call the next participants
to enter the room for not waste of time.
 Also experimenters recommend to turn off the ceiling fan because it create a
shadow on the side that will affect the ongoing experiment
 The experimenters recommend for them to be more cheerful in smiling and in
greeting every participant that will enter the room so that the participant would
not be afraid and will feel comfortable.
 Experimenters would recommend for the debriefer and caller to be stricter in
instructing the participant to be silent while waiting.
 The experimenters would also like to recommend to lead the participant where
she/he would sit
 The experimenters would recommend to be in front so that the participant will not
be distracted.
 The experimenters would also recommend to have effective "pakulo" or strategy
in inviting participants so that participants would be interested to join the
experiment.

14
References
Cherry K. (November 18, 2018) “The Stroop Effect: Naming the Color but Not the
Word.” Retrieved On December 13, 2018, from https://www.verywellmind.com .
Coon, D. (1995). Introduction to Psychology: Exploration and Application (7th ed.). NY: West
Publishing Company.
Gaskell, G.H, Geukes, Sebastian and Zwitserlood P. “Stroop Effects from Newly
Learned Color Words: Effects of Memory Consolidation and Episodic Context.”
Retrieved on December 14, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Macdonald, Penny A. and Macleod, Colin M., (October 1, 2000). Trends in Cognitive.
Science. Retrieved on December 12, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com
Miller, Ashely K. (2010), Examining the Errors and Self-Correlations on the Stroop
Test. Retrieved on December 14, 2018.
Punsalan, T. G. and Uriarte, G. G. Statistics a Simplified Approach
Retrieved on December 15, 2018.
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662. Retrieved on December 12, 2017, from
https://www.psytoolkit.org/lessons/stroop.html
Appendices
Tools Used in the Experiment

15
Verbal Stimulus
Intrinsic Stimulus
Verbal-Intrinsic Stimulus

16
Documentation of the Experiment
Raw Score
Participant Verbal Intrinsic Verbal

Intrinsic
1 11.87 10.16 14.24
2 7.49 9.00 17.83
3 8.74 10.18 12.89
4 9.52 11.78 14.54
5 8.93 11.55 14.58
6 6.75 8.62 10.40
7 8.82 13.33 18.07
8 7.63 7.87 14.73
9 18.02 9.18 15.66
10 6.00 11.34 16.68

17
11 9.96 9.21 12.29
12 11.54 13.69 20.86
13 7.77 9.05 13.22
14 8.00 9.05 11.21
15 6.22 6.00 16.58
16 6.80 9.03 13.24
17 8.78 10.43 24.66
18 12.50 12.55 27.58
19 10.23 9.60 15.30
20 7.90 11.43 20.18
21 9.09 9.04 12.03
22 6.05 8.62 12.43
23 6.12 7.22 13.52
24 8.49 10.19 13.02
25 9.18 9.74 10.62
26 7.25 10.88 17.17
27 9.94 12.77 17.04
28 6.79 7.28 8.45
29 8.90 10.43 23.08
30 10.05 10.96 15.32
Treatment 1 (X) 11.54 9.18

7.77 7.25
11.87 8.00 9.94
7.49 6.22 6.79
8.74 6.80 8.90
9.52 8.78 10.05
8.93 12.50
6.75 10.23
8.82 7.90
7.63 9.09
18.02 6.05
6.00 6.12
9.96 8.49

18
Diff (X - M) Sq. Diff (X - M)2

Treatment 2 (X)
3.03 9.15
-1.35 1.83 9.00
-0.10 0.01 10.18
0.68 0.46 11.78
0.09 0.01 11.55
-2.09 4.39 8.62
-0.02 0.00 13.33
-1.21 1.47 7.87
9.18 84.19 9.18
-2.84 8.09 11.34
1.12 1.24 9.21
2.70 7.27 13.69
-1.07 1.15 9.05
-0.84 0.71 9.05
-2.62 6.89 6.00
-2.04 4.18 9.03
-0.06 0.00 10.43
3.66 13.36 12.55
1.39 1.92 9.60
-0.94 0.89 11.43
0.25 0.06 9.04
-2.79 7.81 8.62
-2.72 7.42 7.22
-0.35 0.13 10.19
0.34 0.11 9.74
-1.59 2.54 10.88
1.10 1.20 12.77
-2.05 4.22 7.28
0.06 0.00 10.43
1.21 1.45 10.96
M: 8.84 SS: 172.18

19
Difference Scores
Calculations
Diff (X - M) Sq. Diff (X - M)2 Treatment 1
N1: 30
0.15 0.02 df1 = N - 1 = 30 - 1 = 29
-1.01 1.01 M1: 8.84
0.17 0.03 SS1: 172.18
1.77 3.15 s21 = SS1/(N - 1) =
1.54 2.38 172.18/(301) = 5.94
-1.39 1.92
3.32 11.05 Treatment 2
-2.14 4.56
-0.83 0.68 N2: 30
1.33 1.78 df2 = N - 1 = 30 - 1 = 29
-0.80 0.63 M2: 10.01
3.68 13.57 SS2: 96.11
-0.96 0.91 s22 = SS2/(N - 1) =
-0.96 0.91 96.11/(30-1) = 3.31
-4.01 16.05
-0.98 0.95 T-value Calculation
0.42 0.18 s2p = ((df1/(df1 + df2))
2.54 6.47 * s21) + ((df2/(df2 +df2))
-0.41 0.16 * s22) = ((29/58) * 5.94) +
1.42 2.03 ((29/58) * 3.31) = 4.63
-0.97 0.93
-1.39 1.92 s2M1 = s2p/N1 = 4.63/30 =
-2.79 7.76 0.15
0.18 0.03 s2M2 = s2p/N2 = 4.63/30 =
-0.27 0.07 0.15
0.87 0.76
2.76 7.64 t=
-2.73 7.43 (M1 - M2)/√(s2M1 + s2M2)
0.42 0.18 = -1.16/√0.31 = -2.09
0.95 0.91
The t-value is -2.09187.
M: 10.01 SS: 96.11 The p-value is .040838.
The result is significant
at p < .05.

20
Treatment 1 (X)
11.87
7.49
8.74
9.52
8.93
6.75
8.82
7.63
18.02
6.00
9.96
11.54
7.77
8.00
6.22
6.80
8.78
12.50
10.23
7.90
9.09
6.05
6.12
8.49
9.18
7.25
9.94
6.79
8.90
10.05

21
Diff (X - M) Sq. Diff (X - M)2 Treatment 2 (X)

3.03 9.15 14.24
-1.35 1.83 17.83
-0.10 0.01 12.89
0.68 0.46 14.58
0.09 0.01 14.11
-2.09 4.39 10.40
-0.02 0.00 18.07
-1.21 1.47 14.73
9.18 84.19 15.66
-2.84 8.09 16.68
1.12 1.24 12.29
2.70 7.27 20.86
-1.07 1.15 13.22
-0.84 0.71 11.21
-2.62 6.89 16.58
-2.04 4.18 13.24
-0.06 0.00 24.66
3.66 13.36 27.58
1.39 1.92 15.30
-0.94 0.89 20.18
0.25 0.06 12.03
-2.79 7.81 12.43
-2.72 7.42 13.52
-0.35 0.13 13.02
0.34 0.11 10.62
-1.59 2.54 17.17
1.10 1.20 17.04
-2.05 4.22 8.45
0.06 0.00 23.08
1.21 1.45 15.32
M: 8.84 SS: 172.18

22
Difference Scores
Diff (X - M) Sq. Diff (X - M)2 Calculations
-1.33 1.76
2.26 5.12 Treatment 1
-2.68 7.16
-0.99 0.97 N1: 30
-1.46 2.12 df1 = N - 1 = 30 - 1 = 29
-5.17 26.69 M1: 8.84
2.50 6.27 SS1: 172.18
-0.84 0.70 s21 = SS1/(N - 1) =
0.09 0.01 172.18/(30-1) = 5.94
1.11 1.24
-3.28 10.73 Treatment 2
5.29 28.02
-2.35 5.51 N2: 30
-4.36 18.98 df2 = N - 1 = 30 - 1 = 29
1.01 1.03 M2: 15.57
-2.33 5.41 SS2: 539.49
9.09 82.69 s22 = SS2/(N - 1) =
12.01 144.33 539.49/(30-1) = 18.6
-0.27 0.07
4.61 21.29 T-value Calculation
-3.54 12.51
-3.14 9.84 s2p = ((df1/(df1 + df2))
-2.05 4.19 * s21) + ((df2/(df2 +df2))
-2.55 6.48 * s22) = ((29/58) * 5.94) +
-4.95 24.47 ((29/58) * 18.6) = 12.27
1.60 2.57
1.47 2.17 s2M1 = s2p/N1 = 12.27/30
-7.12 50.64 = 0.41
7.51 56.46 s2M2 = s2p/N2 = 12.27/30
-0.25 0.06 = 0.41
M: 15.57 SS: 539.49 t=

(M1 - M2)/√(s2M1 + s2M2)
= -6.72/√0.82 = -7.43

The p-value is < .00001.
at p < .05.

23
Treatment 1 (X)
10.16
9.00
10.18
11.78
11.55
8.62
13.33
7.87
9.18
11.34
9.21
13.69
9.05
9.05
6.00
9.03
10.43
12.55
9.60
11.43
9.04
8.62
7.22
10.19
9.74
10.88
12.77
7.28
10.43
10.96

24

0.15 0.02 Treatment 2 (X)
-1.01 1.01 14.24
0.17 0.03 17.83
1.77 3.15 12.89
1.54 2.38 14.58
-1.39 1.92 14.11
3.32 11.05 10.40
-2.14 4.56 18.07
-0.83 0.68 14.73
1.33 1.78 15.66
-0.80 0.63 16.68
3.68 13.57 12.29
-0.96 0.91 20.86
-0.96 0.91 13.22
-4.01 16.05 11.21
-0.98 0.95 16.58
0.42 0.18 13.24
2.54 6.47 24.66
-0.41 0.16 27.58
1.42 2.03 15.30
-0.97 0.93 20.18
-1.39 1.92 12.03
-2.79 7.76 12.43
0.18 0.03 13.52
-0.27 0.07 13.02
0.87 0.76 10.62
2.76 7.64 17.17
-2.73 7.43 17.04
0.42 0.18 8.45
0.95 0.91 23.08
15.32
M: 10.01 SS: 96.11

25

-1.33 1.76 Difference Scores
2.26 5.12 Calculations
-2.68 7.16
-0.99 0.97 Treatment 1
-1.46 2.12
-5.17 26.69 N1: 30
2.50 6.27 df1 = N - 1 = 30 - 1 = 29
-0.84 0.70 M1: 10.01
0.09 0.01 SS1: 96.11
1.11 1.24 s21 = SS1/(N - 1) =
-3.28 10.73 96.11/(30-1) = 3.31
5.29 28.02
-2.35 5.51
-4.36 18.98 Treatment 2
1.01 1.03
-2.33 5.41 N2: 30
df2 = N - 1 = 30 - 1 = 29
9.09 82.69
M2: 15.57
12.01 144.33
SS2: 539.49
-0.27 0.07
s22 = SS2/(N - 1) =
4.61 21.29
-3.54 12.51 539.49/(30-1) = 18.6
-3.14 9.84
-2.05 4.19
-2.55 6.48 T-value Calculation
-4.95 24.47
s2p = ((df1/(df1 + df2))
1.60 2.57
* s21) + ((df2/(df2 +df2))
1.47 2.17
* s22) = ((29/58) * 3.31) +
-7.12 50.64
7.51 56.46 ((29/58) * 18.6) = 10.96
-0.25 0.06
s2M1 = s2p/N1 = 10.96/30
M: 15.57 SS: 539.49 = 0.37
s2M2 = s2p/N2 = 10.96/30
= 0.37
t=
(M1 - M2)/√(s2M1 + s2M2)
= -5.56/√0.73 = -6.51

The p-value is < .00001.
at p < .05.

26

27

Mondriaan Aura College Bachelor of Science in Psychology Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mondriaan Aura College Bachelor of Science in Psychology Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MONDRIAAN AURA COLLEGE

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

An Experimental Psychology written output submitted to the

Doles, Ara Mae D.

Mondriaan Aura College, SBFZ

In Partial Fulfilment for the Requirement

February, 13, 2019

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

to detect changes and to reflect fundamental limitations of human attention. In the

witness testimony and distractions while driving.

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

To their Experimental Psychology Professor, Miss Jacqueline, for guiding and

experimenters are grateful.

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

Title Page ........................................................................................................................ 1

Acknowledgement ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 4

Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Paradigm of the Study .......................................................................................... 5

Statement of the Problem ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Hypothesis ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Design and Methodology ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Data Gathering Tool ............................................................................................. 8

Data Gathering Procedure .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Summary of the Debriefing ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Treatment of Data................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Conclusion ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Observations ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Recommendations................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

References ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendices ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

The students of Mondriaan Aura College, Psychology department in

Experimental Psychology class have conducted an experiment inside the school

psychological experiments ever conducted. This experiment measures the cognitive

extent of this difficulty is what we call the Stroop effect.

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

participants’ ability in conditions.

Paradigm of the Study

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Statement of the Problem

verbal and intrinsic stimuli?

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli?

verbal and verbal-intrinsic stimuli

verbal and intrinsic stimuli.

2. There is no significant difference between the sample reaction time under

intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli.

3. There is no significant difference between the sample reaction time under

verbal and verbal-intrinsic stimuli.

Significance of the Study

helps psychologists understand how the brain evaluates information. Experimental

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

Design and Methodology

Population and Locale of the Study

departments of Mondriaan Aura College to participate in the experiment. There is also

Data Gathering Tool

“AURA Psychology: The Heartbeat of Society.”

participants after the experiment.

Data Gathering Procedure

say the signal which is “go”.