Running Head: CHANGE BLINDNESS 1

CHANGE BLINDNESS EXPERIMENT

GROUP 2

Cinco, Kimberly R.

Legaspi, Jevy Grace A.

Lim, Queenie D.M

Mabao, Jane Camille V.

Macasaet, Aivan Joe G.

Minas, Jireh Joshua P.

Misola, Christian Angelo T.

Rabadan, Pauline B.

Romero, Choren Mae G.

Santos, Michael John D.

Santos, Poelyne M.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree in Bachelor of Science in

Psychology

February 13, 2018

CHANGE BLINDNESS 2

ABSTRACT

Change blindness is a tendency that makes people to often fail to notice large

changes to their immediate visual environment. It states that by shifting or distracting

one’s attention will cause an increase in change blindness – it applies to how people

perceive scenes whether it be projected on a screen or in real life. The aim of this

experiment is to make an understanding as to why an individual’s ability to take-in visual

information is limited. In the experiment, a total of 51 participants were involved but only

40 were considered valid. The experimenters have tested the participants’ visual

awareness by showing them a short video clip on a laptop of two teams (wearing black

shirt and white shirt) doing ball passes within their team while a moonwalking bear

appears in the clip. After the experiment, the experimenters concluded that there were

no significant difference in the number of passes identified between males and females;

also, there were 60% of the total participants who had made correct guesses of the

number of passes while 55% of the total participants have correctly guessed the

number of passes and did not see the moonwalking bear. Lastly, there were only four

participants who noticed the moonwalking bear. Among these four, two of them

correctly guessed the number of passes of the white team. This means that 5% of the

total population who noticed the moonwalking bear correctly guessed the number of

passes and also 5% of the total population who noticed the moonwalking bear

incorrectly guessed the number of passes.

CHANGE BLINDNESS 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The experimenters are thankful to their Dear God for protecting, guiding and for

giving wisdom to them until the end of the experiment.

The experimenters are also grateful to Miss Jacqueline Joy Lising for the support

and patience to the experimenters and for guiding them to make the experiment

possible.

To Miss Christelle Mae Gangcuanco for helping us with the statistical tool that we

used for this particular experiment.

To the parents, relatives, and friends of the experimenters for their moral and

financial support.

To extend their appreciation, the experimenters would also like to acknowledge

the participants during the experiment, and their full participation shown through their

patience.
CHANGE BLINDNESS 4

Table of Contents
Title Page....................................................................................................................1

Abstract.......................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgement.......................................................................................................3

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

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................5

Paradigm of the Study......................................................................................8

Statement of the Problem.................................................................................8

Hypothesis........................................................................................................9

Significance of the Study..................................................................................9

Chapter 2: Design and Methods…….........................................................................10

Population and Locale of the Study................................................................10

Data Gathering Tool.......................................................................................10

Data Gathering Procedure..............................................................................11

Summary of the Debriefing.............................................................................11

Treatment of Data...........................................................................................12

Chapter 3: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data..................................13

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations.........................................................16

Conclusion......................................................................................................16

Observations...................................................................................................18

Recommendations..........................................................................................18

References................................................................................................................19

Appendices................................................................................................................20
CHANGE BLINDNESS 5

INTRODUCTION

According to Boundless, 2013, Change blindness is defined as a psychological

phenomenon that occurs when a change in a visual stimulus goes unnoticed by the

observer.

As observers, people have a strong impression that our visual system produces

a coherent and detailed description of the world in front of us; a description, moreover,

that is always stable and complete. However, various studies have shown that our

ability to perceive objects and events in our visual field is far more limited than

subjective experience indicates. Among the more striking phenomena in this regard is

change blindness, the inability to notice changes that occur in clear view of the

observer, even when these changes are large and the observer knows they will occur.

(Rensink, 2002).

In Rensink’s original research, he stated that change blindness is a rather striking

phenomenon: a change made to an image during a saccade, flicker, or other such

interruption that would often be difficult to detect, even if it is large and easily seen once

noticed (Rensink, O’Regan, & Clark, 1997; Simmons and Levin 1997). Rensink,

O’Regan, and Clark (1997) studied change blindness over the years using a variety of

testing to determine what factors play a role in change blindness. Research has shown

us that there are a variety of factors that can influence change blindness. Downing &

Pinker (1985), found the first important factor in which we focus our attention on objects

in our present field of vision. It is well known that we can enhance or prioritize the

processing of stimuli by orienting or focusing our attention at that location (Downing &

Pinker, 1985; Eriksen & St. James, 1986; Posner, 1980). Downing and Pinker (1985)
CHANGE BLINDNESS 6

studied change blindness to determine that attentional distribution or how we focus on

the object in our visual field becomes an important variable when determining the

presence of change blindness.

Change blindness has turned out to be a powerful and robust effect that can be

induced in a variety of ways, such as making the change during an eye movement, an

eye blink, or a brief flash in the image. The generality of this effect indicates the

involvement of mechanisms central to the way that we perceive our surroundings. The

determination of these mechanisms and the way they relate to each other is far from

complete. But it is clear that visual attention is critical; in particular, results indicate that

focused attention is needed for the perception of change. (Rensink et. al., 1997). Given

the strength of its effects and its tight connection with attention, change blindness

appears to be a powerful way of exploring the nature of visual attention and the role it

plays in our perception of the world.

Theories considered in explaining the findings of the experimenters:

1. Visual attention - The key factor in causing change blindness appears to be the

effective removal of the local changes that accompany a change, either by being

overwhelmed by global motion signals, or else by hiding them altogether. But why

should this be? The prevailing explanation is that visual attention is needed to see

change. Under normal conditions, the local motion signal created by a change

automatically draws attention, allowing it to be seen. But if this signal is lost (for

example, being swamped by global signals), attention will no longer be automatically

drawn to the change. Instead, the viewer must send their attention around the scene on

an item-by-
CHANGE BLINDNESS 7

2. item basis, until it reaches the item that is changing. Until this occurs, they will be

unable to see the change, no matter how much time goes by.

3. Scene perception - If the perception of change requires attention, and if attention

is limited to just four or five items, our representation of events in the world cannot be

very complete. Why then do we have such a strong impression of seeing everything in a

scene? One possibility is that scene perception is based on a “just-in-time” system in

which detailed representations of objects and events are created only when requested.

If the allocation of attention were well managed, the appropriate representation would

always be ready, and so appearing to higher levels as if all representations were

present simultaneously.

4. Focalism - is the common tendency to focus too much on a particular event (the

“focal event”) and too little on other events that are likely to occur concurrently (Gilbert

&Wilson, 2000; Wilson, Wheatly, Meyers, Gilbert, & Axsom, 2000). Thus, individuals

overestimate the degree to which their future thoughts will be occupied by the focal

event as well as the duration of their emotional response to the event. For example,

individuals overestimate the impact of positive events, such as the win of a preferred

sports team or political candidate, on their overall happiness. And even more

dramatically, individuals overestimate the impact of negative events, such as a major

medical conditions, on overall happiness.

5. Focusing Illusion - as the human tendency to make judgments based on attention

to only a subset of available information, to overweight that information, and to

underweight unattended information.

 CHANGE BLINDNESS 8

Paradigm of the Study

6.
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
7. Clip
1. Video 1. Perceived number of
passes by participants
8.
2. Sex
9. 2. Participants who have
seen the
moonwalking bear.

Extraneous Variable
1. Noise

2. Audio & Video

Clarity

3. Lighting in the room

Statement of the Problem

1.) Is there a significant difference in the number of passes identified between

males and females?

2.) What is the percentage of participants who correctly counted the number of

passes of the white team?

3.) What is the percentage of participants who correctly counted the number of

passes of the white team and did not notice the moonwalking bear?
CHANGE BLINDNESS 9

4.) What is the percentage of participants who correctly counted the number of

passes of the white team and noticed the moonwalking bear?

5.) What is the percentage of the participants who incorrectly counted the

number of passes of the white team and noticed the moonwalking bear?

Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference in between the number of passes identified

among males and females.

2. There are 30%-40% of the participants who correctly counted the number of

passes of the white team.

3. There are 50%-60% of the participants who correctly counted the number of

passes of the white team and did not notice the moonwalking bear.

4. There are 5%-10% of the participants who correctly counted the number of

passes of the white team and noticed the moonwalking bear.

5. There are 5%-10% of the participants who incorrectly counted the number of

passes of the white team and noticed the moonwalking bear.

Significance of the Study

As Psychology students, "Change Blindness" provides students with the

knowledge to assimilate the visual or conscious perception of an individual on how the

observers often failed to notice the other object that was displayed at the same time.

Furthermore, this experiment also gives us knowledge that attention is required to

perceive changes in our immediate visual environment depending on high-level of

CHANGE BLINDNESS 10

interest of a person or individual. Lastly, this study will help the students and our society

to become more aware of our visual environment and how it negatively affects our lives

if we focused only to what we think is important. A good example would be the use of

social media, students nowadays are consumed by it that they become disconnected in

the real world that they pass on real life social interaction.

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Population and Locale of the Study

The experimenters invited students from different departments and year levels of

Mondriaan Aura College to take part in the experiment. A total of 51 students

participated, but only 40 were considered valid. The other 11 participant were

considered invalid because they have already participated in the same experiment or

already knew and watched the video. The experiment was conducted at Mondriaan

Aura College, Psychology laboratory.

Data Gathering Tool

The experimenters used a nine and a half by thirteen and half laptop and a

Bluetooth speaker to play the video. One of the experimenter, who was the observer

inside the experiment room, used a score sheet to record the participants’ number of

passes count and if they have seen the moonwalking bear in the video. The documenter

used a mobile phone’s camera to capture pictures of the participants who agreed to

have photos taken during the experiment.

CHANGE BLINDNESS 11

Data Gathering Procedure

1. The participants were asked to sit comfortably and to focus on the video that

they were about to watch. They were also asked if it was alright to take photos of them

during the experiment.

2. Before playing the video, the participants were instructed to focus on the video

because the instructions were already stated there, the instruction in the video was to

count the number of pass that the white team did. The experimenter asked the

participants if they were ready before starting the video.

3. After the scene of the white team and black team passing balls to each other,

the video was paused and the participants were asked how many ball passes were they

able to count from the white team. Then, they were asked if they noticed the

moonwalking bear while watching the video. The video was then continued (the scene

was replayed) for the participants to watch. The experimenter asked what the color of

the bear was to those participants who answered that they saw moonwalking bear in

order to confirm if they really saw it.

4. After the participants watched the video, they proceeded to the de-briefers

outside the experiment room.

Summary of the Debriefing

The 51 participants were debriefed by the debriefer responsible for debriefing to

validate their thoughts and experience in watching the video concerning the experiment.

The de-briefer asked them four questions:

CHANGE BLINDNESS
Question
1. Did you participate in the
last year experiment?
2. Was it your first time
watching the video that was
shown or have you seen the
video in YouTube or any
social media sites?
3. Is there any distraction while
you are watching the video?
4. Do you have any suggestion
or comment about our
experiment?
Treatment of the Data
The experimenters used the Welch’s t-test (for Unequal Variances) with sex
(male and female) as the parameter factor and the numbers of passes count as the real
12
Answer
44 participants answered that it was their first time
participating in the experiment. And the other 6 participants
said that they already participated in last year experiment.
46 of the participant have not seen the video in any social
media sites, while the other 4 participants said they already
seen the video and the 1 participant stated that there is an
experiment that she already seen, not the same video that the
experimenter used but she said that the video have the same
objective and rule.
Only two of the participants mentioned that they were
somehow distracted. First was that the instructions written on
the video were not clear for her and the other one said that
the room was cold at seventeen degrees Celsius; but other
than that, all of the participants said that there were no
distractions for them while watching the video during the
experiment.
Four of the participants commented that the quality of the
video was very low. The video was blurred which was why
they had a hard time reading the instructions. They also
mentioned that the screen of the laptop was small. But the
rest of the participants coincide that over-all; the experiment
was very exciting, challenging, and good experience for them.
The participants said that they had fun during the experiment.
 CHANGE BLINDNESS 13

factor to treat the data in problem number one. They also used the independent sample

t-test in SPSS to validate their results.

The experimenters also used a percentage method to compute and measure the

data in problems two through five.

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The SPSS result of the Independent Samples t-test

Problem no. 1:

1.1

R
o
b
ustT
e
stofE
q
ua
lityofM
e
a
ns
group_pass
Statistica df2 Sig.  t
Welch 0.250 37.296 0.620 0.05 -0.490

Table 1.2
The table above shows the full summary of the Welch t-test done for the unequal

variance, male and female, and the number of passes counted. The results clearly

presented that the t= -0.490 falls within the acceptance region of ±2.026 at   0.05 and

is therefore, not significant.

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
5% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
t df Difference
tailed) Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
-0.500 37.296 0.620 -0.45455 0.90978 -0.51198 -0.39711
group_pass not assumed

Table 1.3
CHANGE BLINDNESS 14

Table 1.3 shows the result of the Independent t-Test for checking. Both tests

almost have the same result for the t-value. The results for this test clearly presented

that the t= -0.500 falls within the acceptance region of ±2.026 at   0.05 and is

therefore, not significant

Problem no. 2-5:

The number of participants that counted the number of passes of the white team

correctly.

No. of Participants %

# OF PARTICIPANTS WHO CORRECTLY 24

COUNTED THE NUMBER OF PASSES 60
OF THE WHITE TEAM

# OF PARTICIPANTS WHO
INCCORRECTLY COUNTED THE 16
NUMBER OF PASSES OF THE WHITE 40
TEAM

Total 40 100

Table 2.1
Table 2.1 shows sixty percent of the participants (twenty four out of forty

participants) correctly counted the number of passes of the white team.

The number of participants that counted the number of passes of the white team

correctly and did not notice the moonwalking bear.

No. of Participants %

# OF PARTICIPANTS WHO CORRECTLY

COUNTED THE NUMBER OF PASSES 22
OF THE WHITE TEAM AND NOTICED 55
THE MOONWALKING BEAR

Table 2.2
CHANGE BLINDNESS 15

Table 2.2 shows that fifty five percent of the participants (twenty two out of thirty

eight participants) who did not notice the moonwalking bear, correctly guessed the

number of passes made by the white team.

The number of participants that counted the number of passes of the white team

correctly and noticed the moonwalking bear.

No. of Participants %
Correct 2 5

Table 2.3
Table 2.3 shows that among the twenty four participants who correctly guessed

the number of passes made by the white team only five percent (two participants) were

able to see the moonwalking bear.

The number of participants that counted the number of passes of the white team

incorrectly and noticed the moonwalking bear.

No. of Participants %
Incorrect 2 5

Table 2.4
Table 2.4 shows that among the sixteen participants who incorrectly guessed the

number of passes made by the white team only five percent (two participants) were able

to see the moonwalking bear.

CHANGE BLINDNESS 16

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusion

The experimenters concluded that there is no significant difference in the number

of passes identified between males and females. Therefore the null hypothesis is

ACCEPTED.

Also, results show that in problem number two, there are twenty four out of the

forty participants who correctly guessed the number of passes made by the white team.

This means that 60% of the total population correctly guessed the number of passes

which fell outside the 30%-40% range of our hypothesis. Therefore the hypothesis is

REJECTED.

In problem number three, the data shows that twenty two out of the thirty eight

participants who did not notice the moonwalking bear correctly guessed the number of

passes. This means that 55% of the total population did not notice the moonwalking

bear but correctly guessed the number of passes which falls within the 50%-60% range

of our hypothesis. Therefore the hypothesis is ACCEPTED.

For problems four and five, there were only four participants who noticed the

moonwalking bear. Among these four, two of them correctly guessed the number of

passes of the white team. This means that 5% of the total population noticed the

moonwalking bear and correctly guessed the number of passes and also 5% of the total

population noticed the moonwalking bear but incorrectly guessed the number of passes

which falls within the 5%-10% range of our hypothesis. Therefore the hypothesis is

ACCEPTED.
CHANGE BLINDNESS 17

McConkie et al., (1970) conducted the Change Blindness Experiment on 1970.

The first studies on change blindness involving changes in words and texts; in these

studies, the changes were introduced while the observer performed a saccadic eye

movement. Although change blindness has provided insights into the nature of visual

attention, it has also provided insights into other aspects of visual perception and the

role that attention plays in them (Rensink, R.A., 2003).

These results can further be explained by the participant’s intention. Attentional

management is used in the perception of a given task. One important factor is the

expectation of the observer for a specific change, and spotting the change is relevant.

When observers do not expect a change, the degree of change blindness found is much

higher although some ability to detect change still remains (Levin & Simons, 1997).

The type of change expected is also an important factor. Through observation,

participants appear to be sensitive only to changes on those properties relevant to the

current task at the moment the change was made (Rensink, 2002).

Furthermore, an experiment by Nelson, T.O.,Metzler J., &Reed, D. A. (1974)

concluded that their results implied recognition advantage for pictures over verbal

descriptions is not due to the extra details which pictures contain. In their study of

gender and visual detail, gender did not influence the participants’ results. Although

these results did not answer the question about change blindness and gender, it would

lay the groundwork for further research.

In a different experiment by Forte, F. L., D. Mandato, & W. A. Kayson. (1981)

gender is an important variable to change blindness. In their study, the female

participants were a lot quicker in their response times than their male counterparts.
CHANGE BLINDNESS 18

Also, Hamel et al., in 1997 concluded that of greater interest was the hypothesis that

visual detail would affect recognition; this hypothesis was only partially supported. With

this being said, women performed better in this study because of how they processed

the information.

Observations

The experimenters seemed to be confused and nervous, which was caused by

having difficulties in explaining what change blindness was to the first five participants.

The documenter was also there to assist the participants and give proper instructions

for the experiment and educate the participants on what change blindness was all

about. Some of the participants were not able to focus from the beginning of the video

which was one of the reasons why they were not able to identify how many passes were

made by the white team and to also see the moonwalking bear.

Recommendations

• The experimenters may need to know their roles to avoid confusion during

experiment.

• The experimenters may be more comfortable and confident in explaining and

giving instructions.

• The experimenters may acquire a better quality of the film so that the participants

could see more clearly.

• The experimenters may state the problem right from the start of the experiment

to their group. Variables such as sex, age, and college major should be considered for

getting participants
CHANGE BLINDNESS 19

REFERENCES

[how2stats]. (2014, March 31). Welch’s t-test (unequal variances) - SPSS [Video File].

Retrieved from http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fl6wgE4Edaw

Boundless.com, (2013). Change Blindness. Creative Commons

Downing, C. J., & Pinker, S. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. In M. I.

Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the

field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–

240.

Forte, F. L., D. Mandato, & W. A. Kayson. (1981). Effect of sex of subject on

recall of ender-stereotyped magazine advertisements. Psychological Reports

49, 619-622.

Gilbert, D. T. and Wilson, T. D. (2000). Miswanting: Some problems in the forecasting of

future affective states. In J.P. Forgas (Ed) Feeling and thinking: The role of affect

in social cognition Studies in emotion and social interaction, second series (pp

178-197) xvi, 421pp.

K. Rayner. (1992). Eye Movements and Visual Cognition: Scene Perception and

Reading. New York: Springer

Levin DT, Simons DJ. 1997. Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion

pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4: 501-506.

McConkie GW, Zola D. 1979. Is visual information integrated across successive

fixations in reading? Percept. Psychophys.25:221–24

CHANGE BLINDNESS 20

Nelson, T.O.,Metzler J., &Reed, D. A. (1974).Role of details in the long-term

recognition of pictures and verbal descriptions. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 102, 184-186.

Rensink RA, O'Regan JK, Clark JJ. 1997. To see or not to see: The need for attention

to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8: 368-373

Rensink RA. 2002. Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 245-277.

Rensink, R.A. (2003). Visual attention. In L Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive

Science, London: Nature Publishing Group, pp. 509-515.

Schkade, D. A. and D. Kahneman (1998). Does Living in California Make People

Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgments of Life Satisfaction. Psychological

Science, 9(5), 340-346

Simons DJ, Levin DT. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1: 261-

267.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Tools Used in the Experiment

Laptop and Bluetooth Speaker

CHANGE BLINDNESS 21

Video Clip

Appendix A

Raw Data

Treatment of Data

t-test computation for significant difference in the number of passes between male and
female.
CHANGE BLINDNESS 22

Percentage Computation:

Critical values of Student's t distribution with ν degrees of freedom

Appendix C

Documentation of the Experiment

Inside the Experiment Room

CHANGE BLINDNESS 23
CHANGE BLINDNESS 24

Outside the Experiment Room

Debriefing Area
CHANGE BLINDNESS 25

Waiting Area