Download ppt - 0929 Yijung

1. Culture and change blindness Masuda, T. and R. Nisbett (2006).Cognitive Science 30(2 ): 381-399.

Rensink et al., 1997; Scholl, 2000

Change Blindness Flicker paradigm (salient) (focal)

Nisbett and his colleagues (Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000; Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, &

Norenzayan, 2001):

(holistical) (field)

(analytical) (salient)

First, East Asians aresocialized to attend to contexts , including both physical and socioemotional contexts.

Second, as we will show later, there is evidence thatAsian-built environments are more complexthan Western environments.

Masuda and Nisbett (2001):

(salient) I saw what looked like a trout swimming off to the left.

60% I saw what looked like a stream; the water was green; there were rocks on the bottom.

the original flicker paradigm (Rensink et al., 1997)

focal objects contexual infomration

A 2 (culture: Americans vs. East Asians) 2 (type of change: object vs. context) analysis of

variance(ANOVA)of reaction time for the identification of changes.

Levin & Simons, 1997; Simons & Chabris, 1999; Simons & Levin, 1998

Several researchers have investigated change blindness forcontinuousmovement or dynamic stimuli in the real world.

(animated vignettes)

Research in that paradigm finds American participants to be more sensitive to changes in focal objects than to changes in the periphery or context. We anticipated that this would be less true for East Asians and that they would be more sensitive to context changes than would Americans.

focal objects contextual information

(clip 1 clip 2) clip 1 clip 2 ( )

Japanese participants were more likely than American participants to detect changes in contextual information,F(1, 35) = 5.68, p < .03.

American participants were marginally more likely than Japanese participants to detect changes in focal object information,F(1, 35) = 2.92, .05 < p < .10

1~7 (1: 7: )

A 2 (culture) 2 (object vs. context) ANOVA for the average reports for the five scenes showed that there was a significant interaction between culture and allocation of attention,F(1, 58) = 22.72, p< .001.

Japanese participants were more likely to detect changes in contextual information than were AmericansF(1, 58) = 16.17 , p < .001.

Americans were more likely to detect changes in focal object information than the Japanese,F(1,58) = 5.63 ,p < .02.

The patterns forculturally neutral scenesandculturally specific scenesweresimilar,with the exception that the difference in change detection for focal objects for culturally neutral scenes was slight and insignificant.

We also found a significant interaction between allocation of attention and type of culturalscene,F(1, 58) = 128.62, p < .001 .

(A three-way interaction was not statistically significant,F(3, 58) = 2.25, p > .10. )

Experiment 1

Japanese participants detected changes incontextinformationmore rapidlythan did American participants, whereas there was no difference in how rapidly the two groups detected changes in object information.

Experiments 2 and 3

Americansdetected more object changesthan Japanese but that Japanese detected far more context changes than object changes.

Masuda et al. (2005)

They presented participants with a series of cartoon images, consisting of a target figure in the center and four background figures in the peripheral area, and asked participants to judge the central figures emotion based on his facial expression.

East Asians were more likelythan their North Americancounterparts to allocate their attention to the peripheral figures facial expressionsand that their judgment were strongly influenced by the changes in the background figures facial expression.