You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 9 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris's 1999 study is the contemporary study for the cognitive-area theme of attention, and it is the source of one of the most famous demonstrations in all of psychology: the "invisible gorilla". When people are asked to watch a short film of players passing basketballs and to count the passes made by one team, roughly half of them fail to notice a person in a full gorilla suit who walks slowly into the middle of the scene, turns to face the camera, thumps their chest, and walks off — an event lasting some nine seconds and impossible to miss if you are not otherwise occupied. This failure to see a fully visible, unexpected object because your attention is engaged elsewhere is called inattentional blindness, and Simons & Chabris's study is its defining experimental demonstration.
This lesson tells the study in the OCR "tell the story" format: the background that motivated it, the aim, the method (design, conditions, sample and procedure), the results with their real figures, the researchers' conclusions, and a full evaluation of its method, data, ethics, validity and reliability. It closes by linking the study to its key theme, its area, the relevant perspectives and the debates it fuels. As the contemporary partner to Moray (1959), Simons & Chabris is examined not only in its own right but for how far it updates our understanding of attention — moving the theme from auditory filtering to a striking visual failure of awareness — so knowing it precisely, and knowing how it differs from the classic study, is essential for Component 02.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 02 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Background: inattentional blindness; sustained vs momentary events; visual attention | Section A — Cognitive; theme: attention (contemporary) | AO1 knowledge |
| Method: the counting-passes video; transparent/opaque × white/black × umbrella-woman/gorilla × easy/hard conditions; sample | Section A — Core study (Simons & Chabris) | AO1; AO2 |
| Results (overall detection rate; opaque > transparent; effect of similarity to the attended set; hard vs easy) | Section A — Core study | AO1 |
| Conclusions (we consciously see only what we attend to; no perception without attention) | Section A — Core study | AO1; AO3 |
| Evaluation: method, data type, ethics, validity, reliability, sampling, ethnocentrism | Section A; Section B debates | AO3 |
| Links to theme, area (Cognitive), perspective and debates | Section B — Areas, perspectives, debates | AO1; AO3 |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for its exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (the aim, procedure, results and conclusions), AO2 (applying inattentional blindness to novel real-world scenarios) and AO3 (evaluating the study's validity, reliability, ethics and generalisability).
The cognitive study of attention had, by the late 1990s, moved a long way from Moray's dichotic-listening experiments, but the central insight remained: attention is a limited resource, and we cannot fully process everything the senses deliver. In the visual domain, this raised a striking possibility. If seeing requires attention, then it should be possible for an object to be fully visible — in clear view, well lit, unobstructed — and yet go unseen, simply because the observer's attention is committed elsewhere. This phenomenon, in which people fail to notice an unexpected object that is in plain sight because they are attending to something else, is inattentional blindness.
Earlier work (notably by Arien Mack and Irvin Rock) had demonstrated inattentional blindness for brief, static stimuli — a shape flashed for a fraction of a second while participants judged a demanding task. But this invited a natural objection: perhaps people missed the stimulus simply because it was fleeting and unexpected in a laboratory display of dots and crosses. It left open the more dramatic and more real-world question: could inattentional blindness occur for a sustained, dynamic, real-world event — an object that is present for several seconds, moving through a meaningful scene — that everyone would agree is impossible to overlook under normal viewing?
Simons and Chabris set out to answer exactly this. Building on a classic earlier demonstration by Ulric Neisser (in which observers watching one superimposed team of players failed to notice a woman walking through with an umbrella), they designed a more controlled and more powerful test using an unexpected event that was, if anything, more incongruous and attention-grabbing — a person in a gorilla suit. Their aim was not merely to show that people can miss things, but to map out the conditions under which inattentional blindness is more or less likely: whether it depends on how the display is constructed, on how demanding the primary task is, and on how similar the unexpected object is to the things the observer is deliberately attending to. Understanding these motivating questions clarifies why the study used so many conditions: it was designed to explain inattentional blindness, not just to exhibit it.
The overarching aim was to investigate inattentional blindness for a sustained, dynamic event — to establish whether people would fail to notice an unexpected but fully visible object present for several seconds in a moving, real-world scene, and to identify the factors that make such blindness more or less likely. The specific aims were:
The study was a controlled experiment with an independent-measures design (each participant experienced only one combination of conditions and saw the unexpected event only once — crucially, it cannot be repeated on the same naive observer). It used a factorial combination of several independent variables:
The dependent variable was whether or not the participant noticed the unexpected event, established afterwards by a series of questions.
The participants were 228 observers in total (a substantial sample by the standards of the core studies), the majority students, who took part largely on a voluntary basis (some for a small payment or course credit). After exclusions (for example, participants who already knew about the phenomenon, or who miscounted grossly), the analysed sample was somewhat smaller. This is an opportunity/volunteer sample of a largely young, student population.
Each participant watched a video of roughly 75 seconds in which two teams of three players — one team in white shirts, one in black — moved around and passed a basketball among their own team. Before watching, participants were given their counting instruction according to their allocated condition (attend to the white or the black team; easy total count or hard split count). They were told to watch the video carefully and keep a silent mental count, which they would report afterwards.
Partway through the film, the unexpected event occurred: depending on condition, either the umbrella-woman or the gorilla walked from one side of the scene into the middle and out the other side. In the gorilla films, the gorilla paused in the centre, turned to face the camera and thumped its chest before walking off — the whole event being visible for around five to nine seconds.
Immediately after the video, participants reported their pass count and then answered a graded series of questions: whether they had noticed anything unusual; whether they had seen anything other than the players; whether they had seen a gorilla (or a woman with an umbrella). Only participants who had not spontaneously mentioned the unexpected event but then said "yes" to the specific question were probed to confirm; the key measure was whether they had noticed the event during viewing. Participants who realised only when directly asked were counted as not having noticed.
Overall, across all conditions, roughly half of the observers failed to notice the unexpected event: approximately 46% did not see it (so about 54% did notice). Given that the unexpected object was in full view for several seconds — the gorilla even facing the camera and beating its chest — this is a startling failure of awareness, and it is the study's central, memorable finding: attention was so committed to counting passes that a fully visible, incongruous object went consciously unseen for a large proportion of viewers.
Detection was substantially higher in the opaque condition than in the transparent condition. In the opaque (single live-action) films, around two-thirds of observers noticed the event (roughly 67%), whereas in the transparent (superimposed) films, fewer than half did (roughly 42%). The more realistic, solid, single-film display made the unexpected object easier to notice than the ghostly superimposed one.
The harder the counting task, the less likely observers were to notice the unexpected event. Those performing the demanding split-count (bounce and aerial passes separately) noticed the event less often than those doing the easy total count — consistent with the idea that a heavier attentional load leaves less spare capacity to register the unexpected.
Whether the unexpected object resembled the attended team mattered. Observers who were monitoring the black-shirted team noticed the (black) gorilla substantially more often than observers monitoring the white-shirted team — because the gorilla was, like the attended team, dark, and so fell within the "set" of things being attended to. Correspondingly, the two unexpected objects were noticed at different overall rates: the umbrella-woman was, on average, noticed more often than the gorilla (the gorilla being missed by a larger share of viewers overall). Attention, in other words, is selective by category: we more readily notice unexpected things that share features with what we are deliberately tracking.
Pulling these together: inattentional blindness for a sustained event is real and substantial (about half missed it), and it is lawful — more likely when the display is less realistic (transparent), when the primary task is harder, and when the unexpected object is dissimilar from the attended set.
Simons and Chabris drew several connected conclusions.
First, and most strikingly, inattentional blindness occurs for sustained, dynamic, real-world events, not merely for brief laboratory flashes. A fully visible object present for several seconds can go consciously unnoticed if the observer's attention is engaged elsewhere. This extends inattentional blindness from a fleeting curiosity to a robust, everyday feature of vision.
Second, and most importantly for theory, we consciously perceive far less of our visual world than we assume — and there is essentially no conscious perception without attention. The intuition that we take in everything before our eyes (sometimes called the "grand illusion" of a rich, complete visual experience) is mistaken: what reaches awareness is selected by attention, and objects outside the focus of attention, however salient, may simply not be seen. Seeing, on this account, is not automatic registration of whatever is in the visual field; it requires attention.
Third, the likelihood of noticing an unexpected object is systematically affected by the observer's task and mental set. The findings on task difficulty and on similarity to the attended set show that inattentional blindness is not random: a heavier attentional load makes it more likely, and an unexpected object is more likely to be noticed if it shares features with the things the observer is deliberately monitoring. Attention operates over categories and features, drawing in what resembles the attended set and screening out what does not.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 9 lessons in this course.