Question 1My first reaction to this video was pure amazement at the amount of people that did not notice the second guy was different from the first. From an outsider’s standpoint, this seems like an obvious change in stimuli. However, as mentioned in the video, our brains don’t process much of what comes in through our eyes. One would think that the differences in the color of the shirt, the type of hair, and the tone of voice would trigger a reaction in the brain to sense a change in stimuli, but it doesn’t. I think it’s amazing (and possibly somewhat worrisome) that our brain has the capability to block out huge changes because we are so focused on something else. Therefore, I think this experiment was quite fascinating because it showed the lack of attention given to big changes and perhaps this can give reasoning to the lack of attention we give other things in our lives. In this experiment, the obvious experimental method was used, and was used quite properly. This was a concrete experiment for several reasons. First of all, there were clear independent and dependent variables. The independent variables were the two different men because they were being changed by the researchers. The dependent variables were the reactions of notice to the change in stimuli, which were carried about by random people that walked through the door. However, a control was not used, but a control may not be deemed necessary in a research experiment such as this. Secondly, the sample population being tested was randomized. It was unclear on where the experiment was taking place (although it was clear it was not in a lab), so one cannot be sure whether the representative sample was completely randomized. However, it appeared the sample population was taken in an account of how many people that walked through the door would want to be sampled. Various races and ethnicities were not represented, but again, it could have been the location of where the experiment was taking place. Finally, the experiment seemed like a concrete experiment because it avoided bias. Although they didn’t disclose the details of the experiment until the questioning at the end, this proved successful because the participants didn’t know they were already being tested at the very beginning when signing up; there couldn’t have been artificial responses. Therefore, this experiment proved to be valid due to the preceding reasonings. Question 2 According to the video, change blindness is the concept that people miss large changes from one view to the next view. People can’t see large and “obvious” changes or differences unless they are previously notified. Take for example, two different shots in a movie. When one is at the theatre viewing this movie, the change in shots are not even noticed, even though there could be different lighting or different characters. It’s still part of the same movie. Similarly, in this experiment, “viewers” or rather, the participants were exposed to different “camera shots” or really, two different people in the same “movie” or situation. To an outside viewer, there was an obvious difference between the two people standing behind the counter. However, as all of the people started signing the documents and thinking about what experiment they could possibly be entering into, they didn’t notice the difference in the men when they stood back up. This was a clear-cut example of change blindness since there was such a large change that did not go noticed in people’s perception of that situation. Until the participants went back Therefore, change-blindness was clearly prominent in most of the participants during the experiment. Question 3 Selective attention could possibly be defined by one’s ability to pay attention to some stimuli, but not to others. People hear what they want to hear and pay attention to what they want to pay attention to, or what interests them. They just ignore the rest. This is a common phenomenon and most everyone does it. One of the most common examples of selective attention, especially in my personal life, happens in the most public places. For example, at a restaurant there is often lots of people, lots of clatter happening, and music playing. Selective attention allows you to ignore this. When I am at a restaurant, I don’t hear anyone else’s conversations, dishes dropping, or even the tacky background music, unless I choose to pay attention to that and not the person in front of me. Without selective attention, restaurants would be very unpleasant and distracting. Because of this, there are benefits of selective attention. With selective attention, one is able to block out unnecessary details of ordinary life, such as (referring back to the restaurant example) other conversations, sounds of air conditioners, or traffic noises outside the window. Although sometimes selective attention may be responsible for one ignoring their mother when she asks them to clean their room, it proves useful in a variety of noisy situations and should not be taken for granted. Question 4 I vividly recall the Budweiser clydesdale horse and puppy commercial. In this one, the puppy got locked in the trailer and was driven away from his home. The clydesdale horse missed the puppy and started acting out. The puppy started running through fields trying to get back to the barn, but was then confronted by a wolf. However, the clydesdale horse broke out and saved the puppy. This commercial caught my attention for several reasons. First of all, there was a cute puppy. That in itself warms all the hearts of animals lovers, like me. Secondly, the puppy and the horse had a relationship. An animal so small and an animal so massive were friends, and that I think is really cool. The horse stood up for the puppy when he was in danger, and I think most people can agree that is what friends should do. Finally, the sad music in the background added an element that appealed to my emotions. Although the music was drastically noticeable, I don’t think the commercial would have the same effect on viewers without it. Following suit of the Budweiser commercial, product marketers could increase viewers awareness in several ways. For example, in order to increase awareness, product marketers need to appeal to viewers three senses of appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos. Because of selective attention, viewers often ignore the finer details and focus more on what appeals to them. Following a heartwarming storyline will often cover these three appeals. Take for example, the Budweiser commercial. The emotional appeal (pathos) was within the scene when the horses saved the dog. The ethical (ethos) appeal was when the farmer posted signs looking for the lost dog. The logical appeal could have possibly have been the anecdote of the story that Budweiser was trying to tell. Product marketers need to focus on these three appeals and be aware that most of their audiences have selective attention and that there is only a short time frame of full attention that audiences give them. Within that time frame, the three appeals should be covered while exempting extraneous details that selective attention would eliminate anyways.