Researchers argued the two stage model of the attenuation theory was unnecessarily complex, leading to a late selection model proposing selection occurs after recognition occurs through attended and unattended channels both undergoing semantic analysis prior to one channel being selected for processing (Deutsch and Deutsch, 1963). This pertinence theory is supported by a classical conditioning experiment by Corteen and Wood (1972), to produce a galvanic skin response (GSR) to particular words through presenting mild electric shocks. Words were presented without shock to produce a GSR, and when presented on the unattended channel produced the same results. Taking the study further, synonyms of the response words were also presented on the unattended channel that also produced a GSR. Although this illustrates there must be semantic filtering of all information to determine the level of pertinence, empirical research has found detection twice as likely to occur from the attended channel (shadowed message) as opposed to the unattended channel, concluding processing of unattended information is not full and complete (Treisman and Riley, 1969, cited in Parkin, 2000, page 59).
In discussing the various theories to evaluate James’s statement, establishing common ground between ‘stage selection’ and ‘capacity’ theories is necessary, as one theory simply cannot be dismissed in favour of the other. The multimode attention theory (Johnston and Heinz, 1978) builds on both, while adding a new dimension based on a continuum between early and late selection. Using a dual task procedure, presenting stimuli to be detected physically (early stage processing) or semantically (late stage processing) revealed selective attention can operate early or late, but the later it operates the more attentional resources are required. This is explained through two events occurring when moving from early to late modes; the bottleneck shifts to filter the input after pattern recognition and attention capacity decreases. Using the multimode model to make a definitive statement in sympathy with both theories, one might suggest if we filter out unimportant information at an early stage of processing, then more attention remains available in order to perform more important tasks.
The definition of attention by James implies we can only attend to one thing at a time. Although people try to attend to several things at once, our ability to do so is clearly limited. The capacity model of attention (Kahneman, 1973 cited in ) considers such cognitive limits in explaining the limits of attention, how the selection process may work and what causes failure. Kahneman found there is a limit to a person’s ability to do mental work, yet have some control over how this mental capacity is allocated. When performing multiple tasks, the ability to be successful depends on the complexity of each task. The amount of attention also varies in accordance with resources maintained within a person, which may be governed by tiredness, age, drug effects etc. The Kahneman model addresses demands that can be placed on the cognitive system and illustrates the ways in which an individual can influence their attentional processes. It also helps to explain how the system can fail. Arousal can be reasonable, capacity high, and allocation of resources sensible; however, if the activities demanded of the system exceed the limits of attention for that individual, performance will suffer. Limited capacity models have been criticised through studies of divided attention that demonstrate attentional abilities can be extended with practice; something that should not be possible if attentional capacity is limited.
Divided attention studies followed the work of Allport et al. (1972) who were opposed to the theory of a single general-purpose attentional mechanism. They presented a theory that proposed several different mechanisms exist, and operate depending on the information processed, which is demonstrated by participants shadowing a spoken message whilst trying to learn a list of words presented via headphones. Findings revealed learning the word list did not occur, however when the learning task was changed from auditory stimuli to visual stimuli, recall occurred with minimal error. Attention theories to this point have been concerned with listening tasks, and the possibility arose that unattended information is being actively searched for leading to the effectiveness of auditory shadowing becoming questioned. Visual methods were further explored through presenting participants with two pictures of the same face, one of which had a subtle difference showing pupil dilation (Hess, 1975, cited in Parkin, 2000, pages 60-61). Participants reported one face displaying different emotion without knowing why, and so became effective evidence semantic processing occurred without intentional involvement.
Practice appears to enhance our ability to perform the type of task addressed by divided attention studies. This becomes apparent upon asking participants to read stories whilst simultaneously listening to (and writing down) a list of words. Performance between the visual stimuli and auditory stimuli was initially poor, however participants had little difficulty in their performance after six weeks of practice (Spelke et al. 1976). Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) offer an explanation developed from the speed of processing theory (Posner and Snyder, 1975, cited in Parkin, 2000, page 71) that illustrates automatic processing occurs without attention, does not give rise to conscious awareness and does not interfere with other mental activity. They suggest people are able to perform these types of tasks through being practiced to such extent that it becomes automatic and therefore largely unconscious. When testing participants with a visual search task, the requirement was to determine if items from a memory set were present within a visual frame. Conditions within the experiment required differing demands on attention whereupon ‘controlled processes’ were found to be slow, serial, and required considerable capacity as opposed to ‘automatic processes’ being fast, parallel, and required little attention. The classic study centred on automaticity is the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935), found to be highly robust and resistant to practice. Through significant repeated use of this study, automaticity has been found to be a continuum as opposed to being dichotomous, and depends on a degree of task learning rather than speed of processing alone (Cohen et al. 1990).
Recognising attention issues are of great importance, particularly in the poor academic achievement of school children or motorway traffic accidents. Through the lack of sustained attention in children, and vigilance within adults, we search for plausible reasons why some are unable to attend. Although a paradigm shift has been experienced through empirical methods superseding introspectionism, cognitive science is making a progression into neurological-cognitive psychology. With relation to the attention spans of children, it is quite normal to find they are shorter to that of adults before differences diminish as a child ages. A small percentage of the child population display an inability to maintain sustained attention, and coupled with unusually high levels of activity, has been recognised as a behavioural disorder classified as ‘attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder’.
Direct and immediate causes of ADHD are unknown, however advances in neurological imaging techniques and genetics promise to clarify this issue in the near future. Symptoms of inattention such as failure to listen, careless mistakes, failure to complete tasks etc. and symptoms of hyperactivity such as excessive talking, constantly interrupting, inappropriate physical activity etc. may not be present in equal amounts, so asymmetry may exist in some children being predominantly inattentive, or hyperactive. Causes of ADHD have been explored and found to be the product of both nature and nurture. Evidence to support genetic condition is supported by one of the largest studies involving identical twins who inherit exactly the same genes, and fraternal twins who are no more genetically alike than siblings born years apart (Gjone, Stevenson and Sundet, 1996, cited in Barkley, 1998, page 3). Research indicated the differences in attention and hyperactivity between people with ADHD to those without the disorder was a high percentage, revealing ADHD has a heritability approaching eighty percent and can therefore be explained by genetic factors. Non-genetic factors have linked ADHD to premature birth, maternal alcohol and tobacco use, early childhood high levels of exposure to lead and brain injuries that particularly involve the prefrontal cortex (Barkley, 1998). Introspectionists had no access to modern neurological technology, and would not have undertaken external studies such as that of Gjone et al. (1996), so suggestion of attentional traits of individuals being accounted for through genetics or prefrontal cortex damage would not have become apparent to James at the time of his hypothesis.
When considering the cocktail party phenomenon and the findings of Cohen et al. automaticity plays a vital role in the effortless and unconscious responses to personal name recognition. It is proposed the schemas within long-term memory influence what we attend to (Norman and Shallice, 1986, cited in Parkin, 2000, pages 72-74). Anticipatory schemas that depend on classifying the task valuable and routine undertake automatic control. Whenever these routine actions become inappropriate, a system is activated requiring us to attend and therefore increases the cognitive load. This model also subscribes to the neuropsychological paradigm through supporting evidence of opposing behaviour occurring in people with affiliated frontal lobe damage.
With automatic effects explaining the efficient use of attention, the primary application of attention remains robust and empirically documented through the work of Treisman and dichotic listening tasks. To conclude, James made a correct statement that suits the most prevalent theories on attention to this day. When he states “withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others”, this is supported providing the task demands a high degree of attention, illustrated by our capabilities to perform one task at a time. For his statement to be complete, James would have been required to explain the ability to perform several tasks simultaneously providing they are not attention demanding, and many tasks simultaneously providing they can be processed automatically. Analysing his statement further, there is a possible ambiguity on the question of attention-free states of consciousness. Primarily, attention would take “clear and vivid form”, given the actual object of attention is itself clear and vivid, clarity and vividness being constituents of the object itself. Alternatively the object could be vague and nebulous, resulting in attention made to be clear and vivid, for example the more vague it is, the clearer and more vivid it is attended. In the first case, the object would be clear and vivid if a ‘less than’ optimal degree of attention were given, whereas in the second case the object would require optimal attention through being vague and nebulous. While writing his statement, James may have anticipated criticism and purposefully incorporated this ambiguity; alternatively like the statement itself, it could be serendipitous.
Word Count: 2442 words (excluding references)
References:
Allport, D.A., Antonis, B. and Reynolds, P. (1972) On the division of attention: a disproof
of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24,
225-235.
Barkley, R.A. (1998) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Scientific American, 279, 66-72
Cherry, E.G. (1953) Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and two ears.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975-979.
Cohen, J.D., Dunbar, K. and McClelland, J.L. (1990) On the control of automatic processes:
A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review,
97, 332-361
Corteen, E.C. and Wood, B. (1972) Autonomic responses to shock-associated words in an
unattended channel. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 308-313.
Deutsch, J.A. and Deutsch, D. (1963) Attention: some theoretical considerations.
Psychological Review, 70, 80-90.
James, W. (1890) Principles of psychology. New York: Holt
Johnston, W.A. and Heinz, S.P. (1978) Flexibility and capacity demands of attention.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 420-435
Moray, N. (1959) Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influences of
instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 55-60.
Nielsen, L.I. and Sarason, I.G. (1981) Emotion, personality and selective attention. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 945-960.
Parkin, A.J. (2000) Essential Cognitive Psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd
Shiffrin, R.M. and Schneider, W. (1977) Controlled and automatic human information
processing : 2, Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
Spelke, E., Hirst, W. and Neisser, U. (1976) Skills of divided attention, Cognition, 4, 215-230.
Stroop, J.R. (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 31, 121-132
Treisman, A.M. (1960) Contextual cues in selective listening. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 12, 242-248.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice - Hall
Eysenck, M.W., and Keane, M.T. (2000). Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th Edition). Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd.
Best, J. (1992). Cognitive Psychology (4th Edition). New York: West Publishing
