10305509

EXAMINING SEX AND

MODALITY DIFFERENCES IN
DIVIDED ATTENTION TASKS
COGNITIVE II PRACTICALS

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF GHANA

Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

EXAMINING SEX AND MODALITY DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE OF DUAL

TASKS ON DIVIDED ATTENTION
ABSTRACT

In a 2x3 factorial experiment design to examine gender differences in dual tasks (divided

attention) recall on within and cross modalities, 171 students comprising of 95 males and 76

females were systematically sampled from PSYC421 Cognitive Psychology II students of the

University of Ghana main and city campuses. The result showed that there is no significant

difference between males and females in the performance of within and across modality on dual

tasking, There was however a significant difference in the overall performance of within

modality against cross modality dual tasks on recall, where recall of targeted words within

modality were higher compared to cross modality.

INTRODUCTION/REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Daily life often demands that we divide our attention between two or more activities.

Simultaneously, we must monitor ourselves and the actions of others to plan our next step. If

divided attention declines, our chances of handling two different tasks at once, say, preparing a

meal and talking on the phone, will suffer. Attention is the cognitive process of concentrating on

one aspect of the environment while ignoring other things. Attention has also been referred to as

the allocation of processing resources (Anderson, 2004). This means when one is said to be

paying attention he or she is concentrating more mental resource in processing one stimulus

within several stimuli in an environment. Attending to multiple stimuli is something that we do

every day, but if the stimuli are presented simultaneously, how is our attention directed and how

much information can we comprehend? Our environment is full of auditory and visual stimuli,

and simultaneous presentations of auditory and visual stimuli are prevalent in many settings,

1
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

such as in education, media, and politics. Bergen, Grimes, and Potter (2005) found that we are

unable to attend to multiple stimuli at the same time; the comprehension of information

deteriorated when multiple stimuli are presented at the same time. Bergen et al. (2005) found that

attention was more likely to be directed to the auditory modality than to the visual modality with

simultaneously presented stimuli. The study of divided attention has a long history. Most early

psychologists, like their contemporary counterparts, believed that consciousness could only be

directed to a single activity at a time. Conscious attention to two different actions performed at

the same time was thought to be possible only if they were coordinated into a single, higher-

order activity, or attended to in rapid alternation. Otherwise, it was assumed that at least one of

them was being carried out ‘automatically’, without conscious control. Divided Attention is the

ability to successfully execute more than one action at a time, while paying attention to two or

more channels of information or modalities. When people perform a number of tasks in parallel,

they must divide their attention, which may weaken performance. Studies suggest that with

practice, we can better perform several tasks at a time (Galotti, 1999). Baddeley (1995) has

mentioned that short-term storage, which is a hypothetical short-term storage in working

memory, is verbally (acoustically) based, while long-term storage tends to be coded

semantically. For instance, acoustically similar word sounds are more likely to be difficult to

process; however, words of dissimilar and semantically similar words are processed easily

(Baddeley, 1995). This finding suggests that an acoustic code is used in working memory (not a

semantic code) because acoustically similar words interfere with each other, whereas

semantically similar words do not interfere. This notion is supported by Saults and Cowan

(2007), who found that memory capacity was significantly lower in cross modalities than in a

within modality condition. Saults and Cowan (2007) also mentioned that memory capacity

2
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

seemed to be limited mainly by how much information could be simultaneously maintained in

storage. Capacity limitations are related to attention because information can be “simultaneously

maintained by conscious attention” (Saults & Cowan, 2007). Moreover, Forlano (1988; as cited

in Armstrong & Chung, 2000) demonstrated that reading comprehension was easily distracted by

talk and speech. Armstrong and Chung (2000) showed in their research that background

television caused interference with processes of comprehension. Incomplete comprehension by

such distracters could result in capacity interference, causing less organized memory and a

weaker path of information into long-term memory. Also, Baddeley (1995) mentioned that there

were individual differences in working memory, and working memory could be a good predictor

for better performance on standardized tests of reading comprehension and intelligence.

Additionally, Herlitz and Rehnman (2008) found gender differences in memory. According to

them, women tended to have an episodic memory which required verbal processing, whereas

men tended to have an episodic memory which required visuospatial processing. This count to

say that females would outperform males in an auditory recall task and male would do well in

visual task than females.

Keele (1972) investigated at what point information in the memory would be interfered with

(attention would be more drawn) in his study using simultaneous presentation of forms, words,

and colors. When memory was being retrieved, multiple pieces of information could activate the

memory at the same time without interference, but the next process, the “selecting and

operating” phase of memory tended to cause delayed response, indicating interference of

information (Keele, 1972). Therefore, it is assumed that specific conditions with multiple stimuli

could result in poor memory retrieval and memory distortion.

3
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

When visual and auditory stimuli are presented simultaneously (cross modally), we could predict

that attention would be divided to either one of those stimuli, and comprehension of information

would be diminished. As a result, divided attention may cause memory fragmentation and low

quality and quantity of memory compared with undivided attention. However, it has been

unclear whether cross modality always cause our attention to be divided, causing poor memory

function compared with within modality conditions. Cocchini et al. (2002) showed that cross

modality conditions did not always affect memory recall under certain condition; Bergen et al.

(2005) demonstrated that divided attention could occur depending on the presented stimuli.

AIMS

1. To investigate gender differences in dual tasking within and across modalities.

2. To determine the dual tasking effects within modality (auditory modality) and across

modalities (auditory and visual modality) on recall of targeted words.

STATEMEN T OF HYPOTHESES

1. Females would perform better at a within modality dual task than males.

2. Males would perform better at a cross modality task than females.

3. Dual tasking within modality would record a higher recall on targeted words than in a

cross modality.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Cross modality: attending to stimuli of different sensory channels such as listing to music

and watching television.

4
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

Dual task: the performance of two task at the same time such as listening to two

conversations at the same time.

Targeted words: the words that one is expect to pay attention to in an attention task.

Within modality: the performance of a task that demand the use of only a single sensory

channel, such using the ear to attend to auditory stimulus.

METHODOLOGY

Population/ Sample: The population of the study was level 400 students who offered

PSYC 421 (Cognitive Psychology II) on the University of Ghana main and city

campuses, out of whom a systematic sample was used in sampling 171 students,

comprising of 97 males and 76 females. Participants were randomly assigned into three

conditions, made up of a control group comprising of 54 participants (29 males and 25

females), an experimental group 1 made up 57 participants (35 males and 22 females)

and experimental 2 with 60 participants (31 males and 29 females).

Equipment/Materials: Response sheets, pens, and tape recorder, 2 sets of lists: list 1

(Study List) 50 randomly generated English words, and List 2 Recall list – 75 words

made up of a) some words from the study list (33%), b) masking words (33%), they are

similar to the study list in meaning or spelling but not both and c) non-study words

(33%). These are neither study words nor masking words. Reading Fluency task

comprising of a set of 30 statements which participants had to read and decide if they are

true or false.

5
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

Design and Procedure: In a 2-by-3 experimental design considering gender with male

and female as its levels and dual tasking within and across modalities as its levels against

recall as the dependent variable for the two independent variables (gender and dual

tasking) with a single auditory task as the control group off the dual task. With the single

task condition (Control group (CG)), participants were presented with a list of words

(Study List) played at one word per second on an audio recording. The participants then

listened to the recall list (75 words) with an inter stimulus interval of two seconds per

word and were expected to write down any words that had been presented previously in

the Study List. In the dual task condition, participants in experimental group 1 (EG1) had

to listen to the audio recording (Study List) while simultaneously listening to a recorded

conversation and answer questions on it after the recall task. Participants in experimental

group 2 (EG2) also had to listen to the audio recording (Study List) while simultaneously

performing a reading fluency task. Participants were then debriefed after the experiment

on the purpose the experiment.

Scoring of data: The number of correctly recalled words was counted and then used as

the score for the dependent variable under each group.

6
 Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

Table 1: Summary of Means and Standard Deviations

sex Type of condition

N Mean Std Deviation

male auditory control 29 14.8276 3.69429

auditory experimental group 1 35 10.8571 3.60672

auditory experimental group 2 31 7.9032 3.90175

Total 95 11.1053 4.61605

female auditory control 25 13.2400 4.37112

auditory experimental group 1 22 11.5909 3.34748

auditory experimental group 2 29 7.1724 3.72318

Total 76 10.4474 4.64297

Total auditory control 54 14.0926 4.06211

auditory experimental group 1 57 11.1404 3.49713

auditory experimental group 2 60 7.5500 3.80198

Total 171 10.8129 4.62602

RESULT

From the table 1, the experimental group 1 females (M=11.69, SD=3.35) out performed males

(M=10.86, SD=3.61). In experimental group 2 males (M=7.90, SD=3.90) out performed females

(M=7.17, SD=3.72). The total performance in experimental group 1 (M=11.14, SD=3.50)

surpassed that of experimental group 2 (M=7.55, SD=3.80).

7
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

Table 2: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1274.862a 5 254.972 17.803 .000

Intercept 19987.106 1 19987.106 1395.541 .000

sex 11.666 1 11.666 .815 .368

condition 1209.110 2 604.555 42.211 .000

sex * condition 37.195 2 18.598 1.299 .276

Error 2363.149 165 14.322

Total 23631.000 171

a. R Squared = .350 (Adjusted R Squared = .331)

At the 0.05 level of significance, there was no significant difference between males and females

as far as recall of target words was concerned [F (1, 156) =0.815, p = 0.368]. However with the

type of condition there was a significant difference [F (1,165) =42.211, p = 0.000]. This means

that hypothesis 1 and 2 which stated that females would perform better at a within modality dual

task than males and males would perform better at a cross modality task than females

respectively were not supported. However because there was a significant difference in the type

of condition there was the need for a post hoc analysis.

Table 3: Post hoc analysis of type of conditions.

X1 X2 X3

Auditory Control (X1) - 2.9522* 6.5426*

Experimental group 1 (X2) - 3.5904*

Experimental group 2 (X3) - - -

8
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509
*significant at the .05 criterion level1

From table 3, there is a clear indication that all three conditions that is, auditory control,

experimental group 1 and experimental group 2 played roles in causing a significant difference.

Since the mean difference between experimental group 1 which is the within modality, and

experimental group 2 which is the across modality was positive (MD=3.5904). The hypothesis

that dual tasking within modality would record a higher recall on targeted words than in a cross

modality was supported.

Figure 4:

9
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

From the graph it could be seen that within modality performance was better than cross modality.

Thus supporting the hypothesis 3.

DISCUSSION

From the results it was observed that the first two hypotheses were not supported, since there

was no significant difference in gender performance on the recall tasks. Which seem to

contradict the findings of Herlitz and Rehnman (2008) on gender differences in memory.

According to them, women tended to have an episodic memory which required verbal

processing, whereas men tended to have an episodic memory which required visuospatial

processing. This count to say that females would outperform males in an auditory recall task and

male would do well in visual task than females. By implication the women should have than well

at the within modality auditory task as hypothesis but it was not supported. Though there was no

significance it could still be observed that the means of performance for females within modality

(M=11.69, SD=3.35) was higher than that of males (M=10.86, SD=3.61) and that of the males

(M=7.90, SD=3.90) in the cross modality was higher than that of females (M=7.17, SD=3.72) in

the cross modality thus feature replication should consider increasing sample size which may be

the cause of the insignificance. The graphical representation also showed that there was an

interaction effect but this was not support by the analysis on gender. Though the graph showed

that the within modality outperformed the across modality group which may be in line with

Saults and Cowan (2007), who found that memory capacity was significantly lower in cross

modalities than in a within modality condition. Which also was in line with hypothesis three It

can thus be conclude that attention would be affected in divided attention which can further be

10
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

worsened in cross modality divided attention tasks. But there would be the need to increase

sample size of participants in future replication.

11
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

REFERENCE

Anderson, J. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). London: Worth

Publishers.

Armstrong, G. B., & Chung, L. (2000). Background television and reading memory in context:

assessing TV interference and facilitative context effects on encoding versus retrieval

processes. Communication Research, 27, 327-352.

Baddeley, A. D. (1995). Working memory. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive

neurosciences, (pp. 755-764). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bergen, L., Grimes, T., & Potter, D. (2005). How attention partitions itself during simultaneous

message presentations. Human Communication Research, 31, 311-316.

Cocchini, G., Logie, R. H., Sala, S. D., MacPherson, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2002).

Concurrent performance of two memory tasks: Evidence for domain-specific working

memory systems. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1086-1095.

Galotti, M. k. (1999). Cognitive psychology in and out of the laboritory (2nd ed.). Belmont:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Herlitz, A., & Rehnman, J. (2008). Sex differences in episodic memory. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 17, 52-56

Keele, S. W. (1972). Attention demands of memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 93, 245-248.

Posner, M. I. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience,

13, 25-42.

12
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

Posner, M. I. (1995). Attention in cognitive neuroscience: An overview. In M. S. Gazzaniga

(Ed.), the cognitive neurosciences, (pp. 615- 264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Saults, J. S. & Cowan, N. (2007). A central capacity limit to the simultaneous storage of visual

and audio arrays in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136, 663-684.

13
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

APPENDIX

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

Type of condition 3.00 auditory control 54

4.00 auditory experimental group 1 57

5.00 auditory experimental group 2 60

sex 1.00 male 95

2.00 female 76

14
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: auditory recall correct

Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1274.862a 5 254.972 17.803 .000

Intercept 19987.106 1 19987.106 1395.541 .000

condition 1209.110 2 604.555 42.211 .000

sex 11.666 1 11.666 .815 .368

condition * sex 37.195 2 18.598 1.299 .276

Error 2363.149 165 14.322

Total 23631.000 171

Corrected Total 3638.012 170

a. R Squared = .350 (Adjusted R Squared = .331)

15
 Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

Multiple Comparisons

auditory recall correct

LSD

(I) Type of condition (J) Type of condition Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference Std. Lower Upper

(I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

auditory control auditory experimental 2.9522* .71867 .000 1.5333 4.3712

grp 1

auditory experimental 6.5426* .70988 .000 5.1410 7.9442

grp 2

auditory experimental grp 1 auditory control -2.9522* .71867 .000 -4.3712 -1.5333

auditory experimental 3.5904* .69998 .000 2.2083 4.9724

grp 2

auditory experimental grp 2 auditory control -6.5426* .70988 .000 -7.9442 -5.1410

auditory experimental -3.5904* .69998 .000 -4.9724 -2.2083

grp 1

Based on observed means.

The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 14.322.

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

16
Examining sex and modality differences in performance of dual tasks on divided attention
10305509

17