Distractions are frustrating when they get in the way of doing simple or even complicated tasks. Distractions can be auditory or visual and can interrupt activities that are enjoyable or those that require serious attention. In some cases, distractions can be caused by the person themselves. For example, a student right now could be writing a paper while watching a movie and may end up writing the lines to the film. It can also be possible that the readers are distracted when reading and may have not noticed an error they would normally catch. The researchers have shown that in particular cases where mostly a lot of attention is needed to complete a task, the interruptions can block the process of accurate stimuli, resulting sometimes in dramatic consequences (Couffe & Michael, 2017). The article focuses on the fact that interruptions will stop someone’s attention of their current task, and the interruption will attempt to pause their current information processing to switch and focus on the interruption instead. Couffe and Michael (2017) mention throughout their article that interruptions are so difficult to measure because of the complexity and duration the interruption imposes on the person. Since distractions happen so often, do they impact concentration to a high extent?
In the study done by Hodgetts, Vachon, & Tremblay (2014), the research experiment was looking for how realistic settings (opposed to laboratory tasks) can involve other external stressors (distractions.) The experiment had a 2 (task interruption; present or absent) x 2 (auditory distraction; present or absent) repeated measure design where the participants performed a simulated combat control system and attempt to identify a threat to an aircraft (Hodgetts et al., 2014). The results showed that there was a significantly worse task success rate when there was an auditory distraction compared to if there was not any present (Hodgetts et al., p. 15). Research by Couffe & Michael (2017) supports the significant lag by saying, “After one is interrupted, omissions (i.e., failures to complete a subtask of a set of action) can be more common because of mistakes during the resumption stage” (p. 164). Completing the tasks may have been very difficult for the participants (and possible employees in this field) to do because this kind of job is stressful and needs focused attention. Auditory distractions can be difficult to ignore. But auditory distractions are not just the only problem as there are visual distractions as well. However, as time goes on how does visual distractions change in the current periodical time?
One serious distraction among drivers is using cell phones while operating a vehicle. Distracted driving can lead to a serious accident, injury, or death in certain circumstances. A less life threatening but annoying distraction is people using cell phones in movie theaters. Not only do people commonly use cell phones when driving and at the movies but people use cell phones in classrooms. Berry & Westfall (2015) mentions, “The relatively low frequency of audible interruptions, however, does not correspond with the actual frequency of cell phone use in the classroom. Our survey evidence confirms the notion that in-class student use of phones centers on their nonverbal capacities. (p. 64) In the study by Berry & Westfall (2015) researched 400 college students and results showed that at least 80% of students use their phones at least once in class and feel that it is acceptable to do so.
Berry & Westfall (2015) further quotes Ellis (2010), “While many students may not consider checking their phone multiple times during one class session as an addiction, multitasking of this type has been demonstrated to affect learning and information retention.” (p. 65) This proves that cell phones (the distraction) affects student’s concentration to some extent in the classroom. Cellphones aren’t the only problem. Students use laptops to type notes during class, but can easily switch back and forth on websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Gupta & Irwin’s (2016) research shows that University students tend to self-initiate task switching with Facebook more than other forms of communication such as Snapchat, Instagram, and emails. But is technology the only distraction that students can be affected by in classrooms?
It is no secret that distractions do have some effect on concentration. In the research done by Forster & Lavie (2014) shows that irrelevant distractions (distractions that are not related to the current task) correlate mind wandering. Irrelevant distractions differ from regular distractions because mind wandering distractions are not external distractions. The researchers wanted to look for the relationship involving an individual’s mind wandering and unrelated and task irrelevant distractors. (p. 251). However, would students be distracted if the distraction relates to them as an individual or as a group of students? The purpose of this study is to show that distractions affect concentration. In this research study instead of distracting students with irrelevant distractions, the students in Psychology 321 will be distracted with something that can easily happen to them (an external distraction.) It is hypothesized that students who experience a distraction of someone coming late to class during a test will have lower average test scores than students who experience no distraction.
Methods
Participants
There were 59 research participants that participated in this research study. The research participants are students from California State University, Northridge. The participants had participated in this study for class credit in their research methods class. There were 43 female participants and 14 male participants. The participant’s ethnicity varied from 63.2% Hispanic/Latino, 5.3% African American, 14% Caucasian, 10.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.8% Middle Eastern, and 5.3% listed as other. The age of the participants ranged from 20 to 31, with an average age of 22.6 and with a SD of 2.372.
Materials
The materials used for this study included an SAT reading comprehension passage from the Prep Scholar website adapted from Francis J/ Flynn and Gabrielle S. Adams, “Money Can’t Buy Love: Asymmetric Beliefs about Gift Price and Feelings of Appreciation” 2008©. The questionnaires were also used from the SAT reading comprehension with multiple choice questions 11 through 21 (a total of ten questions). The answer key was found on the Prep Scholar website. The professor and one of the researchers were be involved during in group B’s (the manipulated group) test time period. The researcher’s tardiness and the conversation between him and the professor will be the independent variable for “distraction.” The professor and researcher were given a script prior the experimental day, so they will be communicating with each other loud and long enough for the participants in the manipulated group to be distracted. The professor was selected as a confederate because his students would not suspect him to react in the way he did because he always seems calm and cheerful during lectures. Also, the professor is someone that has the most authority to gather the participant’s attention. The second confederate is one of the researcher’s, and was selected because out of all the research members he would be the least likely to laugh or break character during the distraction. Using one of the members of this research study was easier than hiring a student not from this class because someone else would not find the timing and script as important. The second confederate was instructed to hide out in his car to avoid being seen by any participant in Group A or Group B before the research study was conducted. There were pens provided for the participants if they had none. The number of unanswered and incorrect answers on the reading comprehension test will be counted as errors.
Procedures
Because there was a limited amount of time to conduct the study, within the first two minutes the participants in the research class were split into groups of two by randomly being given a packet with the back of it saying “A” or “B”, with “A” being Group A and “B” as Group B. After the packets had been distributed, those with the Group B packet was asked to leave the classroom and wait in Sierra Hall’s hallway lounge quietly while a researcher guarded the classroom doors and another researcher escorted Group B out. The Group B participants were asked to leave their belongings in the classroom to avoid them going over the material in the packet. Within the second to third minute the researchers provided a brief explanation about the comprehension test and thanking their time for participating while pens were being distributed. By the third to the fourth minute or so, the participants will have around ten minutes to read and answer the exam. When the time is up the participants will pass up their packets faced down so the other participants will not see their answers. After the papers were collected, Group A was instructed to leave the classroom from the left exit and the researchers outside the door allowed for Group B to come in.
The brief explanation and distribution of packets were the same for Group B. There were late participants who joined Group B so it took a little longer to distribute all the packets. However, one of the three researchers inside the room was given the task to text the confederate researcher who will be part of the distraction to arrive within the fourth minute of the exam and had texted him secretly. After two to three minutes of the exam execution had started, the researcher had come into the classroom loudly, with a worry and flushed look on his face about his late arrival. He loudly apologized to the professor, researchers and participants for his late arrival as he made his way down to the center of the classroom. The other researchers from the group were quietly looking at him with dissatisfaction on how late he is, while the professor walked up to the center of the classroom and gestures for him to “come here.” The professor and researcher talked in a not too quiet tone for the participants to be able to listen about how late he is. The professor mentions how unprofessional it is that he is not taking the research assignment seriously and brings up the fact that he may be failed for this kind of unprofessional behavior and mentioned that they will talk some more about it after the class is over.
The conversation will play the part as the independent variable that will last for no more than a minute. Participants from Group B will be evaluated on whether they were impacted by the distraction when taking the exam. Group B’s scores will be compared to Group A’s scores to see whether the distraction had any affect on their concentration.
Results
The hypothesis for this research study is that students who experience a distraction of someone coming late to class during a test will have lower average test scores than students who experience no distraction. In order for participants to have an equal chance of being in either group, they were split into two random assigned groups. Participants who were part of Group A experienced the controlled condition while Group B experienced the manipulated condition. The independent variable for the study was the distraction the researcher and professor acted out which was the manipulated variable. Group A was given the instruction on having 10 minutes to complete the reading comprehension test and to flip it over when they were finished. Group B was given the same instructions and time limit but experienced the manipulated condition and witnessed the distraction made by the researcher and professor. The dependent variable in the study was the experience being measured by the test scores.
There were 59 participants but two were removed as outliers to avoid skewness in the data results. The descriptive statistics was gathered for both groups. The participants in Group A had a higher test score (M= 6.08, SD= 1.84) while Group B had a lower score (M= 5.19, SD= 2.29). There is also a descriptive statistic gathered for female participants. Female participants in Group A had a higher test score (M= 6.11, SD= 2.00) while female participants in Group B had a lower score (M= 4.92, SD= 2.21).
To compare these results from both groups the study required an independent samples t-test. The data showed that there was no significant difference in the test scores for the comprehension test between the participants who were in Group A or Group B, t (55) = 1.59, p> 0.5. The data also showed that there was no significant difference in the test scores for the comprehension test between the female participants who were in Group A or Group B, t (43) = 1.83, p> 0.5.
Discussion
The hypothesis of the distraction of someone coming late to class during a test lowering participant’s test scores was not supported. There was a slight variation between the scores but it was not enough for it to prove that the minute distraction affected the participants. There was also a slight variation between the scores of the female participants in both groups but it was also not enough for it to prove the hypothesis. Although the results of this research study did not support the hypothesis, other research has shown that there is a significant difference between distractions affecting concentration.
Although in this research study there was a lot of attempt in controlling confounding variables, there was an incident in the controlled group, Group A, where a hydro flask fell during the comprehension test. The hydro flask was so loud that it startled the participants and the researchers as well. The sound of the drop was also heard by one of the researchers that was outside guarding the doors. Even though Group A was asked to clear their desks, the hydro flask was a cofounding variable that could have impacted Group A’s results.
There were some problems with the research study. Although the participants were randomly assigned to either group, they may have figured out whether they were going to be the controlled or manipulated group. The participants are all psychology majors within the same class as the researchers so that also can contribute to not having an actual random assigned sample. This research study did contain some participant bias. The participants may have experienced the Hawthorne effect because they were aware of being in a study. This could have also resulted in evaluation apprehension because the participants all had studies to conduct and may have hoped that by participating, the participants would be liked enough for this research study’s researchers to participate in their own research. The participants may have also experienced fatigue due to the fact that there were multiple data collections prior to this research study.
A positive aspect of this research study was that the participants actually believed that the “late” researcher was being yelled at by the professor. This goes to show that they did focus on the researcher being yelled at, at a certain point during their test. The researchers of this study felt that a minute was too long for a distraction and script, but if it was just a little longer it could have impacted the test scores. However, the test did seem difficult to not only the participants but the researchers as well. The researchers are pleased with the turn out of the research study but would have liked to have done things a bit differently, and possibly have had a different kind of distraction.
References
Berry, M. J., & Westfall, A. (2015). Dial D for Distraction: The Making and Breaking of Cell Phone Policies in the College Classroom. College Teaching, 63(2), 62–71.
Couffe, C., & Michael, G. A. (2017). Failures due to interruptions or distractions: A review and a new framework. The American Journal of Psychology, 130(2), 163–181.
Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2014). Distracted by Your Mind? Individual Differences in Distractibility Predict Mind Wandering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 251–260
Gupta, N., & Irwin, J. D. (2016). In-Class Distractions: The Role of Facebook and the Primary Learning Task. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1165–1178.
Hodgetts, H. M., Vachon, F., & Tremblay, S. (2014). Background Sound Impairs Interruption Recovery in Dynamic Task Situations: Procedural Conflict? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 10–21.