News and Research Paper Comparison
Pammer, Sabados and Lentern (2018) conducted experimental research to establish whether inattentional blindness can provide a mental insight on the prevalence of looked-but-failed-to-see (LBFTS) vehicle-motorcycle accidents. Australia reports a significant number of motorcycle incidents annually compared to other car accidents, mainly because of poor road judgments (Pammers, Sabados & Lentern, 2018). The inattentional blindness cognitive model proposes that car drivers perceive motorcyclists on the road but make erroneous decisions predisposing them to harm. Moreover, inattentional blindness suggests that looked-but-failed-to-see motorcycle accidents occur due to the driver’s failure to discern motorcycles clearly on the road due to the conspicuity of the motorbikes. Conspicuity refers to the inability to identify the motorcycles due to factors such as headlights modification and usage. However, the conspicuity contention does not adequately provide answers as to why looked-but-failed-to-see motorcycle accidents therefore allowing the exploration of the perceptual cycle model Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The perceptual cycle model best explains why looked-but-failed-to-see accidents are common in Australia since it suggests that drivers accord more attention to factors they expect to observe on the road and disregard other objects (Pammers, Sabados & Lentern, 2018). Psychologically, motorists utilize the attentional system of thinking to make road judgments based on their driving experiences and hence prioritize objectives and factors that are more visible. Additionally, LBFTS accidents can be a result of motorist’s engagement in other activities while driving, for example, drinking alcohol or talking on the phone. Inattentional blindness, therefore, describes why some motorists fail to perceive particular objects even nearby while their attention is elsewhere.
The study therefore sought to analyze the looked-but-failed-to-see accidents using the inattention blindness model. The researchers also strived to provide answers as to why accidents happen from a psychological perspective using inattentional blindness. Lastly, the study aims to investigate motorcycle accidents to propose the best interventions in reducing LBFTS incidents. The researchers employed a randomized experimental research design conducted in the Questacon National Science and Technology Museum (Pammers, Sabados & Lentern, 2018). In the first experiment, the researchers recruited fifty-six participants with 46 participants allocated in the final taxi and motorcycle conditions. The mean age for the 46 participants, including men and women, was 38.42 years, while the average driving age was 17.94 years (Pammers, Sabados & Lentern, 2018).
In the second experiment, the researchers recruited sixty-four participants with 52.2 % males and 47.8% females. The three conditions in the second experiment included pictures of taxis, motorcycles facing the intersection and motorcycles facing away from the intersection. In the third experiment, the successful participants were forty-three male and female Questacon visitors. The mean age of the 43 participants was 42 years, with 48% males and 52% females, while the mean driving age was 22.9 years (Pammers, Sabados & Lentern, 2018). The operation comprised of controlled practical presentations utilizing taxis and motorcycles conditions.
In addition to photographic sources, the researchers administered survey questionnaires to measure the participant’s perceptions of the probability of the presence of other motor vehicles on the road as well as the likelihood of failing to perceive other motor objects on the streets. The survey employed open-ended questions and the responses analyzed using a visual analogue scale. The researchers tested the participants individually, explaining to them that the primary purpose of the research was to examine the individual’s decision-making prowess in influencing road judgments (Pammers & Lentern, 2018).
The results showed that motorists are less likely to perceive a motorcycle on the road, especially when driving in modelled road settings. From the first experiment, the results showed that the probability of missing bikes on the way is higher compared to other motor vehicles. In the second experiment, the findings showed that motorists were more likely to perceive the motorbikes upon the realization that an accident will occur. The third experiment, on the other hand, showed that in a life-threatening situation, a car driver is more likely to miss a motorcycle compared to a taxi. The results also showed that bikes received the lowest attentional signal compared to other vehicles such as taxis (Pammers & Lentern, 2018).
From the findings, the researchers concluded that inattentional blindness plays an essential role in influencing the motorist’s decisions. Moreover, inattentional blindness can help in addressing the high rate of looked-but-failed-to-see motorcycle accidents in Australia by creating awareness about the existence of other motorists on the roads. Road users perceive particular objectives differently, and by changing their perceptions, the likelihood of looked-but-failed-to-see motorcycle accidents will reduce. Future research should focus on exploring the size-arrival effect, which is another factor for LBFTS, which proposes that motorcycle accidents occur due to the failure of the car drivers to calculate the speed of the motorbike. Lastly, the future researcher should focus on the motorcyclists rather than on the car drivers as the primary cause of the accident (Pammer & Lentern, 2018).
According to the news article, inattentional blindness contributes to a significant number of accidents (Gentry, 2019). Gentry seeks to explain to the Tennessee citizens the definition and causes of inattentional blindness by reviewing previous research conducted in 2018. According to the article, the researchers experimented with the assistance of fifty-six people. The researchers utilized various objects in the experiment to observe whether the participants would perceive them. From the analysis, only forty-eight per cent of the participants viewed the objects from the investigation, including the motorcycle (Pammers & Lentern, 2018).
Inattentional blindness occurs when individuals detect particular objects but psychologically fails to filter the information and disregards the purposes (Pammers & Lentern, 2018). Driving requires utmost concentration, and healthy brain function as one wrong move could result in a fatal accident. According to Gentry Arnold, the brain can, in certain situations, process information erroneously, leading to wrong judgments by the motorists. Examples of real-life road scenarios include failure to detect other vehicles while overlapping or inability to see a pedestrian crossing sign. Additionally, motorists can identify objects on the road, but the brain may fail to register the information fast and result in accidents. The looked-but-failed-to-see claim is a common excuse for the causes of accidents. Inattentional blindness is, however, not possible in courts of law and Gentry advises Tennessee residents involved in car accidents to demand compensation from the drivers in a civil settlement.
The research methodology from the two sources is different. First and foremost, the research article employs an experimental research design while the news article adopts a qualitative research method by inferring results from a previous experiment. The research article moreover presents a thorough literature review providing adequate information regarding the research topic (Pammers & Lentern, 2018). However, in the news article, the report relies on an unidentified study supported by inadequate research and fails to acknowledge the primary authors of the research paper. While the research paper clearly explains how the recruitment process of the participants, the news articles ignore that vital factor. The research paper identifies the location of the experiment to be in Australia, but the news article fails to provide the particular information.
While the research paper provides the results of the three experiments, the news article presents findings from one analysis and generalizes the results. Moreover, while the research paper explores other models to explain inattentional blindness, such as the perceptual cycle model (Pammers & Lentern, 2018), the news article presents the definition of the term, disregarding more essential details from the primary sources. The news article focuses on Tennessee residents, while the leading research paper focuses on the residents of Australia. The news article therefore deviates from the main scope of the study. While the research paper seeks to expound on inattentional blindness (Pammers & Lentern, 2018) to provide reasons for the occurrence of LBFTS motorcycle accidents, the news article focuses on general car accidents involving pedestrians, motorcyclists and trucks.
The two sources differ in the presentation of the findings and purpose of the study but share some similarities. Both sources agree on the role of inattentional blindness in motor vehicle accidents stressing on the looked-but-failed-to see as a common excuse for the accidents. The definitions of inattentional blindness are also similar in the news article and research paper. Both sources present the findings, in the same way, stressing on the use of photographic presentations during the experiments (Pammers, Sabados & Lentern, 2018).
The news article fails to provide accurate information regarding the original research paper, especially regarding the 2018 study and the selection process of the fifty-six participants. First and foremost, the article fails to mention the location of the study, which is essential in maintaining the result’s integrity. The news article also assumes the audience knows the researchers responsible for the experiment. Acknowledging the authors of the research paper is essential since the information is from other sources that are under copyright law. Moreover, the article fails to identify the experimental objects used for the experiments, therefore raising the questions of data validity and reliability. The news article also unfairly generalizes the results contrary to the primary research. The news article somewhat provides accurate information as it presents the results from the experiment involving pictures used by researchers to observe whether the participants could identify the objects placed in plain sight (Pammers & Lentern, 2018).
In conclusion, the news article failed to cover the primary source on several occasions. The news article was unable to mention the researchers responsible for the study as well as failing to provide the exact study location. Moreover, the news article reports biased information by advising Tennessee residents to file for compensation in courts in the event of an accident under the inattentional blindness claim. Lastly, the news article deviates from the focus of the primary research. The news articles stress on general car accidents instead of addressing looked-but-failed-to-see motorcycle accidents (Pammers & Lentern, 2018). From a personal perspective, the news article should provide adequate information about the topic by critically examining the leading research paper. Moreover, the news article should cite the relevant sources of information to avoid misleading the audience.
References
Pammer, K., Sabadas, S., & Lentern, S. (2018). Allocating attention to detect motorcycles: The role of inattentional blindness. Human factors, 60(1), 5-19.
Arnold, G. (2019, February 20). The Role of Inattentional Blindness in Motor Vehicle accidents. Gam Attorneys. Retrieved from https://www.gamattorneys.com/blog/2019/02/the-role-of-inattentional-blindness-in-motorvehicle-accidents.shtml.