Many researchers,
scientists, psychologists and other professionals believe that as human beings,
there are times when we can only process incoming information by focusing on
one oral message or visual object at a time. This is due to something called
serial bottlenecks, which is the point when all incoming information may no
longer be processed at the same time because it interferes with the procession
of an individual stimuli and/or message.
After reviewing several
selection in attention theories, I chose to address Treisman’s Attenuation
Theory. According to (Anderson. 2010), “this model hypothesized that certain
messages would be weakened but not filtered out entirely on the basis of their
physical properties” (p. 67). This is also a slight modification from
Broadbent’s filter theory which proposed that all incoming information does
have serial bottlenecks and therefore individual stimuli is than processed into
working memory based on some physical characteristic. There are also pros and
cons that can be associated with Treisman’s Attenuation Theory. One of each is
as follows:
PRO - This allows individuals the opportunity to process multiple stimuli or
messages while being filtered through the unattended channel based on word
importance of each individual stimuli. This process is also known as the
threshold effect. Stimuli with a low threshold are more likely to be filtered
into one’s conscious awareness while stimuli with a high threshold, is more
likely to get filtered out by one’s conscious awareness. One example of this
could be when you are at a cocktail party and a friend and stranger call out
your name at the same time.
Since, the friend has a familiar voice you may be more
likely to hear that individual’s voice (stimuli) over that of the stranger’s
voice. Different words also have different chances of making it through the
unattended channel, due to something called a threshold effect. This is defined
as the minimum amount of activation that it takes to produce a conscious
awareness of particular stimuli. One major benefit of this process is that it
offers individuals an opportunity to be in a multi-informational setting while
choosing to acknowledge any words that may be considered most important and/or more
appealing.
CON - This particular
theory is unable to scientifically explain how semantic analysis works, which
has also caused much controversy within the overall scientific community. This
is because semantic analysis is a determination of how
language acquires meaning. This process
focuses on and can officially identify a relation or relationships/
between certain words, symbols, signs and/or phrases that explain cognition and
language. This is also extremely important because a scientific explanation
for this process must be acquired to enhance a theory’s overall level of
reliability and validity.
Even though, there may
be a lack in explaining how semantic analysis truly works with this theory, I
still support the idea that this is exactly how humans beings choose selection
in attention. This is because I choose to pay attention in the exact same manner on
a daily basis. When more than one person is talking to me, I naturally tend to
focus on (filter in) those who say something a certain way or whether they are
more familiar to me, even though I’m cognitively aware of all others who are
talking in the room.
This theory can also explain why so many people seem to
exhibit “selective attention” in most or all social settings. One
other positive thing about this theory is that future research could be
conducted to further address the lack in explanation concerning how semantic
analysis really works. If this can be determined, it would certainly increase the level
of reliability and validity that is presently associated with this theory.
Reference:
Anderson, R. J. (2010).
Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (7th Edition). Worth Publishers. New
York, NY.