1. The Effects of Distraction on Test Taking Ability
Brittany Murphy, Marissa Harris, Matthew Joiner, Courtney Hart
Methods (Continued):
Variables:
• Dependent Variables: (1) Score
received on the test, (2) time needed
to complete test and (3) Likert Scale
survey taken after exam completion.
• Independent Variable: There were
three levels to our between subjects
study; a control , a group with ringing
cell phones and one with talking from
the proctors.
Procedure:
Participants were asked to complete a
standardized pen and paper test from the
College Board SAT standardized testing
practice questions. Each of the three
groups answered math and critical
reading portions of the test were to
measure performance. The test was
timed so there was a stopwatch on a
projected screen. The control, cellphone
and chatter groups were measured
separately.
The participants then filled out a Likert
Scale measuring the subjective levels of
distraction.
Introduction:
This study investigated auditory distractions
affecting concentration and work ability of
students. It is different from previous studies
from the multiple levels distractions used
and the time variable examined during the
test. Our experiment was helped shaped by
the following studies:
• A study exploring how environmental changes in
workplaces influence acoustic distractions among
coworkers (Kaarlela-Tuomalla et al. 2009).
• The layout of our experiment was formed using
an idea from a previous study which had
participants subjected to auditory distractions
during the GRE’s (Powers et al. 2003)
• We used two levels beyond the control group for
our independent variable, using the idea of
repeated echoing distractions (Beanman and Holt
2007).
Discussion:
For our first hypothesis, there was no
significant difference between test scores for
the three groups. Our Likert Scale shows
statically significant data in terms of peoples
feelings of distraction, showing that although
the experiments groups felt distracted, they
preformed to standard ability.
For the second hypothesis, there was
statistical difference, but our hypothesis was
wrong. Instead of the experiment groups
taking longer to complete the test, the
control group was statistically significantly
longer from time taken to complete the test.
This is most likely do to participants lack of
care about the exam, thus minimizing the
effort they put into each question.
If further testing were to continue, we would
change the experiment:
• By prescreening participants to allow
people of the same IQ and or average SAT
score to participate in the experiment.
• By making the test of more importance to
the individual.
• Changing the intensity of the chatter and
ringtones to measure at what levels they
significantly impact completion time and
test scores.
References:
Friedrich, E. C., Scherer, R., Sonnleitner, K., & Neuper, C. (2011). Impact of auditory
distraction on user performance in a brain–computer interface driven by different
mental tasks. Clinical Neurophysiology, 122(10), 2003-2009.
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A. A., Helenius, R. R., Keskinen, E. E., & Hongisto, V. V. (2009). Effects of
acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices—
longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics, 52(11), 1423-1444.
Powers, D. E., Albertson, W., Florek, T., Malak, J., Johnson, K., Nemceff, B., & ... Zelazny, A.
(2003). Influence of irrelevant speech on standardized test performance. Human
Performance, 16(2), 157-178.
Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal Of
Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321.
Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2012). Distraction and facilitation—two faces of
the same coin?. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And
Performance, 38(3), 664-674.
Powers, D. E., Albertson, W., Florek, T., Malak, J., Johnson, K., Nemceff, B., & .Zelazny, A.
(2003). Influence of irrelevant speech on standardized test performance.Human
Performance, 16(2), 157-178. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1602_3
Beaman, C., & Holt, N. J. (2007). Reverberant auditory environments: The effects
ofmultiple echoes on distraction by 'Irrelevant' Speech. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
21(8), 1077-1090. doi:10.1002/acp.1315
Results:
The conditions were examined with one-
way repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The analysis indicated
there was a significant difference in the
distraction variables on finish time of the
test, F(2,63) =3.962, p<.05. Bonferroni
Posthoc analyses indicated that the
difference between control and cellphones
(M = 97.031, SD=44.03) was less than that
of the difference between the control and
talking (M= 112.376, SD =44.694).
The mean’s between groups of Likert Scale
questions four, five and six were analyzed
using a one-way repeated ANOVA. The
questions were chosen from the scale for
measuring participants who; experienced
distraction during test (Question 4), felt the
distractions impaired their ability to preform
(Question 5) and the frequency in which they
felt distracted during the test (Question 6).
There was a significant difference found in
question four F (2, 68) = 10.236, p < 0.001;
question five F (2, 68) = 16.053, p < 0.001;
and F (2, 68) =18.284, p < 0.001 indicating
that the control group felt less disrupted and
concentrated on the test. Bonferroni Posthoc
analysis indicated that question four (M=2.
54, SD=1.229), question five (M=2.97, SD=1.
265), question six (M=2.96, SD=.992)
Methods
Participants:
Undergraduate students (n=73) enrolled
in the Introductory Psychology 1100,
1103 and 2100WQ.
Materials:
• Pen and paper test, Projected
stopwatch, Cell Phones, Scripted
chatter
Hypotheses:
1. When exposed to annoying and obvious
acoustic noise, the scores on
standardized tests will be lower for the
experimental groups than those of the
control group.
2. When exposed to a distraction,
participants test completion time will be
longer.