Bottoms Up - The Cocktail Party Problem

Running head: BOTTOMS UP: COCKTAIL PARTY PROBLEM 1
Bottoms Up: The Cocktail Party Problem from a Communication Perspective
Clint Graves, Patricia “Didi” Hill, Brandi Martin
The University of Tennessee

BOTTOMS UP: COCKTAIL PARTY PROBLEM 2
Abstract
The cocktail party problem (CPP) refers to two distinct phenomena involving auditory stimuli.
First, humans are able to selectively attend to certain stimuli, while tuning out other stimuli. This
is why, in a crowded and noisy environment like a cocktail party, humans have no problem
carrying on dyadic conversations. Second, CPP refers to an anomalous phenomenon, wherein
certain words, such as one’s name, uttered in the tuned out or ignored channel effectively force a
receiver to attend to them. CPP is classically considered a problem of acoustics and psychology.
These fields approach CPP in terms of the environment in which it occurs and the internal
cognitive mechanism responsible for the tuning, respectively. This paper approaches CPP from a
communication perspective by shifting the focus to the involved messaging. This paper
endeavors to understand the factors of the unintended message (i.e. the forcibly attended
message) in terms of message relevance to conversational goals. Specifically, this paper
investigates the effects of instrumental and self-presentation goals on the level of attention from
a receiver. We use a quasi-experimental survey along with a personal interview protocol to
collect data. With quantitative data, we find that messages with high functional relevance tend to
elicit more attention from the receiver, while messages with high levels of self-presentation
relevance generally have no effect. Through qualitative means, the data reveals people strongly
correlate self-presentation and instrumental relevance with attention. Finally, we present areas
for future research to examine CPP as a communication phenomenon.
Keywords: cocktail party problem, cocktail party effect, unintended message, listening

Introduction
Humans possess a remarkable ability to discern and focus on a select auditory stimulus in
the presence of many possible stimuli. Cherry (1953) coined the phrase cocktail party problem
(CPP) as a name for this phenomenon. Simply put, humans will selectively attend to one
conversation, while tuning out background noise – a possible source of interference in abundance
in an environment such as a cocktail party. Moray (1959), however, identified a separate
phenomenon that occurs in the context of CPP; namely, certain parts of an ignored or tuned-out
message, such as one’s name, will capture a subject’s attention.
Thus, CPP consists of two parts: first, humans selectively attend to one stimulus in the
presence of many auditory stimuli; and second, occasionally, they don’t.
Much of the literature about CPP, spawned by Cherry’s (1953) or Moray’s (1959) works,
takes an acoustical or psychological approach. That is, the literature focuses on environmental
factors that affect CPP or the cognitive principles behind auditory processing. Little work has
been done to assess this phenomenon as a function communication theory. As a result, this paper
will endeavor to shift the focus from the internal cognition or external acoustics to the factors of
the ignored message that captures attention, or what we term: the unintended message.
Literature Review
Largely, the cocktail party problem (CPP) is studied through a psychological and
neuropsychological lens; however, the phenomenon presents implications for many fields,
including acoustics, design, zoology, and, most pressingly, communication. Since CPP applies to
so many fields, there is a vast body of research about it; however, much of that research
approaches the problem in drastically different ways (Bronkhorst, 2015). As a result, we will
review only literature with conclusions pertinent to our communication-related approach.

First, we will review the practical applications that come from understanding CPP for a
number of fields. From there, we trace CPP’s origins as a phenomenon in the field of acoustics.
After that, we will assess the body of psychological literature surrounding CPP by tracing its
cognitive implications. Finally, we will shift the focus to a communication perspective by
reviewing literature about the communication concepts associated with CPP before introducing
the present study.
Cocktail Party Problem in Application
CPP is more than a novel auditory trick; its study has a variety of practical applications.
The fields of design, engineering, and zoology are only a few examples of areas that can benefit
from understanding CPP.
Given CPP is named for a very particular social situation (i.e. a cocktail party), it should
come as no surprise that engineers and designers have to keep the phenomenon in mind when
building dining rooms. Within the realm of dining room design, the term “cocktail party effect”
refers to a chain-reaction-type phenomenon, which arises from CPP, whereby individual
speakers raise their volumes in an effort to be heard in a noisy environment (Leccesse, Tuoni,
Salvadori, & Roca, 2015). The problem can make even the most aesthetically pleasing of dining
rooms difficult to use.
Another field to which CPP is pertinent is engineering. Any gadget that uses human voice
input, as is the case with most smartphones, can benefit from a better understanding of CPP.
Since distinguishing one voice among many “remains a major challenge for state-of-the-art
automatic speech recognition algorithms” (Mesgarani & Chang, 2012), perhaps understanding
how the human brain manages to accomplish the trick will better inform engineers as they build
new technologies.

Lastly, CPP is pertinent to zoology. Animals, such as frogs, insects, songbirds, and
colonial birds have been observed to experience CPP similarly to humans (Bee and Micheyl,
2008). CPP has even been used to explain how king penguin chicks manage to locate their
parents in a colony of thousands (Aubin & Jouventin, 1998).
Thus, several fields have practical benefit from an understanding of CPP. The
phenomenon informs design and explains behavior. The present study seeks to apply CPP in a
similar explanatory capacity within the field of communication.
Cocktail Party Problem as an Acoustical Phenomenon
CPP, as is classically theorized, relies on auditory stimuli, thereby making it a
consideration of acoustics. In fact, Cherry (1953) was originally published in The Journal of The
Acoustical Society of America. From an acoustical standpoint, CPP is a foundational
phenomenon that can be measured in terms of the properties of auditory stimuli.
Explaining the acoustics of CPP boils down to the interplay of “the type, number, and
location of interfering sounds” (Hawley, Litovsky, & Culling, 2004, p. 841). Depending upon the
complexity of the environment, humans will demonstrate differentiated abilities in tuning in or
tuning out sounds.
In sum, acoustics plays an important role in how CPP functions. Depending on acoustical
properties like “fundamental frequency (pitch), timbre, harmonicity, [or] intensity” and “spatial
features,” like room size, CPP varies in degree of observation (Zion Golumbic, Poeppel, &
Schroeder, 2012, p. 156). Thus, external factors (i.e. non-cognitive factors) affect CPP. These
foundational findings are of particular relevance to the communication perspective, which
focuses on an altogether different, though still external, factor: messaging. Simply put, if
acoustics, as an external consideration, can affect CPP, perhaps messaging can as well.

Cocktail Party Problem as a Cognitive Phenomenon
CPP, as a cognitive phenomenon, has spawned a vast body of literature. Spanning from
the behavioral approaches in the mid-twentieth century to modern-day neuropsychological
approaches, the entire body of psychological literature is beyond the scope of this paper. One
common theme, however, finds the psychological approach to CPP focusing on the internal
cognition responsible for selective attention and auditory processing.
Classically, subjects of psychological studies would undergo a process similar to
Cherry’s (1953) original method of “shadowing,” whereby subjects “repeat aloud or ‘shadow’
the message presented in one ear and ignore a different message presented to the other ear”
(Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2000, p. 331). Using this method, subjects can, with few errors,
repeat the message they attend to, while forgetting, almost entirely, any content of the message
they ignore (Cherry, 1953). These results have never really been contested; however, the
anomaly of interest to this paper does not occur in the message the subjects attend to, but rather
in the message they ignore.
It appears subjects attend to certain pieces of the ignored message involuntarily. Cherry
(1953), for instance, found that subjects couldn’t ignore messages that were created from strings
of clichés, or what he called highly-probable phrases. But that’s not the only type of message
that cannot be ignored. If the ignored message changes in tone (Ingham, 1957; Lawson, 1966;
Wood & Cowan, 1995) or voice (Treisman & Riley, 1969; Wood & Cowan, 1995), the subjects
typically attend to such a change. The most shocking finding, however, saw subjects recall
specific words from the ignored message; as Moray (1959) found: “subjectively ‘important’
messages, such as a person’s own name, can penetrate the block,” suggesting that if the ignored
message consists of relevant content to the receiver, then the receiver will attend to that message.

The block Moray (1959) discusses is what Tubbs (2013) refers to as a threshold, or “the
minimum level of stimulus intensity that enables [people] to pay attention” (p.138). Thus, an
ignored message can meet the threshold of attention for any given receiver with correspondingly
relevant message content.
Wood and Conway (1995) replicated Moray’s study correcting for several issues they
found with his methods. The study found “34.6% of the participants recalled hearing their
name… which [is] quite comparable to the 33.3% that Moray (1959) found” (p.258) As a result,
a significant portion of people can be assumed to experience the involuntary diversion of
attention inherent to CPP.
The implications of CPP for the field of psychology are far-reaching. Several studies
have tried to solve CPP with various models, including Broadbent’s (1958) filter theory and
Deutsch and Deutsch’s (1963) selection mechanism. Broadbent’s (1958) work inspired research
into how CPP was thought to work, as it was among the first mechanism proposed to explain
how the brain selectively attended to stimuli. Essentially, in his model, all stimuli is attended to
and funneled into a “single decision channel of limited capacity” (Treisman, 1964, p. 13), which
was in turn linked to long-term memory. Deustch and Deutsch (1963) found the filter mechanism
to be too cumbersome an explanation. Instead, they supposed CPP was caused by a selection
mechanism that depended on the subject’s state of arousal and an instantly discerned level of
message importance. Several papers and researchers, approaching the problem from behavioral
perspective, have come to different conclusions on the issue.
Much of the modern research, however, remains devoted to explaining CPP as a property
of human cognition. For instance, CPP has been observed to change with age (Naveh-Benjamin
et al., 2014; Newman, 2005; Divenyi & Gygi, 2003). Said another way, as human cognition

matures, the brain selectively attends in different ways. Others make the case for a visual version
of CPP, since the phenomenon is “ascribable to a rather general process controlling both visual
and auditory inputs” (Rigutti, Fantoni, & Gerbino, 2015, p. 1; Shinn-Cunningham, 2008). And
others focus on CPP as a function of memory capacity (Lewald & Getzmann, 2015, Conway et
al., 2001).
Mesgarani and Chang (2012) even mapped neural activity as the brain selects and attends
to stimuli. The Masgarani and Chang study allowed the researchers to “see the neurons alter their
activity as they tuned into each frequency” (Hamzelou, 2012, p. 13).
Any psychological approach, behavioral or neurological, tends to consider the mind of
the receiver as it attends to, ignores, or otherwise processes multiple auditory stimuli in the
context of CPP. This paper will endeavor to approach CPP from a communication perspective,
thereby shifting focus from the internal cognition to the messaging that causes the cognition.
Cocktail Party Problem as a Communication Phenomenon
While classically considered a problem of psychology, CPP tends to occur, by definition,
in an interpersonal communication context. Said another way, focusing on one conversation, in
spite of large levels of background interference, would suggest that the communicators are
“using symbols to represent ideas in order to share meanings and create a personal bond”
(Solomon & Theiss, 2013, p. 5). As such, there are principles of communication at work in the
interaction.
In Figure 1, we demonstrate CPP using the Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR)
model of communication. The SMCR model is “one of the oldest and simplest models of
communication” (Haas, 2009, p. 46). While scholars tend to criticize the SMCR model for its
simplicity, it is useful when isolating a single communication instance.

As shown in Figure 1, CPP, as we will study it, involves three communicators. The
primary sender and the receiver, under normal circumstances, would selectively attend to their
conversation in the presence of background noise (e.g. ongoing conversations at a cocktail
party). The anomaly of interest appears when, in the background noise, an unintended stimulus
(i.e. the third communicator) utters a message that prompts the receiver, seemingly involuntarily,
to redirect his or her attention
This unintended message (i.e. the message originating with the unintended stimulus) is
the piece of CPP that is least understood, yet most relevant to the communication perspective.
That message has some unique combination of properties that can force, if only for a moment,
the attention of a receiver. Such properties can be isolated and utilized in the process of message
crafting to maximize audience attention.
In the following sections, we identify communication concepts relevant to CPP and
explain how they relate to the present study.
Listening. As important to the exchange of ideas as message crafting, listening is a
complex communication concept. Put simply, listening is a process (Burleson, 2011). The first
step among that process is attending, or “noticing specific cues provided by an interaction
partner” (Solomon & Theiss, 2013, p. 210). Therefore, any communicator participating in the
process of listening is also selectively attending to conversational cues.
Maxim of relevance. In conversation, verbal messages are typically composed using a
particular language. That language, in turn, has a prescriptive set of governing rules (Haas,
2010). Communicator’s expect the rules to be followed during the course of any given
interaction. The maxim of relevance refers to the expectation communicator’s have that each
uttered message should have something to do with the topic at hand (Solomon & Theiss, 2013).

Therefore, communicators, as they engage in the process of listening, expect to attend to
messages relevant to their current conversational topic.
Communication goals. Communication conceptualized as a goal-driven process yields
three main types of goals: instrumental, relational, and self-presentation (Lane, 2000). With each
crafted message, the communicator is attempting to manage one or more of these types of goals.
Lane (2000) notes instrumental goals have to do with achieving some functional end. Examples
of these goals include persuasion or conflict management. Relational goals have to do with
establishing and maintaining relationships between communicators. And self-presentation goals
have to with maintaining one’s identity.
In sum, then, the communicators at a cocktail party are engaged in conversation under a
variety of specific circumstances. They are selectively attending to a conversation in the presence
of excessive background noise. They expect that each utterance they attend to will have
something to do with their topic of conversation, while they also manage a trio of
communication goals. In sum, participants in an interpersonal conversation in the presence of
background noise are caught in a barrage of stimuli; they are actively directing attention toward
the stimuli that are relevant to their conversational goals. It isn’t difficult to imagine that a stray
comment of sufficient relevance might divert their attention unintentionally. This paper will
examine the link between conversational goals, specifically instrumental and self-presentation
ones, and selective attention in the context of CPP. In this way, we will attempt to understand the
properties of the unintended message.
Rationale
The applicability of CPP to several other fields and the fundamental findings from the
acoustics literature suggest a communication-oriented approach to CPP may successfully shed

light on some of its less-understood features. As we shift our focus from the internal cognition
that selectively attends to certain message to the properties of the unintended message, we need
to account for the various communication concepts at play.
Given two communicators – a primary sender and receiver – engaged in a goal-driven
conversation, each will be listening, and therefore attending to, the messages crafted by the other.
If the primary sender and the receiver have distinct instrumental goals, they will attend to
messages that further those goals. They will also expect to hear messages relevant to their goals.
If the unintended stimulus crafts a message pertinent to the goal of the reciever, and the acoustics
of the environment are presumed to make that message audible, then it is possible that the
receiver will attend to the unintended message. Therefore, we forward the following hypothesis:
H1: An unintended message highly relevant to a receiver’s instrumental goal
will garner more attention from the receiver.
Moray (1959) found that about 33% of subjects attend to their name in an ignored
channel. Conway and Wood (1995) replicated the study and found similar results. Following a
similar rationale to that of H1, the primary sender and receiver can also manage self-presentation
goals. If the receiver is expecting to attend to messages about his or her self-presentation, and the
unintended stimulus crafts a message pertinent to those goals (e.g. a negative comment about the
receiver), then the receiver may attend to that unintended message. Therefore, we forward the
following hypothesis:
H2: An unintended message highly relevant to a receiver’s self-presentation
goal will garner more attention from the receiver.
Finally, listening is often characterized as a skill (Solomon & Theiss, 2013; Burleson,
2011). Since skills are developed over time and through exposure, a receiver with vast

experience with listening in the context of CPP (i.e. listening while tuning out significant
background noise) will possibly be more discerning in his or her selective attention. Therefore,
an interesting comparison may come of those receivers who frequently engage in social
functions wherein CPP takes place against those who rarely engage in them. Thus, we forward
the following hypothesis:
H3: People who frequently engage in social functions are less likely to attend
to unintended messages.
Method
This study explored the Cocktail Party Problem (CPP) as a function of communication.
Participants for this study were people of any age, ethnicity, and sex, who were not hearing
impaired. The study sought to measure CPP in terms of message relevance and attention. We
examined the presence of CPP in the participants by using a quasi-experimental survey design
and/or personal interviews.
Quantitative Method
Participants. The first part of the study consisted of a quantitative, quasi-experimental
survey that measured both attention and message relevance. Participants in this portion of the
study could be of any age, sex, or ethnicity. The only stipulation limiting participation in this
survey was hearing impairment. Participants were recruited by snowball and convenience
sampling, achieved through posting a survey designed on Qualtrics on various social media
accounts. After the survey was closed, we processed the collected data in SPSS. The participants
in the survey are broken down by age, sex, and ethnicity in Appendix C.
The survey described within this section will be the main source of data as we seek to test
the following hypotheses:

H1: An unintended message highly relevant to a receiver’s instrumental goal will garner
more attention from the receiver.
H2: An unintended message highly relevant to a receiver’s self-presentation goal will
garner more attention from the receiver.
H3: People who frequently engage in social functions are less likely to attend to
unintended messages.
Procedure. We designed a survey (Appendix B) that we distributed via social
networking sites, including Facebook and Twitter. Any person not willing to complete the survey
had the option exit the survey at any time. The survey consisted of two instruments that provided
statements the participants responded to using a 5-point Likert-type scale. In addition, the survey
featured four different scenarios to which the participants referred while responding to the
instruments in question. The four different scenarios reflected four difference experimental
conditions. Experimental condition 1 (EC1) received experimental treatment for H1, while
experimental condition 2 (EC2) served as the control. Experimental condition 3 (EC3) received
the experimental treatment for H2, while experimental condition 4 (EC4) served as the control.
Qualtrics randomly presented one of the experimental conditions to the participants who read the
scenarios and responded to the two instruments. Lastly, the survey collected demographic
information, such as age, ethnicity, sex, evidence of hearing problems, evidence of attention
problems, and social involvement. From this demographic information, we sought to test H3.
The question of ethnicity used in the survey was an adapted version of Somerville’s (2012) list of
survey ethnicities.
Survey Construction. Both instruments used to measure our variables were of our own
design. The first instrument consisted of four items that measured attention. The second

instrument consisted of eight items that measured two kinds of relevance. The first four items in
this instrument measured self-presentation relevance, while the second four items measured
instrumental relevance. To ensure response validity, we reverse coded two of the items in the
relevance measure. For more information on the instruments’ reliability and validity, refer to the
results section of this paper.
Dependent variable. The dependent variable for this study was attention. The instrument
we used for measuring attention was of our own design and consisted of four statements to which
participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The items in the attention instrument
measure attention as a function of hearing (i.e. the biological process) and listening (i.e. the
mental processing and interpretation of heard sounds). The instrument measured the level of
attention the participants would give to a particular unintended message (i.e. the message
originating with the unintended stimulus). To score the instrument, we took a sum of the
responses. The total score varied from 4-20; if participants scored 16 or higher, then we
classified them as having attended to the unintended message.
Independent variables. The first independent variable for this study is message
relevance. Each of the first two hypotheses investigates different kinds of message relevance,
with respect to communication goals. We classify messages as relevant by assessing them in
relation to a speaker’s instrumental or self-presentation conversational goals. For H1, we crafted
two different experimental conditions to which participants had to respond. EC1 featured an
unintended message highly relevant to the participants’ instrumental goal, while EC2 featured an
irrelevant unintended message. We considered a message relevant to an instrumental goal if it
helped in facilitating a function (e.g. to persuade). Said another way, if the unintended message
was relevant to an instrumental goal, then the unintended message would facilitate that goal. By

contrast, if the unintended message were not relevant, then it would not impact the goal of the
receiver.
The second measure of message relevance assesses an unintended message as it relates to
a receiver’s self-presentation goals. For H2, we created two different experimental conditions
that the participants referenced. EC3 featured an unintended message of high relevance to self-
presentation goals, while EC4 scenario featured an irrelevant unintended message. We classified
a message as relevant to a self-presentation goal when if message affects a communicator’s
projected image or reputation. Said another way, if the unintended message were relevant to a
communicator’s self-presentation goals, then it will affect his or her reputation in either a
positive or negative light.
The relevance measure we used was of our own design and asked participants to respond
to eight items on a 5-point, Likert-type scale. Four items measured relevance to the instrumental
goal, and four items will measure relevance to the self-presentation goal. We determined the
composite score by summing the responses. Totals will range from 4-20. If the participants
achieved a score of 16 or higher on either section of the instrument, then the message was
considered relevant to the corresponding conversational goal.
The second independent variable of interest is social involvement. For H3, we collected
information about the social involvement patterns of the participants. We sought to determine if
the difference between the amount of social activities (e.g. going out to dinner, parties, or
concerts) the participants engaged in had an effect on their levels of attention the context of CPP.
We defined highly socially involved as engaging in social activities on a regular, at least weekly,
basis; anything less than a weekly basis we consider a low social involvement.
Qualitative Method

Participants. The second part of this study consisted of interviews with participants, who
resemble those participating in the survey. In that, these participants could also be of any age,
ethnicity, or sex. But once again, the participants could not be hearing impaired. We used
convenience sampling to recruit participants. We interviewed five participants in total. The
participants in the interview portion of the study were between the ages of 20 and 59. Two
participants were male; three were female. Four participants identified as white; one participant
identified as Asian.
The primary hypotheses these interviews sought to test were:
Procedure. The qualitative portion of the study provided insight about the participant’s
attentiveness and responsiveness in social settings. We conducted live, audio-recorded, one-on-
one interviews with the participants, adhering to a pre-written interview protocol (Appendix D).
While the quasi-experimental nature of this research project doesn’t necessarily lend
itself to interview data, we sought to augment our survey data with parallel interview questions.
In this way, we explored the concept of CPP through the lens of lived experience. Questions
began by asking the participant about how many times they tend to go to social events on a
weekly basis and for what reasons. Depending on their answers, the interviewers created two
personalized “noisy scenarios” that integrated a relevant functional and self-presentation goal in
an unintended message. After creating and presenting the scenarios, the interviewers asked the
participants how they believed they would react.

After conducting the interviews, we listened to each one for recurrent themes and
repeated phrases. We replaced the names of the participants with pseudonyms of their choice.
We destroyed the recordings of the interviews at the end of the research study.
Results
This study looked at the effects of message relevance to a communicator’s conversational
goals on attention in the context of the Cocktail Party Problem (CPP). We posed three research
hypotheses we sought to test through two methods. First, we employed a quasi-experimental
survey with four randomly assigned experimental conditions to 62 participants found via
convenience and snowball sampling. Participant’s responses were gathered with instruments of
our own design. Second, we conducted 5 personal interviews that sought to explore CPP with
more depth. This section of the paper will examine the findings from both the quantitative and
qualitative methods we employed.
Quantitative Results
The survey consisted of four experimental conditions with different experimental
treatments. Experimental condition 1 (EC1) asked participant to respond to an unintended
message of high instrumental relevance. Experimental condition 3 (EC3) asked participants to
respond to an unintended message of high self-presentation relevance. Experimental conditions 2
(EC2) and 4 (EC4), as control groups, asked participants to respond to irrelevant unintended
messages.
Participants responded to two instruments. The first instruments measured how much
attention the participants would pay to any given unintended message. The second measured how
relevant the participants believed the unintended message in a scenario was to an instrumental or
self-presentation goal.

In total, participants were asked to respond to twelve items. Four items measured
attention, instrumental relevance, and self-presentation relevance each. To score the instruments,
the responses were added together and ranged from 4-20. A score of 16 or greater on the
attention instrument means the participants attended the unintended message in question. A score
of 16 or greater on either relevance measure means the participants considered the unintended
message highly relevant.
Hypothesis 1. To test the relationship between instrumental relevance and attention, we
examined the responses from the first and second experimental conditions. EC1 served as the
experimental group, while EC2 served as the control group. With this data, we conducted three
statistical tests.
Test 1. We first conducted an independent-samples t-Test to determine differences in the
mean attention scores of participants in EC1 versus EC2. The test revealed a significant
difference (t(30) = 5.05, p < .001) between the mean scores. The mean attention score of EC1 (M
= 16.27, sd = 1.68) was significantly higher than the mean attention score of EC2 (M = 12.59, sd
= 2.35). The participants responding to the unintended message relevant to an instrumental goal
tended to pay more attention to that message.
Test 2. To further investigate H1, we used a Pearson correlation test to determine if a
relationship exists between instrumental relevance and attention. We found a significant positive
correlation (r(32) = .64, p < .001). As instrumental relevance increases, attention to the
unintended message also increases.
Test 3. The final test we conducted, a linear regression, sought to predict attention based
on instrumental relevance. The simple linear regression was significant (F(1, 30) = 20.56, p <
.001) with an adjusted R2 value of .39. Participants attention scores can be predicted by the

following equation: y = .38x + 9.15, where y is the attention score and x is the instrumental
relevance score.
Hypothesis 2. To test the relationship between self-presentation relevance and attention,
we examined the responses from the third and fourth experimental conditions. EC3 served as the
experimental group, while EC4 served as the control group. With this data, we conducted three
statistical tests.
Test 1. We first wanted to determine any significant difference between the mean
attention scores of the two experimental conditions. To determine any difference, we conducted
an independent-samples t-Test, comparing the scores of EC3 to EC4. The test revealed no
significant difference (t(26) = 1.76, p > .05). The mean attention score of EC3 was not
significantly different from the mean attention score of EC4. Said another way, participants
attend to an unintended message at the same level regardless of self-presentation relevance.
Test 2. To further investigate H2, we used a Pearson correlation test to determine if there
was any relationship between attention and self-presentation relevance. We found no significant
relationship (r(28) = .30, p > .05). There is no relationship between attention and self-
presentation relevance.
Test 3. We conducted a simple linear regression to assess the prediction power of self-
presentation relevance on attention. We found the regression equation was not significant (F(1,
26) = 2.59, p > .05) with an adjusted R2 value of .06. Self-presentation relevance is not a
significant predictor of attention.
Hypothesis 3. H3 sought to determine if high social involvement decreased attention in
the context of CPP. We defined high social involvement as engaging in social activities on a

regular, at least weekly basis (i.e. at least four time per month). We defined low social
involvement as engaging in social activities less than four times per month.
To test if different levels of social involvement affected attention, we conducted an
independent-samples t-Test. The test revealed no significant difference between the group that
reported high social involvement and the group that report low social involvement (t(58) = -1.80,
p > .05). The mean attention score of the highly socially involved is not significantly different
from the mean attention score of the less socially involved. Social involvement has no impact on
attention in the context of CPP.
Survey construction. The instruments we used to measure instrumental and self-
presentation relevance were valid. In order to test the validity of our survey instruments , we
conducted two one-way ANOVA tests between the experimental conditions and the participant’s
respective responses on the instrumental relevance items and the self-presentation relevance
items.
For instrumental relevance, we found a significant difference in the responses among the
experimental conditions (F(3, 58) = 30.86, p < .001). Tukey’s HSD revealed the differences
between the responses of the experimental conditions. The participants assigned to EC1 (i.e. the
group with the unintended message relevant to an instrumental goal) had a significantly higher
mean score of instrumental relevance (M = 17.53, sd = 2.67) than EC2 (M = 10.35, sd =3.20),
EC3 (M = 14.88, sd = 1.89), or EC4 (M = 9.00, sd = 3.11). Thus, participants considered the
scenario from EC1 to be highly relevant to their instrumental goals.
We found similar results for self-presentation relevance. The one-way ANOVA test
comparing mean self-presentation relevance scores of the experimental conditions found a
significant difference among them (F(3, 58) = 30.10, p < .001). Tukey’s HSD revealed the

differences between the responses of the experimental conditions. The participants assigned to
EC3 (i.e. the group with the unintended message relevant to a self-presentation goal) had a
significantly higher mean score of self-presentation relevance (M = 16.50, sd = 2.16), than EC1
(M = 12.67, sd = 3.70), EC2 (M = 8.00, sd = 2.87), or EC4 (M = 7.07, sd = 3.73). Thus,
participants considered the scenario from EC3 to be highly relevant to their self-presentation
goals.
As a result, we may conclude the survey instruments had a minimal level of internal
validity.
Further, we used Cronbach’s alpha to determine the reliability of each of the instruments
we created for this survey. The instrument used to measure attention had a moderate reliability
coefficient (α = .65). The instrument used to measure instrumental relevance had a strong
reliability coefficient (α = .78). And the instrument used to measure self-presentation relevance
had a strong reliability coefficient (α = .82).
Qualitative Results
In the interview portion of the research project, we focused on learning about CPP
through the lens of lived experience. We wanted to further investigate both H1 and H2 by
learning about participants’ social involvement patterns and learning what they believe they
would do when put in certain scenarios. As a result, the interviews involved creating two
scenarios (i.e. one examining instrumental relevance and another examining self-presentation
relevance) and asking the participants to describe how they believe they would react.
We will use pseudonyms to refer to each participant in order to ensure identity protection.
The following sections examine two major themes that emerged from the interviews.

Innate understanding of CPP. The first notable finding we encountered throughout our
interviews was the participants’ innate understanding of CPP. Often, participants would describe
CPP in detail, simply not knowing what the phenomenon was called. Put simply, people
inherently understand attending to unintended messages.
For example, Bill, 54, described one morning when, as he arrived at his workplace, he
overheard his co-workers talking negatively about him: “I couldn’t help but hear it. It wasn’t like
I was being super nosy…I couldn’t help it.” In this scenario, Bill acknowledged the fact that he
attended to an unintended message without choosing to. Given the correct acoustics, he felt
almost forced to attend to the negative comments he was hearing.
This phenomenon was echoed by Jen, 21, who said, “anytime you hear your name
mentioned…that instantly piques your interest.” The name, as found by Moray (1959), tends to
be a common note that rings true with receivers. People, whether they want to or not, usually
attend to message that features their name, which lends support to the claim of H2. Names tend
to be associated with self-presentation goals, which, as the interview data reveals, usually
captures a receiver’s attention. Thus, participants innately understand the link between self-
presentation goals and CPP.
Participants also innately understand the link between instrumental goals and CPP. For
example, Jo, 59, is a realtor and spoke in reaction to an “open house” scenario. She determined
her goal at an open house would be to find a buyer or client. She confirmed that she would hear
someone in this context mention something related to her instrumental goal, to sell: “when I hear
somebody say something about selling a house… I could be thirty feet away… you know, I tune
into that.” Thus, she believes information relating to her instrumental goals would capture her
attention. These findings are further corroborated by Jack, 21, who admitted that he would use

information that he overheard to achieve his instrumental goals. During his interview, he was
asked if he would try to sneak backstage at a concert if he overheard a stage manager was soon
to allow a group of people through. In this example, Jack understood his goal – to get backstage
– and how a certain message, uttered by a stage manager, can help him achieve that goal. Thus,
an unintended message of high relevance to an instrumental goal would pique his interest, and
perhaps capture his attention.
Undertaking action with information. Perhaps the reason humans will attend to an
unintended message has to do with the power of words. In this vein, all of the participants were
asked about their response to overhearing a negative comment from a non-stranger. Many noted
how strongly they would be affected by negative words they overheard about themselves or
something associated with them. For instance, Jo even went so far to say, “I’m very sensitive. I’d
hear it, I probably wouldn’t sleep that night.” While that is one extreme example, all of the
participants noted that in certain scenarios, they would use negative information they overheard
and take action, whether covert or overt, to address it.
As an example of overt action, Jo went on to say, “I’d probably confront them later” in
regard to a negative comment and that she would “go direct,” meaning she wouldn’t search a
moderator of any kind.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Jack mentioned he would take more covert action to
address a negative comment: “I would probably say something to another friend that was
around…like ‘did you hear that?’” This information-gathering technique is an indirect way of
addressing any concerns with negative messages.
Nevertheless, both Jo and Jack would use negative information they obtained in an
unintended message and undertake action to address it.

Of course, undertaking action is a matter of content of the unintended message as well as
the context in which it occurs. Bill noted, “if it was just a personal attack or something, I
probably wouldn’t. But if they said something about my work… that just isn’t true, I’d actually
probably confront them at that point.” For him, the unintended message would have to be related
to work for him to take action. Jack also mentioned for him to take action against a negative
unintended message, it “kind of depends on who said it.” A close friend, known to be joking,
probably wouldn’t prompt any serious response, while a lesser-known acquaintance would.
Amanda, 20, echoed this sentiment: “If it was someone that I knew well, I would listen to them
more but if it was someone I didn't know then I wouldn't really care to listen.”
Generally, then, taking action depends upon context. In the end, however, participants,
across the board, assumed they would hear and attend to the negative comment despite what they
would do as a result of it.
Discussion
Our goal with this study was to approach the long-studied Cocktail Party Problem (CPP)
from a communication perspective. In that, we shifted the focus of the study from the traditional
aspects of CPP, such as the acoustical environment or internal cognitive mechanisms, to the
factors of the involved messaging. For communication research, a message that prompts a
receiver to attend to it presents interesting implications for the process of message crafting.
Using a quantitative and qualitative approach, we sought to test the following hypotheses,
which conceptualizes attention as a function of message relevance and social involvement:

H3: People who frequently engage in social functions are less likely to attend to
unintended messages.
The following section reviews the results we obtained from our approaches and presents
areas of limitation along with directions for future research.
Quantitative Results
H1 sought to test how attention to an unintended message changed as a function of
instrumental relevance. Given the quasi-experimental design of our survey, we were able to
conduct a variety of statistical tests: an independent-samples t-Test, a Pearson correlation test,
and a linear regression test. Each of these test supported the claim H1 makes that a higher
instrumental relevance yields greater attention to the unintended message.
The independent-samples t-Test compared the mean attention scores of experimental
condition 1 (EC1), which featured an unintended message of high instrumental relevance, to
experimental condition 2 (EC2), which featured an irrelevant unintended message. The test
revealed participants in EC1 expended significantly more attention than those in EC2. This
would suggest that higher instrumental relevance tends increase the level of attention. Further
tests revealed a significant positive relationship between instrumental relevance and attention –
even that instrumental relevance can predict attention.
These findings keep with our understanding of the key communication concepts at play
in CPP: listening, the maxim of relevance, and conversational goals. Solomon & Theiss (2013)
conceptualize listening as a process – the first step of which is selectively attending. Since we
expect to hear utterances that relevant to our current topic (Haas, 2010) and our topic often

center of conversational goals (Lane, 2000), we would expect message relevant to our
conversational goals may capture our attention – even if unintentionally. Thus, the findings that
increased instrumental relevance yields increased attention are not particularly surprising.
H2 sought to test a similar assertion to H1; however, it asserts that unintended messages
of high self-presentation relevance, instead of instrumental relevance, increase attention. We
conducted the same tests on H2 that we used on H1. The findings, however, did not support the
hypothesis.
The independent-samples t-Test revealed the difference in the mean scores of
experimental condition 3 (EC3) and experimental condition 4 (EC4) was not significant.
Furthermore, the Pearson correlation test did not reveal a relationship between self-presentation
relevance and attention. And the linear regression tests would suggest that self-presentation
relevance does not predict attention.
These findings not only contradict H2, but also the findings of Moray (1959). We would
expect self-presentation messages to attract attention because they often identify the receiver by
name. There are a few experimental reasons why these findings may have occured. A histogram
plotting the attention responses for all the participants in EC3 and EC4 reveals an outlying data
point in EC3 (Appendix E). For whatever reason, one participant in EC3 scored several points
lower on attention than any of the other participants in either EC3 or EC4. Due the incredibly
small number of participants in EC3, this data point of errant enough to throw off the entire
group’s mean. For further discussion of the implications of this outlier response, see the
limitations section of this paper.
Finally, H3 sought to find a difference in attention scores between participants who
frequently engage in social activities (e.g. going to dinner, going to concerts, going to parties)

and those who engage without frequency. H3 asserted there would be a negative relationship
between high social involvement and level of attention. However, the independent-samples t-
Test found no significant difference in the mean attention scores of participants with high social
involvement and those with low social involvement. Our data does not support H3.
The reason our data fails to support H3 stems from theory. While listening is a skill that
can be developed (Solomon & Theiss, 2013; Burleson, 2011), CPP occurs in an almost
involuntary way. As a result, listening skill is probably independent of selective attention.
Qualitative Results
While the quantitative results revealed mixed findings with regard to H1 and H2, the
qualitative findings tended to support the assertions of both hypotheses.
Given the interview data we collected, people demonstrate an innate understanding of
CPP, and some are even able to provide examples of time when their attention was captured by
an unintended message. More often than not, participants attributed high levels of attention to
unintended messages about themselves or their work. Depending on the content and context of
that message, participants might even go a step further and undertake action using the
information they have gathered via an unintended message.
For example, many of the participants said they would undertake confrontational (i.e.
overt) or information gathering (i.e. covert) communication behaviors in response to overhearing
negative comments about themselves.
Participants clearly listen for information that may help them in achieving some end goal
– usually having to do with identity management. Said another way, participants generally
believed they would hear information that related to their self-presentation goals and react after
evaluating the content and context of that unintended message. Messages relevant to

instrumental or self-presentation goals have the power to capture attention – even if they are not
messages to which people typically attend. Put simply, conversational goals direct listening.
Implications
In the end, this study approached the cocktail party problem (CPP) from a perspective
that previous research had not examined. As a result, the implications of this study have to do
with how communication and messaging plays a role in the context of CPP. Most previous
research deals with the external acoustic factors or internal cognition. This study examined how
the unintended message, which seems to command attention, is crafted. Taking into account both
the quantitative and qualitative approaches we used in this study, our findings suggest that
relevance to conversational goals does play a role in capturing receiver attention. As a result, we
may conclude that commanding attention in any communication context may be a function of
inducing a communication goal in the receiver and crafting a message of high relevance to that
goal.
Limitations and Future Research
The first major limitation of this study has to do with sampling. Keyton (2015) notes, for
a population as large as the one in question, the sample size needs to be at least 384 participants.
Our sample size was a mere 62. Given our small sample size, our experimental conditions were
severely limited with regard to the number of participants each condition received. In addition,
the ethnic makeup was largely white – with a severe lack of intercultural representation. Future
research needs to use sampling techniques that will ensure a larger and more diverse sample.
The second major limitation of this study has to do with the instruments used to measure
attention and relevance. In that, both were non-established instruments without previous research
to give a sufficient measure of validity or reliability. While the instruments appeared to function

well in this study, they can be improved. For example, the attention instrument achieved a
reliability score below the traditionally acceptable level. To address this, the attention instrument
may need to be developed with more items and feature at least one reverse coded item. This will
help address the problems like outlying data points, as was the case with EC3 (Appendix E).
Finally, this study focused on attention as a function of relevance to a conversational
goal. Generally, message relevance does have the effect of garnering attention. Given these
findings, we theorize that each individual has a cache of words and phrases to which they will
attend in the context of CPP – words that Moray (1959) termed “subjectively ‘important’
messages.” Future research should focus on distilling and cataloging the types of words or
phrases with the ultimate goal generalizing a communication theory that predicts and explains
human listening patterns and behaviors in the presence of subjectively relevant words and
phrases.

References
Aubin, T.,& Jouventin, P. (1998). Cocktail-party effect in king penguin colonies. The Royal
Society, 265, 1665-1673.
Bee, M.A., & Micheyl, C. (2008). Cocktail party problem: What is it? how can it be solved? and
why should animal behaviorists study it? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122, 235-
251. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.122.3.235
Bronkhorst, A.W. (2015). The cocktail-party problem revisited: Early processing and selection
of multi-talker speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 1465-1487. doi:
10.3758/s13414-015-0882-9
Burleson, B.R. (2011). A constructivist approach to listening. International Journal of Listening,
25, 27-46.
Cherry, C.E. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two
ears. The Journal of The Acoustical Society of America, 25(5), 975-979.
Conway, A.R.A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M.F. (2001). The cocktail party phenonmenon
revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
8, 331-335.
Deutsch, J.A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological
Review, 70, 80-90.
Haas, J.W. (2010). Business and professional communication: In the information age. Plymouth,
Michigan: Hayden-McNeil Publishing.
Haas, J.W., & Smith, L.A. (2009). Public speaking: In the information age (4th edition).
Plymouth Michigan: Hayden-McNeil Publishing.
Hamzelou, J. (2012) Brain’s cocktail party trick deciphered for first time. New Scientist, 214, 13.

Hawley, M.L., Litovsky, R.Y., & Culling, J.F. (2004). The benefit of binaural hearing in a
cocktail party: Effect of location and type of interferer. The Journal of The Acoustical
Society of America, 115, 833-843.
Ingham, J.G. (1957). The effect upon monaural sensitivity of continuous stimulation of the
opposite ear. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 52-60. doi:
10.1080/17470215708416219
Keyton, J. (2015). Communication research: Asking questions, seeking answers (4th edition).
New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Lane, D. (2000, January 29). Communication competence defined! Dr. Lane’s perspective.
Retrieved from http://comm.uky.edu/Lane/
Lawson, E.A. (1966). Decisions concerning the rejected channel. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 18, 260-265. doi: 10.1080/14640746608400038
Leccese, F., Tuoni, G., Salvadori, G., & Rocca, M. (2015). An analytical model to evaluate the
cocktail party effect in restaurant dining rooms: A case study. Applied Acoustics, 100, 87-
94.
Lewald, J., & Getzmann, S. (2015). Electrophysiological correlates of cocktail-party listening.
Behavioural Brain Research, 292, 157-166. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.06.025
Mesgarani, N., & Chang, E. F. (2012). Selective cortical representation of attended speaker in
multi-talker speech perception. Nature, 485, 233-236. doi: 10.1038/nature11020
Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of
instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56-60. doi:
10.1080/17470215908416289

Naveh-Benjamin, M., Maddox, G.B., Chen, T., Klib, A., Thomas, J., Fine, H.C., & Cowan, N.
(2014). Older adults do not notice their names: A new twist to a classic attention task.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 1540-1550. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000020
Newman, R.S. (2005). The cocktail party effect in infants revisited: Listening to one’s name in
noise. Developmental Psychology, 41, 352-362. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.352
Rigutti, S., Fantoni, C, & Gerbino, W. (2015). Web party effect: A cocktail party effect in the
web environment. PeerJ 3:e828. doi: 10.7717/peerj.828
Shinn-Cunningham, B.G. (2008). Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 12, 182-186. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.003
Solomon, D., & Theiss, J. (2013) Interpersonal communication: Putting theory into practice.
New York, New York: Taylor & Francis.
Somerville, W. (2012, February 16). What is the best way to ask study participants about race &
ethnicity? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_
the_best_way_to_ask_study_participants_about_race_ethnicity
Treisman, A.M. (1964). Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin, 20(1), 12-16.
Treisman, A.M., & Riley, J.G.A. (1969). Is selective attention selective perception or selective
response?: A further test. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 27-34.
Tubbs, S. (2013). Human communication: Principles and contexts (13th edition). New York,
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wood, N., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: How frequent are
attention shifts to one’s name in an irrelevant auditory channel? Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 21, 255-260.

Zion Golumbic, E.M., Poeppel, D., & Schroeder, C.E. (2012). Temporal context in speech
processing and attentional stream selection: A behavioral and neural perspective. Brain &
Language, 122, 151-161. doi: 10.1016/j.band.2011.12.010

Appendix A
SMCR Model of CPP
Figure 1. Drawing of isolated communication instance using SMCR model, showing two
simultaneous messages from separate stimuli. The response of the receiver is captured by an
unintended stimulus’ message of sufficient relevance to the receiver’s functional or self-
presentation goal. All attended messages occur in the presence of background noise.

Appendix B
Survey
Thank you for choosing to participate in our survey. By clicking the ">>" button below, you will
be given one of four possible scenarios to read and respond to. Please respond with complete
honesty. All responses to this survey will be kept anonymous.
Experimental Condition 1
Read the following scenario before responding to items in the survey.
Joe is an unemployed student attending a job fair. He wants to persuade one of the job
representatives to give him an interview. His main objective is to get an interview; it doesn’t
matter where. As he walks into the event, Joe notices that it is a very loud environment. He
approaches the Nike table, and the following conversation occurs:
Joe: Hey there, I’m Joe. Can you tell me more about Nike and the internships you have?
Sarah (Nike representative): We are so happy to have you here at this event. What would you
like to know about our internships?
Joe: When’s the first date for an interview?
Sarah: Well, first you need to put in an application through our website before we consider you
for a preliminary interview.
At this moment, Joe overhears the following statement from the Apple table.
Apple Representative: We have many wonderful internships. Next week we have an open-
interview period, when anyone can come and talk to our recruiters.
Now, imagine you are in Joe's position. Please respond to the items listed below. Please note:
The "overheard statement" referenced in the items below refers to what the Apple representative
says
Joe is an unemployed student attending a job fair. He wants to persuade one of the job
representatives to give him an interview. His main objective is to get an interview; it doesn’t
matter where. As he walks into the event, Joe notices that it is a very loud environment. He
approaches the Nike table, and the following conversation occurs:
Joe: Hey there, I’m Joe. Can you tell me more about Nike and the internships you have?
Sarah (Nike representative): We are so happy to have you here at this event. What would you
like to know about our internships?
Joe: When’s the first date for an interview?

Sarah: Well, first you need to put in an application through our website before we consider you
for a preliminary interview.
At this moment, Joe overhears the following statement from the Apple table.
Apple Representative: I didn’t get my interview with Apple until 6 months after submitting my
application.
Now, imagine you are in Joe's position. Please respond to the items listed below. Please note:
The "overheard statement" referenced in the items below refers to what the Apple representative
says.

Zane is an unemployed student attending a networking event. He has heard a representative from
Google, Maggie, will be there and wants to impress her. His main objective is to present himself
as a potential employee. Upon entering the event, Zane notices there are many conversations
happening at once. He weaves through the crowds and eventually finds Maggie. The following
conversation occurs:
Zane: Hey, I’m Zane. You work for Google, don’t you?
Maggie: Hi there. Yes, I do. My name is Maggie. Can I tell you anything about it?
Zane: Do you enjoy working for Google?
Maggie: Yes! I absolutely love it! Are you interested in applying?
Zane: Yeah, it’s my dream to work at Google. It’s the best tech company around.
Maggie: What makes you stand out from the rest of the guys I’ve talked to today?
Zane: Well, I’ve worked for Geek Squad since high school. So, I’m great at working with
people, and I learned so much about the latest software.
Maggie: That’s good. Maybe you could get a letter of recommendation from your old supervisor.
I think I talked to someone from Geek Squad today.
At this moment, Zane overhears the following statement from his former Geek Squad supervisor,
Brenda.
Brenda: The worst employee I’ve ever had? I think his name was Zane. He couldn’t
communicate well with customers, never showed up on time, and never understood basic
computer software.
Now, imagine you are in Zane's position. Please respond to the items listed below. Please note:
the "overheard statement" referenced in the items below refers to what Brenda says.
Zane is an unemployed student attending a networking event. He has heard a representative from
Google, Maggie, will be there and wants to impress her. His main objective is to present himself
as a potential employee. Upon entering the event, Zane notices there are many conversations
happening at once. He weaves through the crowds and eventually finds Maggie. The following
conversation occurs:
Zane: Hey, I’m Zane. You work for Google, don’t you?
Maggie: Hi there. Yes, I do. My name is Maggie. Can I tell you anything about it?
Zane: Do you enjoy working for Google?
Maggie: Yes! I absolutely love it! Are you interested in applying?
Zane: Yeah, it’s my dream to work at Google. It’s the best tech company around.

Maggie: What makes you stand out from the rest of the guys I’ve talked to today?
Zane: Well, I’ve worked for Geek Squad since high school. So, I’m great at working with
people, and I learned so much about the latest software.
Maggie: That’s good. Maybe you could get a letter of recommendation from your old supervisor.
I think I talked to someone from Geek Squad today.
At this moment, Zane overhears the following statement from his former Geek Squad supervisor,
Brenda.
Brenda: I have to leave soon to go pick my son, Zane, from preschool. He’s a doll.
Now, imagine you are in Zane's position. Please respond to the items listed below. Please note:
The "overheard statement" referenced in the items below refers to what Brenda says.
Attention Instrument
Strongly
disagree (1)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither agree
nor disagree
(3)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Strongly agree
(5)
I would hear
the overheard
statement. (1)
    
I would listen
intently to the
overheard
statement. (2)
    
I would
appear to
listen to the
current
conversation
while tuning
into the
overheard
statement. (3)
    
Because of
particular
words in the
overheard
statement, I
would tune
out the
current
conversation.
(4)
    
Relevance Instrument

Strongly
disagree (1)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither agree
nor disagree
(3)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Strongly
agree (5)
The overheard
statement is
directly
relevant to
Speaker 1 as a
person. (1)
    
Speaker 1
would consider
the overheard
statement
either insulting
or
complimentary.
(2)
    
The overheard
statement is a
reflection on
Speaker 1's
character. (3)
    
The overheard
statement has
nothing to do
with Speaker 1.
(4)
    
The overheard
statement is
directly
relevant to
what Speaker 1
wants to
accomplish. (5)
    
Speaker 1
would
accomplish his
or her goal by
listening to the
overheard
statement. (6)
    
Speaker 1
would be more
interested in
the overheard
statement than
    

his or her
current
conversation.
(7)
The overheard
statement has
nothing to do
with Speaker
1's goals. (8)
    
What is your sex?
 Male (1)
 Female (2)
 Prefernot to respond (3)
What is your age (in years)?
What is your ethnicity?
 Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American (1)
 East Asian or Asian American (2)
 South Asian or Indian American (3)
 Latino or Hispanic American (4)
 Middle Eastern or Arab American (5)
 Native American or Alaskan Native (6)
 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (7)
 White (Non-Hispanic) or Euro-American (8)
 Other (9) ____________________

Do you have any medical issues with your hearing (partial deafness, hearing aids, etc.)?
 Yes (please identify)(1) ____________________
 No (2)
Do you have any attention disorders (ADD, ADHD, etc.)?
 Yes (please identify)(1) ____________________
 No (2)
How often do you attend a social event in a crowded place (e.g. going out to dinner, going to a
party, going to a concert, etc.) per month?
 0 (1)
 1-3 (Less than 1 time per week)(2)
 4-7 (Between 1-2 times per week)(3)
 8-11 (Between 2-3 times per week) (4)
 12+ (3 or more times per week)(5)

Appendix C
Table One
Descriptive Statistics for Discrete Variables
n Percentage
Sex Males 24 38.71%
Females 37 59.68%
No Response 1 1.61%
Ethnicity Black, Afro-
Caribbean, or
African American
0 0%
East Asian or
Asian American
2 3.23%
South Asian or
Indian American
0 0%
Latino or Hispanic
American
0 0%
Middle Eastern or
Arab American
0 0%
Native American
or Alaskan Native
0 0%
Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific
Islander
0 0%
White (Non-
Hispanic) or Euro-
American
60 96.77%
Other 0 0%
Evidence of Hearing
Issues
Yes 0 0%
No 61 98.39%
No Response 1 1.61%
Evidence of
Attention Issues
Yes 3 4.84%
No 58 93.55%
No Response 1 1.61%
Social Involvement 0 per month 1 1.61%
1-3 per month 28 45.16%
4-7 per month 20 32.26%
8-11 per month 8 12.90%
12+ per month 5 8.07%

Table Three
Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables, Experimental Condition 1 (EC1)
M Mdn Mo Min. Max. Range α
Age 38.93 35.00 22.00 17.00 70.00 53.00 NA
Attention 16.27 16.00 16.00 13.00 19.00 6.00 .65
Instrumental 17.53 18.00 20.00 13.00 20.00 7.00 .78
Self-Presentation 12.67 14.00 14.00 5.00 19.00 14.00 .82
Table Four
Age 38.71 34.00 34.00 19.00 78.00 59.00 NA
Attention 12.59 14.00 14.00 8.00 15.00 7.00 .65
Instrumental 10.35 11.00 14.00 4.00 14.00 10.00 .78
Table Five
Age 35.25 31.50 21.00 21.00 66.00 45.00 NA
Attention 15.00 16.00 14.00 5.00 19.00 14.00 .65
Instrumental 14.88 15.00 15.00 11.00 18.00 7.00 .78
Table Six
Age 33.79 25.50 20.00 20.00 72.00 52.00 NA
Attention 12.85 12.00 16.00 9.00 17.00 8.00 .65
Instrumental 9.00 9.00 9.00 4.00 14.00 10.00 .78

Appendix D
Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to do an interview for our research project. Today, I’m going to ask you
to imagine yourself in a particular scenario and describe how you would react. I want to make
sure you know that everything said here today will be kept confidential. With your permission, I
would like to record this interview. Please know, you can ask me to turn it off at any point during
the interview. In the write up, we will use pseudonyms to protect your identity. May we begin?
1. What social activities do you participate in (exs. going out to dinner, parties, or
concerts)? How often? (times per week)
a. Are most of your outings for business or pleasure?
2. Why do you go out?
a. What’s is your typical objective? (fun, meet people, etc.)
3. INVENT NOISY SCENARIO 1 (Functional Goal)
1. ex: Co-worker sits at booth near your table. You overhear them say
something negative about you. What made you start listening to them?
What drew your attention to them?
2. ex: At a concert, you want to get backstage. Trying to convince the
security guy to let you through, you overhear someone say “we’re
bringing about 15-20 people through in 5 minutes.” What would you do?
What made you start listening to them? (trying to gain something)
4. INVENT NOISY SCENARIO 2 (Self-Presentation Goal)
1. ex: Co-worker sits at booth near your table. You overhear them say
something negative about you.
2. ex: At a concert, you want to get backstage. Trying to convince the
security guy to let you through, you overhear someone say “we’re
bringing about 15-20 people through in 5 minutes.”
5. Do you think you’d overhear that sort of message at all?
6. How much attention do you think you’d give to what you overhear?
7. How do you think you’d react?
8. Age, sex, ethnicity?
Clearinghouse question:
1. Do you have anything to add that we haven’t talked about?
Thank you for your time. Your responses have been helpful.

Appendix E
Figure 2. Histogram showing all of the attention scores from experimental conditions 3 and 4.
One participant, from EC3, scored 5 on the attention measure, which subsequently skewed the
data on self-presentation relevance. For a discussion of the implications of this histogram, see the
limitations section of this paper.

Bottoms Up - The Cocktail Party Problem

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Bottoms Up - The Cocktail Party Problem

Similar to Bottoms Up - The Cocktail Party Problem (20)

More from Patricia Hill

More from Patricia Hill (8)

Bottoms Up - The Cocktail Party Problem