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


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: 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) Prefer not 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) Prefer not to respond (3)

Do you have any attention disorders (ADD, ADHD, etc.)? Yes (please identify) (1) ____________________ No (2) Prefer not to respond (3)

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 PercentageSex 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 αAge 38.93 35.00 22.00 17.00 70.00 53.00 NAAttention 16.27 16.00 16.00 13.00 19.00 6.00 .65Instrumental 17.53 18.00 20.00 13.00 20.00 7.00 .78Self-Presentation 12.67 14.00 14.00 5.00 19.00 14.00 .82

Table Four



Table Five



Table Six




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

Documents