Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

eharnett's picture

Kaitlin Cough, Elizabeth

Kaitlin Cough, Elizabeth Harnett

These were our base line values (without distractions):

Elizabeth:

Case 1: 228

Case 2: 317

Case 3: 468

Case 4: 514

Kaitlin:

Case 1: 255

Case 2: 347

Case 3: 561

Case 4: 707

For our second part of the experiment, the distraction we decided to use was doing the clicking experiment while simultaneously watching a video on youtube. The idea behind this was mimicking doing homework in front of the TV, which we've always known is bad to do. Our hypothesis was that the reaction time would be slower for everything having to do with thinking. (Case 2, Case 3 and Case 4).

Our Data:

Elizabeth

Case 1: 283

Case 2: 350

Case 3: 576

Case 4: 564

Think: 67

Read: 226

Negate: -8

Kaitlin:

Case 1: 342

Case 2: 382

Case 3: 539

Case 4: 472

Think: 40

Read: 157

Negate: -67

For Elizabeth's data our hypothesis was right, except for the acting part: it took longer to act as well. Our hypothesis did not work for Kaitlin at all. It took longer for her to act and think and act, but anything having to do with reading was considerably faster. Our interpretation is that maybe our brains process things differently. The data shows that Elizabeth, when concentrating on one thing, works very fast but with multiple distractions does not work very fast. Kaitlin doesn't work as fast with only one thing to concentrate on, but when there are multple simuli her brain processes it faster.

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
9 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.