The Effects of Distraction on Test Taking Ability

Brittany Murphy, Marissa Harris, Matthew Joiner, Courtney Hart

Methods (Continued):Variables:• Dependent Variables: (1) Score

received on the test, (2) time needed to complete test and (3) Likert Scale survey taken after exam completion.

• Independent Variable: There were three levels to our between subjects study; a control , a group with ringing cell phones and one with talking from the proctors.

Procedure:Participants were asked to complete a standardized pen and paper test from the College Board SAT standardized testing practice questions. Each of the three groups answered math and critical reading portions of the test were to measure performance. The test was timed so there was a stopwatch on a projected screen. The control, cellphone and chatter groups were measured separately.The participants then filled out a Likert Scale measuring the subjective levels of distraction.

Introduction:This study investigated auditory distractions affecting concentration and work ability of students. It is different from previous studies from the multiple levels distractions used and the time variable examined during the test. Our experiment was helped shaped by the following studies:• A study exploring how environmental changes in

workplaces influence acoustic distractions among coworkers (Kaarlela-Tuomalla et al. 2009).

• The layout of our experiment was formed using an idea from a previous study which had participants subjected to auditory distractions during the GRE’s (Powers et al. 2003)

• We used two levels beyond the control group for our independent variable, using the idea of repeated echoing distractions (Beanman and Holt 2007).

Discussion:For our first hypothesis, there was no significant difference between test scores for the three groups. Our Likert Scale shows statically significant data in terms of peoples feelings of distraction, showing that although the experiments groups felt distracted, they preformed to standard ability. For the second hypothesis, there was statistical difference, but our hypothesis was wrong. Instead of the experiment groups taking longer to complete the test, the control group was statistically significantly longer from time taken to complete the test. This is most likely do to participants lack of care about the exam, thus minimizing the effort they put into each question.

If further testing were to continue, we would change the experiment:• By prescreening participants to allow

people of the same IQ and or average SAT score to participate in the experiment.

• By making the test of more importance to the individual.

• Changing the intensity of the chatter and ringtones to measure at what levels they significantly impact completion time and test scores.

References:Friedrich, E. C., Scherer, R., Sonnleitner, K., & Neuper, C. (2011). Impact of auditory

distraction on user performance in a brain–computer interface driven by different mental tasks. Clinical Neurophysiology, 122(10), 2003-2009.

Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A. A., Helenius, R. R., Keskinen, E. E., & Hongisto, V. V. (2009). Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices—longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics, 52(11), 1423-1444.

Powers, D. E., Albertson, W., Florek, T., Malak, J., Johnson, K., Nemceff, B., & ... Zelazny, A. (2003). Influence of irrelevant speech on standardized test performance. Human Performance, 16(2), 157-178.

Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal Of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321.

Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2012). Distraction and facilitation—two faces of the same coin?. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 38(3), 664-674.

Powers, D. E., Albertson, W., Florek, T., Malak, J., Johnson, K., Nemceff, B., & .Zelazny, A. (2003). Influence of irrelevant speech on standardized test performance.Human Performance, 16(2), 157-178. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1602_3

Beaman, C., & Holt, N. J. (2007). Reverberant auditory environments: The effects ofmultiple echoes on distraction by 'Irrelevant' Speech. Applied Cognitive Psychology,21(8), 1077-1090. doi:10.1002/acp.1315

Results:The conditions were examined with one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis indicated there was a significant difference in the distraction variables on finish time of the test, F(2,63) =3.962, p<.05. Bonferroni Posthoc analyses indicated that the difference between control and cellphones (M = 97.031, SD=44.03) was less than that of the difference between the control and talking (M= 112.376, SD =44.694).

The mean’s between groups of Likert Scale questions four, five and six were analyzed using a one-way repeated ANOVA. The questions were chosen from the scale for measuring participants who; experienced distraction during test (Question 4), felt the distractions impaired their ability to preform (Question 5) and the frequency in which they felt distracted during the test (Question 6).

There was a significant difference found in question four F (2, 68) = 10.236, p < 0.001; question five F (2, 68) = 16.053, p < 0.001; and F (2, 68) =18.284, p < 0.001 indicating that the control group felt less disrupted and concentrated on the test. Bonferroni Posthoc analysis indicated that question four (M=2.54, SD=1.229), question five (M=2.97, SD=1.265), question six (M=2.96, SD=.992)

MethodsParticipants:Undergraduate students (n=73) enrolled in the Introductory Psychology 1100, 1103 and 2100WQ.Materials:• Pen and paper test, Projected

stopwatch, Cell Phones, Scripted chatter

Hypotheses:1. When exposed to annoying and obvious

acoustic noise, the scores on standardized tests will be lower for the experimental groups than those of the control group.

2. When exposed to a distraction, participants test completion time will be longer.