Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zentrale Entwicklungen in der Theoriebildung und Forschung zur Aufmerksamkeit in der Psychologie

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Aufmerksamkeit

  • 10k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Im folgenden Kapitel geben wir eine kurze Übersicht über zentrale Entwicklungen in der psychologischen Aufmerksamkeitsforschung. Wir beginnen mit einer Begriffsbestimmung. Hier halten wir fest, dass Aufmerksamkeit keine Widerspiegelung einer einheitlichen Ursache sein muss: Aufmerksamkeit ist ein deskriptiver Terminus für verschiedene Formen der Selektivität psychischer Prozesse. Diese Selektivität kann je nach Aufgabe unterschiedliche Ursachen haben. Ausgehend von dieser Begriffsbestimmung schildern wir kurz die wichtigste Methode der psychologischen Aufmerksamkeitsforschung.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer, & A. F. Sanders (Hrsg.), Perspectives on perception and action (S. 395–419). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Q J Exp Psychol A 24, 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., Kiss, M., & Eimer, M. (2009). Goal-driven attentional capture by invisible colours: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychon B Rev 16, 648–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behav Brain Sci 20, 723–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijleveld, E., Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). Unconscious reward cues increase invested effort, but do not change speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Cognition 115, 330–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braboszcs, C., & Delorme, A. (2011). Lost in thoughts: Neural markers of low alertness during mind wandering. NeuroImage 54, 3040–3047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droll, J. A., Hayhoe, M. M., Triesch, J., & Sullivan, B. T. (2005). Task demands control acquisition and storage of visual information. J Exp Psychol Human 31, 1416–1438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. J Pers Soc Psychol 84, 148–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. J Exp Psychol Human 18, 1030–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? J Exp Psychol Gen 130, 681–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychol Res-Psych Fo 55, 270–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. J Exp Psychol Human 27, 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition 88, 223–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends Neurosci 23, 571–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving. Psychol Sci 17, 228–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. Am J Psychol 105, 317–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcel, A. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychol 15, 197–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattler, U. (2003). Priming of mental operations by masked stimuli. Percept Psychophys 65, 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychol Rev 104, 749–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2006). The Visual Brain in Action. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. J Exp Psychol Human 23, 861–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neggers, S. F. W., & Bekkering, H. (2002). Coordinated control of eye and hand movements in dynamic reaching. Hum Movement Sci 21, 349–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O. (1991). Konzepte der Aufmerksamkeit. Unveröffentlichte Habilitationsschrift. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öhman, A. (2005). The role of the amygdala in human fear: Automatic detection of threat. Psychoneuroendocrino 30, 953–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1969). Das Erwachen der Intelligenz beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Klett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Hrsg.), Information processing and cognition (S. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., & Sheliga, B. M. (1994). Space and selective attention. In C. Umiltà, & M. Moscovitch (Hrsg.), Attention and Performance, XV: Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing (S. 231–265). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol Rev 84, 127–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Schiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review 84/1, 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 18, 643–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schachter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. P Natl Acad USA 110, 6313–6317.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gaal, S., Lamme, V. A. F., & Ridderinkhoff, K. R. (2010). Unconsciously triggered conflict adaptation. PLOS One 5/7, e11508. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiskrantz, L., Warrington, E. K., Sanders, M. D., & Marshall, J. (1974). Visual capacity in the hemianopic field following a restricted occipital ablation. Brain 97, 709–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high speed performance—A review and a theory. Brit J Psychol 43, 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Hrsg.), Attention and performance 8 (S. 395–419). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nat Rev Neurosci 5, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriß der Psychologie. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wykowska, A., Schubö, A., & Hommel, B. (2009). How you move is what you see: Action planning biases selection in visual search. J Exp Psychol Human 35, 1755–1769.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wien, Österreich

    Prof. Dr. Ulrich Ansorge & Prof. Dr. Barbara Schober

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Ulrich Ansorge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. Barbara Schober
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Ansorge .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung, Berlin, Germany

    Sabine Reh

  2. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung, Berlin, Germany

    Kathrin Berdelmann

  3. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany

    Jörg Dinkelaker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ansorge, U., Schober, B. (2015). Zentrale Entwicklungen in der Theoriebildung und Forschung zur Aufmerksamkeit in der Psychologie. In: Reh, S., Berdelmann, K., Dinkelaker, J. (eds) Aufmerksamkeit. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19381-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19381-6_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-19380-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-19381-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation