We expect noticing of the near unexpected object to correlate with working memory and noticing of the far unexpected object to correlate with breadth of spatial attention. Thus, for both IB tasks we have the following main hypotheses: **Main hypotheses** - IB rates in the near condition in the no attention trial should be predicted by working memory (2-Back-Identity, 2-Back-Spatial, and OSPAN) but not by spatial measures (Breadth-of-Attention Test, UFOV). - IB rates in the far condition in the no attention trial should be predicted by spatial attention (Breadth-of-Attention Test, UFOV) but not by working memory (2-Back-Identity, 2-Back-Spatial, and OSPAN) Note: In a previous study using only IB Cross we did not find support for these hypotheses. Unexpectedly, measures of both attentional breadth and working memory correlated with performance on the central task but not on the peripheral task. Hence, an alternative prediction would be to find corresponding results in this second study. **Further hyptheses** - The capability of active inhibition should be associated with noticing in IB Motion but not with noticing in IB Cross since IB Motion entails active inhibition as a task requirement while IB Cross does not. - Participants showing a more global attentional focus in the Navon task should have higher detection rates in the far condition than will participants with a more local focus and, participants with a local focus should have higher detection rates in the near condition than will participants with a more global focus. - Participants being able to rapidly switch their attentional focus, as measured by the Navon-Switchspeed task, should be less prone to IB across both experimental conditions (near, far) in IB Motion but not in IB Cross (since a static task does not require attentional switches). - Participants who report more cognitive failures in everyday life (CFQ) might be assumed to be more prone to IB across both experimental conditions (near, far) in both IB Motion and IB Cross. - Further it seems feasible that individuals scoring high on central ressources might be more likely to detect an unexpected object in the divided attention trial of the IB Motion (since it can be anticpated at this point that something "unexpected" might happen again) as there is evidence suggesting that these individuals are more flexible in distributing attention according to task demands (Colflesh & Conway, 2007). ---------- **Specific analytic hypotheses** *Main analyses* Since we expect individual differences to predict noticing, we expect a significant model fit for both the regression model for the near condition and the regression model for the far condition. The regression model for the near condition should reveal working memory capacity but not breadth of attention as a significant predictor of noticing. The second entering block should improve the fit of the model significantly, with a local focus in the Navon task and the CFQ measure explaining additional variance of noticing the unexpected object in the near condition. The regression model for the far condition should reveal breadth of attention but not working memory as a significant predictor of noticing. The second entering block should again improve the model fit significantly, with a global focus in the Navon task and the CFQ explaining additional variance in noticing the unexpected object. *Further analyses* Since we expect results from the Navon-Switchspeed task and the Flanker task to be associated with noticing in IB Motion but not in IB Cross, we expect a significant model fit for the regression model of IB Motion (collapsed for near and far) but not for the regression model of IB Cross (collapsed for near and far).Therefore, we we expect both Flanker and Navon-Switchspeed to be significant predictors in the IB-Motion regression model. We expect a significant correlation between noticing rates in the divided attention trial (collapsed for near and far) and working memory capacity. ---------- So far it has not been feasible to **compare noticing rates of individuals across different IB tasks** while participants are ignorant of task purpose in both IB tasks. As we now use a battery of individual difference measures, IB Cross may appear to be just another individual difference measure, so we may be able determine the reliability of inattentional blindness across multiple tasks. Beanland and Pammer (2010) compared noticing rates across two inattentional blindness task within one sample of participants, too. But their sample was rather small (N = 36) and participants were aware of the fact that inattentional blindness was to be investigated in the second experiment. With our procedure and sample size, we can test whether noticing one unexpected object is related to noticing another. That is, we can test whether noticing is a stable individual difference, with some people more likely to notice than others.