Top

Gepubliceerd in:

17-01-2022 | Original Article

Bad after bad is good: previous trial disfluency reduces interference promoted by incongruence

Auteurs: Gonçalo A. Oliveira, Miguel Remondes, Teresa Garcia-Marques

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2022

Abstract

Conflict and perceptual disfluency have been shown to lead to adaptive, sequential, control adjustments. Here, we propose that these effects can be additive, suggesting their integration into a general feeling of disfluent information processing. This hypothesis was tested using an interference task that dynamically mixed trials varying in legibility and/or congruence. Moreover, the manipulation of the proportion of congruent trials within the task allowed differentiating conditions in which these experiences of fluency may vary. Results showed that progressive increases in processing disfluency elicited a matching decrease in the interference of incongruent fluent trials. This linear effect was significant for all proportion of congruence conditions, although lower when incongruent trials were more frequent. These results highlight the role of feelings in the initiation of control and suggest that the monitoring system could be using changes in information processing fluency as a need-for-control signal.

vorige artikel Instructing item-specific switch probability: expectations modulate stimulus–action priming

volgende artikel The interplay between unexpected events and behavior in the development of explicit knowledge in implicit sequence learning

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564CrossRefPubMed

Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(4), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569CrossRefPubMed

Berger, A., Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2019). It’s more than just conflict: The functional role of congruency in the sequential control adaptation. Acta Psychologica, 197, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.04.016CrossRefPubMed

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., & Barch, D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624CrossRefPubMed

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Claypool, H. M., Mackie, D. M., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2015). Fluency and Attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(7), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12179CrossRef

Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2011). If it’s hard to read… try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research, 75(5), 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0319-yCrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.12.003CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2015). Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569569CrossRef

Dreisbach, G., Reindl, A. L., & Fischer, R. (2018). Conflict and disfluency as aversive signals: Context-specific processing adjustments are modulated by affective location associations. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82(2), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0822-xCrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., Fröber, K., Berger, A., & Fischer, R. (2019). Unexpected conflict signals loom larger in a positive context: Evidence from context specific control adjustments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(8), 1398–1409. https://doi.org/10.1037/XLM0000662CrossRefPubMed

Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.4.380CrossRefPubMed

Fritz, J., Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The influence of negative stimulus features on conflict adaption: Evidence from fluency of processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00185CrossRef

Fröber, K., Stürmer, B., Frömer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). The role of affective evaluation in conflict adaptation: An LRP study. Brain and Cognition, 116, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.05.003CrossRefPubMed

Garcia-Marques, T., & Mackie, D. M. (2001). The feeling of familiarity as a regulator of persuasive processing. Social Cognition, 19(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.1.9.18959CrossRef

Garcia-Marques, T., Mackie, D. M., Claypool, H. M., & Garcia-Marques, L. (2013). Once more with feeling!: Familiarity and positivity as integral consequences of previous exposure. In C. Unkelbach, R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The Experience of Thinking: How the Fluency of Mental Processes Influences Cognition and Behavior (pp. 50–69). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078938

Garcia-Marques, T., Fonseca, R., & Blascovich, J. (2015). Familiarity, challenge, and processing of persuasion messages. Social Cognition, 33(6), 585–604

Inzlicht, M., Bartholow, B. D., & Hirsh, J. B. (2015). Emotional foundations of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.01.004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lenth, R. (2020). Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.6.2-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans

Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013CrossRef

Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & R Core Team. (2020). Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–127. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. Accessed Jan 2020

R Core Team. (2019). A language and environment computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Reber, R., Wurtz, P., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2004). Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00049-7CrossRefPubMed

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press

Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Silva, R. R., Garcia-Marques, T., & Mello, J. (2016). The differential effects of fluency due to repetition and fluency due to color contrast on judgments of truth. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(5), 821–837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0692-7CrossRefPubMed

Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26(6), 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791CrossRef

Van Casteren, M., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 584–589. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193889CrossRefPubMed

West, R., & Bailey, K. (2012). ERP correlates of dual mechanisms of control in the counting Stroop task. Psychophysiology, 49(10), 1309–1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01464.xCrossRefPubMed

Westfall, J. (2016). PANGEA: Power ANalysis for GEneral Anova designs. https://github.com/jake-westfall/pangea. Accessed Oct 2019

Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Leboe, J. P. (2000). The heuristic basis of remembering and classification: Fluency, generation, and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.84CrossRef

Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98(1998), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00040-1CrossRefPubMed

Whittlesea, B. W. A., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2CrossRef

Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., Takahashi K., Vaughan D., Wilke C., Woo K., & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Titel: Bad after bad is good: previous trial disfluency reduces interference promoted by incongruence
Auteurs: Gonçalo A. Oliveira
Miguel Remondes
Teresa Garcia-Marques
Publicatiedatum: 17-01-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01626-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2022

Reaction time-based Concealed Information Test in eyewitness identification is moderated by picture similarity but not eyewitness cooperation

The impact of stimulus format on task inhibition during task switching

Motor restrictions impair divergent thinking during walking and during sitting

On the reliability of behavioral measures of cognitive control: retest reliability of task-inhibition effect, task-preparation effect, Stroop-like interference, and conflict adaptation effect

Beyond motion extrapolation: vestibular contribution to head-rotation-induced flash-lag effects

Sustained visual attention improves visuomotor timing