Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations

Jacoby, Larry L.; Lindsay, D. Stephen; Hessels, Sandra

doi:10.3758/bf03196526

Cited by 268 publications

(485 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

441

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using contingency information to predict responses (e.g., in the proportion congruent version of the Stroop task) is considered a controlled process (e.g., Jacoby et al, 2003;Logan, Zbrodoff, & Williamson, 1984). Thus, these results indicate that control and awareness are Implicit Control 13 dissociable given that control occurs in the absence of subjective awareness when learning contingencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The Stroop effect is still larger for high proportion congruent words relative to low proportion congruent words (Jacoby, Lindsay, & Hessels, 2003; Trainham, Lindsay, & Jacoby, 1997). This ISPC effect indicates that the "strategy" participants use is not (at least always) task-wide (i.e., participants cannot simply predict that the words will match the colours, because this only applies to the high proportion congruent words).…”

Section: Implicit Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the item-specific proportion congruent (ISPC) manipulation participants are presented with high and low proportion congruent stimuli within the same block. This is accomplished by presenting some words (e.g., BLUE and GREEN) mostly with their congruent colour (e.g., BLUE is presented 75% of the time in blue and 25% of the time in green) and other words (e.g., YELLOW and ORANGE) mostly with incongruent colours (e.g., YELLOW is presented 25% of the time in yellow and 75% of the time in orange).The Stroop effect is still larger for high proportion congruent words relative to low proportion congruent words (Jacoby, Lindsay, & Hessels, 2003; Trainham, Lindsay, & Jacoby, 1997). This ISPC effect indicates that the "strategy" participants use is not (at least always) task-wide (i.e., participants cannot simply predict that the words will match the colours, because this only applies to the high proportion congruent words).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Schmidt

Crump

Cheesman

et al. 2007

Consciousness and Cognition

168

268

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of four experiments provide evidence for controlled processing in the absence of awareness. Participants identified the colour of a neutral distracter word. Each of four words (e.g., MOVE) was presented in one of four colours 75% of the time (Experiments 1 and 4) or 50% of the time (Experiment 2 and 3). Colour identification was faster when the words appeared in the colour they were most often presented in relative to when they appeared in another colour, even for participants who were subjectively unaware of any contingencies between the words and colours. An analysis of sequence effects showed that participants who were unaware of the relation between distracter words and colours nonetheless controlled the impact of the word on performance depending on the nature of the previous trial. A block analysis of contingencyunaware participants revealed that contingencies were learned rapidly in the first block of trials.Experiment 3 showed that the contingency effect does not depend on level of awareness, thus ruling out explicit strategy accounts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that the contingency effect results from behavioural control and not from semantic association or stimulus familiarity. These results thus provide evidence for implicit control. Implicit Control 3Contingency Learning without Awareness: Evidence for Implicit Control Cognitive processes that are controlled are conventionally assumed to operate in a slow, effortful, and voluntary manner (Posner & Cohen, 1984;Posner & Snyder, 1975; Shiffrin & Schnieder, 1977). Thus, when researchers discuss the influence of "controlled" processes, it is typically assumed that such processes are explicit (i.e., conscious; cf., Besner & Stolz, 1999). As such, the term "implicit control" would seem to be nonsensical, because "implicit" (i.e., unconscious) seems to preclude the possibility of control. However, etymologically speaking this is not a necessary conclusion. The Oxford English Dictionary (2001) Evidence for cognitive control, which is assumed to be explicit and strategic in nature, has been drawn from the Stroop literature (Stroop, 1935). In the Stroop task, identification of the print colour of colour words is slower when the word and ink colour are incongruent (e.g., the word GREEN in orange; GREEN orange ) than when they are congruent (e.g., ORANGE orange ; see MacLeod, 1991, for a review). Probably the most important demonstration of putatively controlled processes in the Stroop literature is the proportion congruent effect. The proportion congruent effect refers to the finding that the size of the Stroop effect is influenced by the proportion of congruent items in a block of trials (Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994;Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979). Specifically, the Stroop effect is much larger in a high proportion congruent block of trials than in a low proportion congruent block of trials. This effect is commonly attributed to Implicit Control 4 participants explicitly learning to predict the colour from the word. Specifically, because the word us...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Implicit Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Schmidt

Crump

Cheesman

et al. 2007

Consciousness and Cognition

168

268

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One challenge was presented by Jacoby, Lindsay, and Hessels (2003) when they introduced an item-specific version of the proportion congruency paradigm. Instead of manipulating PC between-participant or between-block, they manipulated PC across items.…”

Section: Adaptation In the Item-specific Proportion Congruent Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm

Schmidt

2013

Acta Psychologica

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to these general adjustments in performance, adjustments can also be quite specific. For example, if one subset of stimuli within a block of trials is mostly congruent, and another subset is mostly incongruent, the size of the Stroop effect is larger for the mostly congruent items (Jacoby, Lindsay, & Hessels, 2003) even though the congruency level of the upcoming trial is unpredictable, and even after controlling for priming effects (e.g., Mayr, Awh, & Laurey, 2003;Schmidt & de Houwer, 2011). These context-specific proportion effects have been replicated using a number of contextual cues including location (Corballis & Gratton, 2003;Crump, Gong, & Milliken, 2006), form (e.g., font, Bugg, Jacoby, & Toth, 2008;words, Jacoby et al, 2003; shape under certain conditions, Crump, Vaquero, & Milliken, 2008), colour (Vietze & Wendt, 2009;but see, Jacoby et al, 2003), and even social categories such as gender (Cañadas, Rodríguez-Bailón, Milliken, & Lupiáñez, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trial-by-trial adjustments in control triggered by incidentally encoded semantic cues

Blais

Harris

Sinanian

et al. 2015

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive control mechanisms provide the flexibility to rapidly adapt to contextual demands. These contexts can be defined by top-down goals-but also by bottom-up perceptual factors, such as the location at which a visual stimulus appears. There are now several experiments reporting contextual control effects. Such experiments establish that contexts defined by low-level perceptual cues such as the location of a visual stimulus can lead to context-specific control, suggesting a relatively early focus for cognitive control. The current set of experiments involved a word-word interference task designed to assess whether a high-level cue, the semantic category to which a word belongs, can also facilitate contextual control. Indeed, participants exhibit a larger Flanker effect to items pertaining to a semantic category in which 75% of stimuli are incongruent than in response to items pertaining to a category in which 25% of stimuli are incongruent. Thus, both low-level and high-level stimulus features can affect the bottom-up engagement of cognitive control. The implications for current models of cognitive control are discussed.

show abstract

Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations

Cited by 268 publications

References 26 publications

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm

Trial-by-trial adjustments in control triggered by incidentally encoded semantic cues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About