On the autonomy of mental processes: A case study of arithmetic.

Zbrodoff, N. Jane; Logan, Gordon D.

doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.118

Cited by 253 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present study, utilizing a naming task, are therefore generally consistent with those employing production and verification procedures in demonstrating positive effects of congruent primes on reaction times Campbell, 1987Campbell, , 1991. Additionally, the Zbrodoff & Logan, 1986).…”

Section: Overall Analysissupporting

confidence: 85%

“…For example, in production tasks, crossoperation errors occur where the incorrect solution that is produced represents the correct solution to an alternative operation involving the same operands e.g., 2 + 3 = 6 (Ashcraft, 1992;Campbell, 1987;Cipolotti & Butterworth, 1995). Likewise, in verification tasks, it takes longer to determine that a cross-operation equation is false than it does to determine that an equation with an unrelated solution (e.g., 2 + 3 = 11) is false (Ashcraft, 1992;LeFevre & Kulak, 1994;Winkelman & Schmidt, 1974;Zbrodoff & Logan, 1986). Thus, as opposed to being obtained through procedures and rules, arithmetic solutions appear to be directly retrieved from a highly organised and associated network in long-term memory (Ashcraft, 1992;LeFevre & Kulak, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simple arithmetic processing: The question of automaticity

Jackson¹,

Coney²

2005

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In adult simple arithmetic performance, it is commonly held that retrieval of solutions occurs automatically from a network of stored facts in memory. However, such an account of performance necessarily predicts a uniform reaction time for solution retrieval and is therefore not consistent with the robust finding that reaction time increases with problem size and difficulty. Additionally, past research into arithmetic performance has relied on tasks that may have actually induced and measured attentional processing, thereby possibly confounding previous results and conclusions pertaining to automaticity. The present study therefore, attempted to more reliably assess the influence of automatic processing in arithmetic performance by utilizing a variant of the well-established semantic word-priming procedure with a target-naming task. The overall results revealed significant facilitation in naming times at SOAs of 240 and 1500 ms for congruent targets i.e., targets that represented the correct solutions to problems presented as primes (e.g., 6 + 8 and 14). Significant inhibition in comparison to a neutral condition (0 + 0 and 17) was also observed at 120 and 240 ms SOAs in naming incongruent targets (e.g., 6 + 8 and 17).Furthermore, response times were found to vary as a function of both arithmetic fluency and problem size. Differences in performance to addition and multiplication operations and implications for cognitive research and education are considered.

show abstract

Section: Overall Analysissupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple arithmetic processing: The question of automaticity

Jackson¹,

Coney²

2005

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may not be impossible to stop a process that does not require a goal for its continuation and completion. It may also be noted that Zbrodoff and Logan (1986) did not identify the feature ballistic with autonomous. They defined a process as completely autonomous (a) if it begins without intention, (b) if it runs to completion without intention, and (c) if it runs to completion despite one's best efforts to stop it (i.e., ballistic).…”

Section: Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Moors

Houwer

2006

Psychological Bulletin

1,202

859

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several theoretical views of automaticity are discussed. Most of these suggest that automaticity should be diagnosed by looking at the presence of features such as unintentional, uncontrolled/uncontrollable, goal independent, autonomous, purely stimulus driven, unconscious, efficient, and fast. Contemporary views further suggest that these features should be investigated separately. The authors examine whether features of automaticity can be disentangled on a conceptual level, because only then is the separate investigation of them worth the effort. They conclude that the conceptual analysis of features is to a large extent feasible. Not all researchers agree with this position, however. The authors show that assumptions of overlap among features are determined by the other researchers' views of automaticity and by the models they endorse for information processing in general. : automatic, unintentional, uncontrolled, autonomous, unconscious Automaticity is a concept with a long-standing history in psychology (e.g., James, 1890;Wundt, 1903). It has been invoked in domains as diverse as perception (MacLeod, 1991), memory (Jacoby, 1991), social cognition (Wegner & Bargh, 1998), learning (Cleeremans & Jiménez, 2002), motivation (Carver & Scheier, 2002), and emotion (Scherer, 1993). Despite its central nature, there is no consensus about what automaticity means. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of the concept and, in particular, the features that have been subsumed under the term. We also discuss implications of this analysis for future research. KeywordsIn the first section, we consider several contrasting views of automaticity. This overview reveals that most scholars analyze automaticity in terms of one or more features. The implication is that automaticity can be diagnosed by looking for the presence of these features in performance or processes. 1 Contemporary approaches to automaticity, moreover, have begun to argue for the separate investigation of automaticity features. In the second section, we discuss the most essential features in greater detail. One purpose is to examine whether they can be separated on a conceptual level. We analyze the features to a point at which the overlap among them is minimized. Another purpose is to show that assumptions of overlap are pervasive in the research literature despite the recent claim that individual features should be investigated separately. These assumptions arise from authors' specific views of automaticity, as well as from the specific underlying information-processing model that they endorse. Approaches to AutomaticityJames (1890), Jastrow (1906), and Wundt (1896/1897, 1903 offered some of the earliest descriptions of automaticity, and many of their ideas have reemerged in contemporary accounts. The views presented below are also based on early studies of skill development (Bryan & Harter, 1899) and early dual-task studies (Solomons & Stein, 1896; see review by Shiffrin, 1988). Automaticity as Processing With No or Minimal AttentionC...

show abstract

“…Non-automatic processing is deliberate, in that it cannot begin and end without intention (Zbrodoff & Logan, 1986). The most common example of the autonomy of automatic processing is the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935; for a review, see MacLeod, 1991), in which subjects who are instructed to name the color of the ink in which words are written apparently cannot stop themselves from reading the words.…”

Section: Autonomymentioning

confidence: 99%