Things That Go Together: A Review of Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Related Effects

Alluisi, Earl A.; Warm, Joel S.

doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61217-0

Cited by 50 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This analysis found that compatible trials were faster than incompatible ones (F 1 (1,23)=12.53, p<.0001; F 2 (1,660)=7.9, p<.01), and the effect was restricted to target present trials (F 1 (1,23)=7.52, p<.05; F 2 (1,660)=17.34, p<.0001) in Experiment 1. This compatibility effect disappeared in Experiment 2, consistent with the finding that the compatibility effect decreases when stimulus uncertainty is low (Alluisi & Warm, 1990). However, the compatibility effect did not contaminate the major findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

The Nature of Character-Component Interaction in Chinese Character Perception

Wang¹

2002

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The PISA (parallel input serial access) model assumes independence and competition of word-level and letter-level processing (Allen & Madden, 1990;Allen & Emerson, 1991), while the IA (interactive activation) model proposes that wordlevel and letter-level processing interactively exchange information (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981). This current study attempts to explore which of these two views characterizes the character-component relationship in Chinese character recognition using the component detection task. Experiment 1 found a high-frequency disadvantage for high-and medium-frequency components, a medium-frequency advantage for low-frequency components, and an overall character superiority effect. Experiment 2 cued and blocked the location of the target component and it ruled out an artifact account for findings from Experiment 1. The effect of character structure was also consistent across the two experiments. These findings are not consistent with the straightforward prediction of the PISA or the IA view of character-component relationship and an alternative explanation was considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

The Nature of Character-Component Interaction in Chinese Character Perception

Wang¹

2002

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This model was initially developed to predict processing advantages of information that has the same valence as an expression pattern (Förster, 1995;Förster & Strack, 1996;Neumann, Förster, & Strack, 2003; for a review, see Barsalou et al, in press). Research in the area of perceptual-motor compatibility (for a review, see Alluisi & Warm, 1990) shows that response selection is faster if the sensory modalities of stimuli and responses are compatible than if they are incompatible because the compatible information is relatively better encoded (see Greenwald, 1970). In natural situations, certain overt responses to stimuli frequently accompany covert reactions and, therefore, are likely to become associated with these responses through learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Body Feedback Influences Consumers’ Evaluation of Products

Förster

2004

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments explored the effect of unobtrusively induced expressions of approach and avoidance on consumers' evaluation of well-known products. In Study 1, valenced objects were presented moving horizontally or vertically on a screen, thereby inducing either head shaking or head nodding. Objects were also presented without movement. Induced nodding led to more favorable evaluations of positively valenced products but did not affect the evaluation of negatively valenced ones. Similarly, head shaking led to more unfavorable evaluations of negatively valenced products but did not affect the evaluation of positive ones. In Study 2, participants evaluated positively valenced products more favorably when they flexed their arms while making the evaluation and evaluated negatively valenced products more unfavorably when they extended their arms during evaluation. However, arm flexion had no effect on evaluations of negative products, and arm extensions had no effect on evaluations of positive ones. Participants' willingness to buy the products followed a similar pattern. The theoretical implications and the applications of these body feedback effects are discussed.Expressive behaviors are typically viewed as a reaction to stimuli in the external world. People nod when they are in agreement and they embrace when they like each other. However, behavior can influence the way we perceive people and objects. Research on the impact of body feedback (for reviews, see Adelman & Zajonc, 1989;Förster, 1995;Izard, 1990) has repeatedly demonstrated that unobtrusively induced expression patterns can unintentionally influence cognition, emotion, and behavior. These results have provided strong evidence that affective or experiential cues have a direct influence on judgments, including attitudes (see, for example, Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000;Breckler, 1984;Haugtvedt, 1997;Herr, 1995;Miniard & Barone, 1997;Reed, Wooten, & Bolton, 2002;Schwarz, 1997;Schwarz & Strack, 1991;Zajonc & Markus, 1982).In the following studies, we investigate if the evaluation of well-known consumer goods can be influenced by unobtrusive expression patterns such as nodding or shaking the head, or by even more rudimentary components of approach and avoidance behavior, specifically, arm flexion and arm extension. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDSeveral experiments have shown that unobtrusively induced expression patterns influence participants' reported feelings (e.g., Larsen, Kasimatis, & Frey, 1992;Stepper & Strack, 1993;Zajonc, Murphy, & Inglehart, 1989). For example, participants feel pride more intensely if they experience positive feedback while maintaining a positive, upright body position than if they receive the same feedback while in a negative, slouched position (Stepper & Strack). Body feedback can also influence judgments of external stimuli (e.g., Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988;. In the classic "pen study" by Strack et al. (1988), participants who held a pen with their teeth (which activates the zygomatic muscles used for smiling) rated cartoons to b...

show abstract

“…2). Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that the ease of translating the spatial location of a stimulus into the appropriate response location depends on their physical or spatial correspondence (e.g., Alluisi & Warm, 1990;Fitts & Deiniger, 1954;Heister & Schroeder-Heister, 1994;Umilt/t & Nicoletti, 1990). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial compatibility of signal-response position in pointing

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments are reported in which, by means of a pointing task, we studied the stimulus-position effect, i.e. the inverted U-shape form of the reaction-time function in relation to stimulus position in tasks in which stimuli and/or responses are arranged in a horizontal array. The response consisted of aiming the index finger from a central starting point at a target area on a screen. Reaction time was the main dependent variable. The spatial relation between the position of the imperative signal and the position of the response was manipulated by varying the spatial S-R compatibility and physical distance that separated the positions of stimulus and response. The stimulus-position effect was shown to depend on the compatibility of the S-R relation (Exp. 1). In Exp. 2 it was found that the modulation of the stimulus-position effect by spatial compatibility disappeared completely when the distance between the positions of stimulus and response was reduced. None of the experiments revealed that the stimulus position effect depended on signal discriminability, which renders an interpretation of this effect in terms of perceptual processes unlikely. We argue that the attentional model of spatial coding provides the most reasonable explanation of the obtained reactiontime patterns.

show abstract

Things That Go Together: A Review of Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Related Effects

Cited by 50 publications

References 70 publications

The Nature of Character-Component Interaction in Chinese Character Perception

The Nature of Character-Component Interaction in Chinese Character Perception

How Body Feedback Influences Consumers’ Evaluation of Products

Spatial compatibility of signal-response position in pointing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About