Strategy or local control? Interaction of Gratton effect and proportion’s effect in the Stroop test

Alexei S. Starodubtsev, Anastasia Sladkoshtieva, Aleksandr Zemlyanov
{"title":"Strategy or local control? Interaction of Gratton effect and proportion’s effect in the Stroop test","authors":"Alexei S. Starodubtsev, Anastasia Sladkoshtieva, Aleksandr Zemlyanov","doi":"10.21638/spbu16.2023.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Models of cognitive control contain the mechanism of the general strategy of solving a task and control of specific stimuli special mechanisms. There is an ongoing discussion as to which control is responsible for the Gratton effect and the Stroop test’s proportion effect. The Gratton effect consists in decreasing the Stroop effect after an incongruent stimulus, the proportion effect is to increase interference when incongruent stimuli predominate among other types of stimuli. In this study, we set out to test whether there would be an interaction between these effects. If it is detected, we can say that both effects of study are produced by a general cognitive mechanism. Similar studies of general strategy using the Stroop task include congruent and incongruent stimuli. Congruent stimuli produce a response facilitation effect that is mixed with an interference effect, making final interpretation difficult. To avoid this, we used different proportions of incongruent and neutral stimuli. We conducted three experiments using different proportions of incongruent versus neutral stimuli (66:33/33:66 and 80:20/20:80), as well as the type of design (intragroup and intergroup plans). Only the Gratton effect was detected in the experiments performed — no proportion effect or significant interaction between the Gratton and proportion effects was found. In three experiments (N=70), only indirect evidence was found for the effect of proportion on the Gratton effect. These results are difficult to explain in terms of “strategic” interference model who explain both effects by a change in the global strategy for solving the task. Given the systematic lack of interaction between the Gratton effect and other effects in the literature, we can say that the Gratton effect is caused by a local control system, which the proportion effect influences, if at all, only slightly. The connection between the proportion effect and strategic control and the factors that mediate it are discussed.","PeriodicalId":388528,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu16.2023.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Models of cognitive control contain the mechanism of the general strategy of solving a task and control of specific stimuli special mechanisms. There is an ongoing discussion as to which control is responsible for the Gratton effect and the Stroop test’s proportion effect. The Gratton effect consists in decreasing the Stroop effect after an incongruent stimulus, the proportion effect is to increase interference when incongruent stimuli predominate among other types of stimuli. In this study, we set out to test whether there would be an interaction between these effects. If it is detected, we can say that both effects of study are produced by a general cognitive mechanism. Similar studies of general strategy using the Stroop task include congruent and incongruent stimuli. Congruent stimuli produce a response facilitation effect that is mixed with an interference effect, making final interpretation difficult. To avoid this, we used different proportions of incongruent and neutral stimuli. We conducted three experiments using different proportions of incongruent versus neutral stimuli (66:33/33:66 and 80:20/20:80), as well as the type of design (intragroup and intergroup plans). Only the Gratton effect was detected in the experiments performed — no proportion effect or significant interaction between the Gratton and proportion effects was found. In three experiments (N=70), only indirect evidence was found for the effect of proportion on the Gratton effect. These results are difficult to explain in terms of “strategic” interference model who explain both effects by a change in the global strategy for solving the task. Given the systematic lack of interaction between the Gratton effect and other effects in the literature, we can say that the Gratton effect is caused by a local control system, which the proportion effect influences, if at all, only slightly. The connection between the proportion effect and strategic control and the factors that mediate it are discussed.
战略还是局部控制?Stroop试验中Gratton效应与比例效应的相互作用
认知控制模型包括解决任务的一般策略机制和特定刺激控制的特殊机制。关于哪一种控制对Gratton效应和Stroop测试的比例效应负责,目前正在进行讨论。Gratton效应是指不一致刺激后Stroop效应减弱,比例效应是指不一致刺激在其他类型刺激中占主导地位时干扰增加。在这项研究中,我们开始测试这些影响之间是否存在相互作用。如果它被检测到,我们可以说学习的两种效果都是由一般的认知机制产生的。类似的研究一般策略使用Stroop任务包括一致和不一致的刺激。一致刺激产生的反应促进效应与干扰效应混合,使最终解释困难。为了避免这种情况,我们使用了不同比例的不一致和中性刺激。我们使用不同比例的不一致刺激和中性刺激(66:33/33:66和80:20/20:80)以及设计类型(组内和组间计划)进行了三个实验。在进行的实验中只检测到格拉顿效应,没有发现格拉顿效应和比例效应之间的比例效应或显著的相互作用。在三个实验(N=70)中,只有间接证据表明比例对Gratton效应的影响。这些结果很难用“战略”干扰模型来解释,该模型通过改变解决任务的总体策略来解释这两种影响。鉴于格拉顿效应与文献中其他效应之间缺乏系统性的相互作用,我们可以说,格拉顿效应是由一个局部控制系统引起的,而比例效应即使有影响,也只是轻微的影响。探讨了比例效应与战略控制的关系及其影响因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信