Attention on demand: Do people strategically heighten control when distraction is expected but rare?

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Christopher O Nuño, Merve Ileri-Tayar, Julie M Bugg
{"title":"Attention on demand: Do people strategically heighten control when distraction is expected but rare?","authors":"Christopher O Nuño, Merve Ileri-Tayar, Julie M Bugg","doi":"10.1007/s00426-025-02131-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>People reliably relax cognitive control in response to pre-cues signaling a low likelihood of distraction (e.g., mostly congruent lists). However, there is limited evidence that people heighten control when pre-cued that distraction is likely (e.g., mostly incongruent lists). One possible explanation for this asymmetry pertains to floor effects in mostly incongruent lists, where interference is minimal even without pre-cues. Hence, we examined whether individuals would heighten control in mostly congruent lists-where control is typically relaxed-when given pre-cues and novel instructions emphasizing the difficulty posed by infrequent but disruptive incongruent trials.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants performed a color-word Stroop task with mostly congruent and mostly incongruent lists and encountered informative or uninformative pre-cues before each list. Instructions highlighted the difficulty of performing well in mostly congruent lists (1a) or mostly incongruent lists (1b). In Experiment 2, we additionally tested whether forming implementation intentions would enhance pre-cue use and facilitate on-demand control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparisons across Experiments 1a and 1b provided modest evidence that participants heightened control in response to pre-cues in mostly congruent lists. Experiment 2 found no additional benefit from implementation intentions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that perhaps individuals can heighten control on demand when distraction is infrequent but nonetheless disruptive, which may be critical given the potential to be caught off-guard in such conditions. However, other factors beyond list composition seem to contribute to the limited evidence of an on-demand heightening of control.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 3","pages":"106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02131-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: People reliably relax cognitive control in response to pre-cues signaling a low likelihood of distraction (e.g., mostly congruent lists). However, there is limited evidence that people heighten control when pre-cued that distraction is likely (e.g., mostly incongruent lists). One possible explanation for this asymmetry pertains to floor effects in mostly incongruent lists, where interference is minimal even without pre-cues. Hence, we examined whether individuals would heighten control in mostly congruent lists-where control is typically relaxed-when given pre-cues and novel instructions emphasizing the difficulty posed by infrequent but disruptive incongruent trials.

Method: In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants performed a color-word Stroop task with mostly congruent and mostly incongruent lists and encountered informative or uninformative pre-cues before each list. Instructions highlighted the difficulty of performing well in mostly congruent lists (1a) or mostly incongruent lists (1b). In Experiment 2, we additionally tested whether forming implementation intentions would enhance pre-cue use and facilitate on-demand control.

Results: Comparisons across Experiments 1a and 1b provided modest evidence that participants heightened control in response to pre-cues in mostly congruent lists. Experiment 2 found no additional benefit from implementation intentions.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that perhaps individuals can heighten control on demand when distraction is infrequent but nonetheless disruptive, which may be critical given the potential to be caught off-guard in such conditions. However, other factors beyond list composition seem to contribute to the limited evidence of an on-demand heightening of control.

关注需求:当分散注意力的可能性很小时,人们会策略性地加强控制吗?
目的:人们放松认知控制,以响应低可能性的分心信号(例如,大多数一致列表)。然而,有有限的证据表明,当人们预先知道可能会分心(例如,大多数是不一致的清单)时,他们会加强控制。这种不对称的一种可能解释是,在大多数不一致的列表中,即使没有预先提示,干扰也很小。因此,我们研究了当被给予预先提示和新的指示,强调不一致试验所带来的困难时,个体是否会在大多数一致列表中(控制通常是放松的)加强控制。方法:在实验1a和1b中,被试分别使用基本一致和基本不一致的颜色词Stroop任务,并在每个列表前遇到信息性或非信息性的前提示。说明强调了在大多数一致列表(1a)或大多数不一致列表(1b)中表现良好的难度。在实验2中,我们还测试了形成实施意图是否会增强预提示的使用并促进按需控制。结果:实验1a和实验1b之间的比较提供了适度的证据,证明参与者对大多数一致列表中的预提示的控制能力增强。实验2没有发现实现意图带来的额外好处。结论:这些发现表明,当分心不频繁但仍然具有破坏性时,也许个人可以加强对需求的控制,这可能是至关重要的,因为在这种情况下,人们可能会措手不及。然而,名单构成之外的其他因素似乎也促成了按需加强控制的有限证据。
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
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.
×
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