Literature DB >> 15487436

Competing for a desired reward in the Stroop task: when attentional control is unconscious but effective versus conscious but ineffective.

Pascal Huguet1, Florence Dumas, Jean-M Monteil.   

Abstract

Recent studies using Stroop's paradigm have shown that word recognition processes can be controlled when the local context of the task is manipulated. In the present study, factors related to the participants' broader context (i.e., presence vs. absence of a competitor and of a desired reward) were manipulated. The results (1) support the conclusion that control of semantic-level activation can be unconscious but effective versus conscious but ineffective, (2) suggest that unconscious control alone operates on line (i.e., when the participant is responding), and (3) clarify the impact of socio-contextual factors that have been confounded in past research. Taken together, these findings strengthen the view that word recognition processes are controllable and offer new reasons to pay constant attention to the social environment of cognition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15487436     DOI: 10.1037/h0087441

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol        ISSN: 1196-1961


  9 in total

1.  Reward expectation regulates brain responses to task-relevant and task-irrelevant emotional words: ERP evidence.

Authors:  Ping Wei; Di Wang; Liyan Ji
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task.

Authors:  Dinkar Sharma; Rob Booth; Rupert Brown; Pascal Huguet
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-02

3.  Choking under monitoring pressure: being watched by the experimenter reduces executive attention.

Authors:  Clément Belletier; Karen Davranche; Idriss S Tellier; Florence Dumas; Franck Vidal; Thierry Hasbroucq; Pascal Huguet
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-10

4.  Cueing task goals and earning money: Relatively high monetary rewards reduce failures to act on goals in a Stroop task.

Authors:  Harm Veling; Henk Aarts
Journal:  Motiv Emot       Date:  2010-03-30

5.  No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task.

Authors:  Daniel R Saunders; David Melcher; Wieske van Zoest
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-08-29

6.  Salient social cues are prioritized in autism spectrum disorders despite overall decrease in social attention.

Authors:  Coralie Chevallier; Pascal Huguet; Francesca Happé; Nathalie George; Laurence Conty
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2013-07

7.  Social and asocial prefrontal cortex neurons: a new look at social facilitation and the social brain.

Authors:  Marie Demolliens; Faiçal Isbaine; Sylvain Takerkart; Pascal Huguet; Driss Boussaoud
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Other better versus self better in baboons: an evolutionary approach of social comparison.

Authors:  F Dumas; J Fagot; K Davranche; N Claidière
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Strategies that reduce Stroop interference.

Authors:  B Palfi; B A Parris; A F Collins; Z Dienes
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 2.963

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.