Literature DB >> 23371807

The hot-hand fallacy in cognitive control: repetition expectancy modulates the congruency sequence effect.

Wout Duthoo1, Peter Wühr, Wim Notebaert.   

Abstract

In this study, the role of expectancies in cognitive control was tested. On the basis of the original interpretation of the congruency sequence effect (Gratton, Coles, & Donchin, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 121:480-506, 1992), we sought evidence for a repetition bias steering attentional control. In a series of four Stroop experiments, we investigated how participants' explicit predictions about the upcoming (in)congruency proactively influenced subsequent Stroop performance. Similar to the fallacious "hot-hand" belief in gambling, repeating stimulus events were overpredicted, as participants consistently expected more repetitions of the congruency level than the actual presented number of congruency-level repetitions (50 %). Moreover, behavioral adjustments (i.e., a congruency sequence effect) were only found when participants anticipated a congruency-level repetition, whereas no modulation of the Stroop effect was found following alternation predictions. We propose that proactive control processes in general, and repetition expectancy in particular, should be given more attention in current theorizing and modeling of cognitive control, which is characterized by an emphasis on reactive, conflict-induced control adjustments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23371807     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0390-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  10 in total

1.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.

Authors:  M M Botvinick; T S Braver; D M Barch; C S Carter; J D Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 2.  The production and perception of randomness.

Authors:  Raymond S Nickerson
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses.

Authors:  G Gratton; M G Coles; E Donchin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1992-12

4.  Observation: Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation.

Authors:  J Toby Mordkoff
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-08

5.  It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task.

Authors:  Luis Jiménez; Amavia Méndez
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Conflict adaptation: it is not what you expect.

Authors:  Wout Duthoo; Wim Notebaert
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework.

Authors:  Todd S Braver
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Analysis of sequential effects in choice reaction times.

Authors:  R J Remington
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1969-11

9.  The Stroop effect: it is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be.

Authors:  M Dishon-Berkovits; D Algom
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-12

10.  Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor.

Authors:  William H Alexander; Joshua W Brown
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-18       Impact factor: 24.884

  10 in total
  13 in total

1.  Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay.

Authors:  W Duthoo; E L Abrahamse; S Braem; W Notebaert
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-07

2.  Tied to expectations: Predicting features speeds processing even under adverse circumstances.

Authors:  Sabine Schwager; Robert Gaschler; Dennis Rünger; Peter A Frensch
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-05

3.  Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict.

Authors:  Daniel H Weissman; Joshua Carp
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-09-04

4.  The congruency sequence effect 3.0: a critical test of conflict adaptation.

Authors:  Wout Duthoo; Elger L Abrahamse; Senne Braem; C Nico Boehler; Wim Notebaert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects.

Authors:  Tobias Egner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-06

6.  Even with time, conflict adaptation is not made of expectancies.

Authors:  Luis Jiménez; Amavia Méndez
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-09-16

Review 7.  The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: an update.

Authors:  Wout Duthoo; Elger L Abrahamse; Senne Braem; Carsten N Boehler; Wim Notebaert
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-09-09

8.  Transferring control demands across incidental learning tasks - stronger sequence usage in serial reaction task after shortcut option in letter string checking.

Authors:  Robert Gaschler; Julian N Marewski; Dorit Wenke; Peter A Frensch
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-11-28

9.  Implicit learning of stimulus regularities increases cognitive control.

Authors:  Jiaying Zhao; Devin Karbowicz; Daniel Osherson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds.

Authors:  James R Schmidt; Daniel H Weissman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.