Bivalency is Costly: Bivalent Stimuli Elicit Cautious Responding
Abstract
Abstract. When performing tasks in alternation, substantial slowing occurs when the stimuli have features relevant to both tasks (i.e., when stimuli are bivalent as opposed to univalent). One possible source of this slowing, herein called a bivalency cost, is that encountering bivalent stimuli leads to a more cautious response style. To investigate this, we employed a paradigm that required performing three simple tasks, with bivalent stimuli occasionally encountered on one task. The results show that regardless of the feature overlap among the stimuli used for the different tasks, the introduction of bivalent stimuli slowed responding on all tasks and it was accompanied by a decrease in response errors. Overall, it appears that bivalent stimuli recruit a more cautious approach to task-switching performance.
References
(1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltá & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing 421– 452 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2000). Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII 35– 70 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII 357– 376 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
(2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 308– 339
(1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89, 5– 82
(2000). Adult age differences in task switching. Psychology and Aging, 15, 126– 147
(1999). Identifying stimuli of different perceptual categories in mixed blocks of trials: Evidence for cost in switching between computational processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 3– 23
(1997). Strategic control in a naming task: Changing routes or changing deadlines?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 570– 590
(2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16, 96– 109
(1992). Lexical and sublexical translation from spelling to sound: Strategic anticipation of lexical status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 452– 467
(2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task?. Psychological Research, 63, 250– 264
(1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207– 231
(2001). Virtually perfect time-sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101– 108
(2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs.”. Psychological Research, 63, 212– 33
