Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 203–209 | Cite as

Does stimulus correspondence account for the Simon effect? Comments on Hasbroucq and Guiard (1991)

  • M. J. O'Leary
  • P. J. Barber
  • J. R. Simone
Article

Summary

In a recent paper analysing the Simon effect, Hasbroucq and Guiard (1991) concluded that stimulus congruence, a correspondence relationship between stimulus components, accounts for the Simon effect and explains its reversal in the Hedge and Marsh experiment (1975). We contend that their definition of stimulus congruence is applied inconsistently, which invalidates their conclusion. It is argued here that the effect of display-control arrangement correspondence (Simon, Sly, & Vilapakkam, 1981) is an alternative account that fits the presented data better. In a second experiment, Hasbroucq and Guiard (1991) claimed to have invalidated the suggestion that display-control arrangement correspondence could be considered to be an alternative account of the findings in their Experiment 1. However, we assert that the type of display-control arrangement employed in their second experiment was so unpredictable that no effect of display-control arrangement correspondence could occur.

Keywords

Simon Effect Alternative Account Stimulus Congruence Stimulus Component Correspondence Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Craft, J. L., & Simon, J. R. (1970). Processing symbolic information from a visual display: Interference from an irrelevant directional cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 415–420.Google Scholar
  2. Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 246–266.Google Scholar
  3. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427–439.Google Scholar
  4. O'Leary, M. J., & Barber, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 830–844.Google Scholar
  5. Simon, J. R., Sly, P. E., & Vilapakkam, S. (1981). Effect of compatibility of S-R mapping on reactions toward the stimulus source. Acta Psychologica, 47, 63–81.Google Scholar
  6. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.Google Scholar
  7. Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. O'Leary
    • 1
  • P. J. Barber
    • 1
  • J. R. Simone
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Departments of Psychology and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations