Advertisement

Psychological Research PRPF

, Volume 73, Issue 6, pp 762–776 | Cite as

Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task

  • Doris KeyeEmail author
  • Oliver Wilhelm
  • Klaus Oberauer
  • Don van Ravenzwaaij
Original Article

Abstract

Conflict and context slow-down have been proposed as indicators of a conflict-monitoring system that initiates cognitive control to resolve conflicts in information processing. We investigated individual differences in conflict-monitoring and their associations with working memory (WM) and impulsivity. A total of 150 adults completed a Simon and an Eriksen flanker task, together with measures of WM and impulsivity. On both tasks, responses were slower and less accurate on incompatible than on compatible trials (conflict effect), and the conflict effect was larger when the preceding trial was compatible than when it was incompatible (context effect). Stimulus repetition did not explain the context effect. Individual differences could be attributed to three separable factors for each task: general speeded performance, conflict effect, and context effect. Evidence for across-task generality of these factors was sparse. Associations of these factors with impulsivity were weak at best. WM was correlated with general speed, and also with some but not all factors reflecting conflict-related processes.

Keywords

Cognitive Control Work Memory Work Memory Capacity Simon Task Conflict Effect 
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.

References

  1. Barch, D. M., Braver, T. S., Akbudak, E., Conturo, T., Ollinger, J., & Snyder, A. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: Effects of response modality and processing domain. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 837–848.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 625–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bush, G., Frazier, J. A., Rauch, S. L., Seidman, L. J., Whalen, P. J., Jenike, M. A., et al. (1999). Anterior cingulate cortex dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder revealed by fMRI and the Counting Stroop. Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1542–1552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Colom, R., Flores-Mendoza, C., & Rebollo, I. (2003). Working memory and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 33–39.Google Scholar
  9. Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. (1996). Individual differences in working memory capacity: More evidence for a general capacity theory. Memory, 4, 577–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jong, R., Liang, Ch-Ch, & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999a). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999b). Working memory, short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Enticott, P. G., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Bradshaw, J. L. (2006). Associations between laboratory measures of executive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freitas, A. L., Bahar, M., Yang, Sh, & Banai, R. (2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science, 18, 1040–1043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heitz, R., & Engle, R. E. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637–671.Google Scholar
  25. Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working memory capacity: Individual differences in memory span and the control of visual orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & N. J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory. NY: Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 133, 189–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W, I. I. I., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keye, D., Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (in press) A German Adaptation of the UPPS impulsive behavior scales: Structure and correlates. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.Google Scholar
  31. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory and Cognition, 34, 356–367.Google Scholar
  33. Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kyllonen, P. C. (1996). Is working memory capacity Spearman’s g? In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top–down and bottom–up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 112–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Oberauer, K., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Süß, H.-M. (2005). Working memory and intelligence–their correlation and their relation: A comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 61–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oberauer, K., Süß, H.-M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Wittman, W. W. (2000). Working memory capacity—facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oberauer, K., Süß, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Sander, R. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and reasoning ability. In A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Osaka, M., Osaka, N., Kondo, H., Morishita, M., Fukuyama, H., Aso, T., et al. (2003). The neural basis of individual differences in working memory capacity: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 18, 789–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson, B. S., Kane, M. J., Alexander, G. M., Lacadie, C., Skudlarski, P., Leung, H.-C., May, J., & Gore, J. C. (2000). An event-related functional MRI study comparing interference effects in the Simon and Stroop tasks. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 427–440.Google Scholar
  44. Pierce, Ch A, Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting Eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 916–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ratcliff, R., & Murdock, B. B. (1976). Retrieval processes in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 83, 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stahl, J., & Gibbons, H. (2007). Dynamics of response-conflict monitoring and individual differences in response control and behavioral control: An electrophysiological investigation using a stop-signal task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 581–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schroter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 467–472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vallesi, A., Mapelli, D., Schiff, S., Amodio, P., & Umilta, C. (2005). Horizontal and vertical Simon effect: Different underlying mechanisms? Cognition, 96, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior Cingulate Cortex, Conflict Monitoring, and Levels of Processing. NeuroImage, 14, 1302–1308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2006). Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus-response compatibility in choice reaction time tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 18–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 705–731.Google Scholar
  57. Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 111, 931–959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doris Keye
    • 1
    Email author
  • Oliver Wilhelm
    • 1
  • Klaus Oberauer
    • 2
  • Don van Ravenzwaaij
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Progress in EducationHumboldt-University BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  3. 3.Department of Psychological MethodsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations