Psychological Research PRPF

, Volume 73, Issue 6, pp 794–802

The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation

Original Article


A core tenet of the original conflict-monitoring model is that regulation is triggered automatically when conflict is present and that the same regulation mechanism explains both trial-to-trial adaptation effects as well as effects of block-wise conflict manipulations. We present here results from two experiments using the Stroop task that show (a) that adaptation effects in the absence of response repetitions may occur only at the beginning of testing and that (b) robust block-wise effects can be found even in the absence of trial-by-trial effects. Furthermore, we show that the failure to eliminate target-to-distractor repetitions can produce artificial trial-to-trial adaptation effects. Based on the evidence of a weak link between conflict and conflict adaptation, we argue that a wider range of possible reasons for conflict adaptation effects needs to be taken into consideration.


  1. Awh, E., Sgarlata, A. M., & Kliestik, J. (2005). Resolving visual interference during covert spatial orienting: online attentional control through static records of prior visual experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(2), 192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blais, C., Dobidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryck, R.L., & Mayr, U. (in press). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychological Bulletin and Review. Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing model of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task. NeuroImage, 24, 539–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernandez-Duque, D., & Knight, M. B. (2007). Cognitive control: Dynamic, sustained, and voluntary influences. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance. Google Scholar
  8. Freitas, A. L., Bahar, M., Yang, S., & Bahar, R. (2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science, 18, 1040–1043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: a PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638–644.Google Scholar
  12. Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Kunde, W. (2003). Sequential modulations of stimulus-response correspondence effects depend on awareness of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 198–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. May, C. P., Kane, H. J., & Hasher, L. (1995). Determinants of negative priming. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 35–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayr, U. (2004). Consciousness and control. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayr, U. (2007). Conflict and Control. Presentation at the Workshop “Conclicts as Signals” in Binz, Germany, October 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2005). Sticky rules: Integration between abstract rules and specific actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 337–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2006). Outsourcing control to the environment: effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research, 71, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nieuwenhuis, S., Stins, J. F., Posthuma, D., Polderman, T. J. C., Boomsma, D. I., & De Geus, E. J. (2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory & Cognition, 34, 1260–1272.Google Scholar
  23. Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2007). Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 421–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727–735.Google Scholar
  26. Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. (2005). The conflict-adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus and response conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 328–333.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations