Psychological Research

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 143–151 | Cite as

How the social-evaluative context modulates processes of cognitive control

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Cognitive control enables intelligent systems to select relevant information in the face of distracting information. The aim of the research presented here was to investigate the influence of the social-evaluative context on processes of cognitive control. Female participants had to perform the Erikson flanker task with each trial being preceded by a photograph of an attractive woman or a beautiful landscape. Concurrently, another person (partner or fellow student) either evaluated the attractiveness of the pictures of the women or the beauty of the landscapes. Participants showed increased flanker interference on trials following the presentation of pictures of attractive women, but only, if these were concurrently evaluated by another person. By contrast, in the control conditions (social presence without concurrent picture evaluation, or picture evaluation without social presence) no such effect occurred. That is, the concurrent evaluation task selectively increased distractibility presumably due to the affective reaction to the social-evaluative context.

Keywords

Cognitive Control Social Presence Flanker Task Fellow Student Incompatible Trial 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Henrieke Flachmann for data collection and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529–550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction/conflict theory: Progress and problems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanton, H., & Stapel, D. A. (2008). Unconscious and spontaneous and … complex: The three selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1018–1032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Callejas, A., Lupiàñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Tudela, P. (2005). Modulations among the alerting, orienting and executive control networks. Experimental Brain Research, 167, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dreisbach, G. (2006). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: The costs and benefits of reduced maintenance capability. Brain and Cognition, 60, 11–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 343–353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Finkel, E. J., Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., Dalton, A. N., Scarbeck, S. J., & Chartrand, T. L. (2006). High-maintenance interaction: Inefficient social coordination impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 456–475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). The blues broadens, but the nasty narrows: Attentional consequences of negative affects low and high in motivational intensity. Psychological Science, 21, 211–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Huguet, P., Gavaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1011–1025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Karremans, J. C., Verwijmeren, T., Pronk, T. M., & Reitsma, M. (2009). Interacting with women can impair men’s executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1041–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klauer, K. C., Herfordt, J., & Voss, A. (2008). Social presence effects on the Stroop task: Boundary conditions and an alternative account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koch, S., Holland, R. W., Hengstler, M., & Knippenberg, A. (2009). Body Locomotion as Regulatory Process: Stepping Backward Enhances Cognitive Control. Psychological Science, 20, 549–550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Koch, S., Holland, R. W., & Knippenberg, A. (2008). Regulating cognitive control through approach-avoidance motor actions. Cognition, 109, 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Most, S. B., Laurenceau, J.-P., Graber, E., Belcher, A., & Smith, C. V. (2010). Blind jealousy? Romantic insecurity increases emotion-induced failures of visual perception. Emotion, 10, 250–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004). The man who wasn’t there. Subliminal social standards influence self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 689–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oaksford, M., Morris, F., Grainger, B., & Williams, J. M. G. (1996). Mood, reasoning, and central executive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olivers, C. N. L., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2006). The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive affect, and instruction on the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 364–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Phillips, L. H., Bull, R., Adams, E., & Fraser, L. (2002). Positive mood and executive functions: Evidence from Stroop and fluency tasks. Emotion, 2, 12–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: Effects of interracial contact on executive function. Psychological Science, 14, 287–290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 934–947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. (2004). What’s at the top in the top-down control of action? Psychological Research, 68, 189–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson, A. K. (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(1), 383–388.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vogt, J., De Houwer, J., Koster, E. H. W., Van Damme, S., & Crombez, G. (2008). Allocation of spatial attention to emotional stimuli depends upon arousal and not valence. Emotion, 8, 880–885.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wühr, P., & Huestegge, L. (2010). The impact of social presence on voluntary and involuntary control of spatial attention. Social Cognition, 28, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations