Abstract
In each of two experiments, the comparative instructions in a symbolic comparison task were either varied randomly from trial to trial (mixed blocks) or left constant (pure blocks) within blocks of trials. In the first experiment, every stimulus was compared with every other stimulus. The symbolic distance effect (DE) was enhanced, and the semantic congruity effect (SCE) was significantly larger, when the instructions were randomized than when they were blocked. In a second experiment, each stimulus was paired with only one other stimulus. The SCE was again larger when instructions were randomized than when they were blocked. The enhanced SCE and DE with randomized instructions follow naturally from evidence accrual views of comparative judgments.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Audley, R. J., &Wallis, C. P. (1964). Response instructions and the speed of relative judgments: I. Some experiments on brightness discrimination.British Journal of Psychology,55, 59–73.
Banks, W. P. (1977). Encoding and processing of symbolic information in comparative judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 11, pp. 101–159). New York: Academic Press.
Banks, W. P., Clark, H. H., &Lucy, P. (1975). The locus of the semantic congruity effect in comparative judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 35–47.
Banks, W. P., &Flora, J. (1977). Semantic and perceptual processes in symbolic comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 278–290.
Banks, W. P., Fujii, M. S., &Kayra-Stuart, F. (1976). Semantic congruity effects in comparative judgments of magnitudes of digits.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 435–447.
Banks, W. P., &Root, M. (1979). Semantic congruity effects in judgments of loudness.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 133–142.
Birnbaum, M. H., &Jou, J. (1990). A theory of comparative response times and “difference” judgments.Cognitive Psychology,22, 184–210.
Cech, C. G. (1995). Is congruity due to encoding?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,5, 1275–1288.
Cech, C. G., &Shoben, E. J. (1985). Context effects in symbolic magnitude comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 299–315.
Cech, C. G., Shoben, E. J., &Love, M. (1990). Multiple congruity effects in judgments of magnitude.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 1142–1152.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., &McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect.Psychological Review,97, 332–361.
Dehaene, S. (1989). The psychophysics of numerical comparison: A reexamination of apparently incompatible data.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 557–566.
Holyoak, K. J. (1978). Comparative judgments with numerical reference points.Cognitive Psychology,10, 203–243.
Jamieson, D. G., &Petrusic, W. M. (1975). Relational judgments with remembered stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,18, 373–378.
Kosslyn, S. M., Murphy, G. L., Bemesderfer, M. E., &Feinstein, K. J. (1977). Category and continuum in mental comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,106, 341–375.
Leth-Steensen, C., &Marley, A. A. J. (2000). A model of response time effects in symbolic comparison.Psychological Review,107, 62–100.
Link, S. W. (1990). Modeling imageless thought: The relative judgment theory of numerical comparisons.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,34, 2–41.
Link, S. W. (1992).The wave theory of difference and similarity. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review,95, 492–527.
Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms?Cognitive Psychology,22, 1–35.
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials.Acta Psychologica,94, 145–188.
MacDonald, P. A., &Joordens, S. (2000). Investigating a memorybased account of negative priming: Support for selection-feature mismatch.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1478–1496.
Marks, D. F. (1972).Relative judgment: A phenomenon and a theory. Perception & Psychophysics,11, 156–160.
Marschark, M., &Paivio, A. (1979). Semantic congruity and lexical marking in symbolic comparisons: An expectancy hypothesis.Memory & Cognition,7, 175–184.
Marschark, M., &Paivio, A. (1981). Congruity and the perceptual comparison task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 290–308.
Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 227–234.
Moyer, R. S. (1973). Comparing objects in memory: Evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics.Perception & Psychophysics,13, 180–184.
Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited capacity attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,106, 226–254.
Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye.Memory & Cognition,3, 635–647.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory.Psychological Bulletin,116, 220–244.
Petrusic, W. M. (1992). Semantic congruity effects and theories of the comparison process.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 962–986.
Petrusic, W. M., &Baranski, J. V. (1989). Semantic congruity effects in perceptual comparisons.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 439–452.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.
Sanders, A. F. (1997). A summary of resource theories from a behavioral perspective.Biological Psychology,45, 5–18.
Schwarz, W., &Stein, F. (1998). On the temporal dynamics of digit comparison processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1275–1293.
Shaki, S., &Algom, D. (2002). The locus and nature of semantic congruity in symbolic comparison: Evidence from the Stroop effect.Memory & Cognition,30, 3–17.
Shaki, S., &Petrusic, W. M. (2003). Instruction interference and the semantic congruity effect. In B. Berglund & E. Borg (Eds.),Fechner Day 2003: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 293–298). Larnaca Bay, Cyprus: International Society for Psychophysics.
Strayer, D. L., &Grison, S. (1999). Negative identity priming is contingent on stimulus repetition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 24–38.
Wallis, C. P., &Audley, R. J. (1964). Response instructions and the speed of relative judgments: II. Pitch discrimination.British Journal of Psychology,55, 121–132.
Wood, T. J., &Milliken, B. (1998). Negative priming without ignoring.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 470–475.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
The work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada grants
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shaki, S., Leth-Steensen, C. & Petrusic, W.M. Effects of instruction presentation mode in comparative judgments. Memory & Cognition 34, 196–206 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193398
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193398