Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the stroop task

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 52-58

  Sharma, Dinkar ^a   Booth, Rob ^a   Brown, Rupert ^b   Huguet, Pascal ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^c AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STROOP TEST; TIME;

ATTENTION; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL FACILITATION; STROOP TEST; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 74849134730     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.1.52     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Baron, R. S. (1986). distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1-36). Orlando: Academic Press.
2. Chen, Z. (2003). Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 888-900.
3. Cohen, S. (1978). environmental load and the allocation of attention. In A. Baum, J. e. Singer, & S. Valins (eds.), Advances in environmental psychology (pp. 1-30). Hillsdale, NJ: erlbaum.
4. Dumas, F., Huguet, P., & Ayme, E. (2005). Social context effects in the Stroop task: When knowledge of one's relative standing makes a difference. Current Psychology Letters: Cognition, Brain, & Behaviour, 16, 1-12.
5. Eimer, M. (1999). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioral performance. Acta Psychologica, 101, 293-313. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00009-8
6. Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1737-1747. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1737
7. Guerin, B. (1993). Social facilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluationperformance relationship. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 91, 436-455. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.436
9. Houghton, G., & Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In d. dagenbach & T. Carr (eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 53-112). San diego: Academic Press.
10. Huguet, P., Dumas, F., & Monteil, J.-M. (2004). Competing for a desired reward in the Stroop task: When attentional control is unconscious but effective versus conscious but ineffective. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 153-167. doi:10.1037/h0087441
11. Huguet, P., Galvaing, 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 & Social Psychology, 77, 1011-1023. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1011
12. Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2007). Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93, 544-564. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.544
13. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.009
14. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
15. Markus, H. (1978). The effect of mere presence on social facilitation: An unobtrusive test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 389-397. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(78)90034-3
16. McFall, S. R., Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2009). Testing the mere effort account of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96, 135-154. doi:10.1037/a0012878
17. Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422-471. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422
18. Muller, D., Atezeni, T., & Butera, F. (2004). Coaction and upward social comparison reduce the illusory conjunction effect: Support for distraction-conflict theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 659-665. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.12.003
19. Rabbitt, P. [M. A.] (1980). The effects of r-S interval duration on serial choice reaction time: Preparation time or response monitoring time? Ergonomics, 23, 65-77. doi:10.1080/00140138008924719
20. Rabbitt, P. M. A., & Maylor, E. A. (1991). Investigating models of human performance. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 259-290.
21. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 494-519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Ridderinkhof, K. R., Scheres, A., Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. A. (2005). delta plots in the study of individual differences: New tools reveal response inhibition deficits in Ad/Hd that are eliminated by methylphenidate treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 197-215. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.197
23. Ridderinkhof, K. R., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Wijnen, J., & Burle, B. (2004). response inhibition in conflict tasks is revealed in delta plots. In M. Posner (ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 369-377). New York: Guilford Press.
24. Sharma, D., & McKenna, F. P. (2001). The role of time pressure on the emotional Stroop task. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 471-481. doi:10.1348/000712601162293
25. Stroop, J. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 653-662. doi:10.1037/ h0054651
26. Van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.