The hot-hand fallacy in cognitive control: Repetition expectancy modulates the congruency sequence effect

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 798-805

  Duthoo, Wout ^a   Wühr, Peter ^b   Notebaert, Wim ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Choice behavior; Congruency sequence effect; Expectancy bias; Proactive cognitive control

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANTICIPATION; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STROOP TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANTICIPATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ATTENTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; STROOP TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84880716875     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0390-7     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Alexander, W. H., & Brown, J. W. (2011). Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1338-1344. doi: 10. 1038/nn. 2921.
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. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 108. 3. 624.
3. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106-113. doi: 10. 1016/j. tics. 2011. 12. 010.
4. Dishon-Berkovits, M., & Algom, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1437-1449. doi: 10. 3758/BF03211844.
5. Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Conflict adaptation: It is not what you expect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1993-2007. doi: 10. 1080/17470218. 2012. 676655.
6. 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. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 121. 4. 480.
7. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2013). It is not what you expect: Dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 271-284. doi: 10. 1037/a0027734.
8. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Kareev, Y. (1995). Positive bias in the perception of covariation. Psychological Review, 102, 490-502. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 102. 3. 490.
10. Mordkoff, J. T. (2012). Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 750-757. doi: 10. 3758/s13423-012-0257-3.
11. Nickerson, R. S. (2002). The production and perception of randomness. Psychological Review, 109, 330-357. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 109. 2. 330.
12. Remington, R. J. (1969). Analysis of sequential effects in choice reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 250-257. doi: 10. 1037/h0028122.
13. Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 11, 598-616. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 11. 5. 598.