Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring

Co-actors represent and integrate each other's actions, even when they need not monitor one another. However, monitoring is important for successful interactions, particularly those involving language, and monitoring others' utterances probably relies on similar mechanisms as monitoring one's own. We investigated the effect of monitoring on the integration of self- and other-generated utterances in the shared-Stroop task. In a solo version of the Stroop task (with a single participant responding to all stimuli; Experiment 1), participants named the ink colour of mismatching colour words (incongruent stimuli) more slowly than matching colour words (congruent). In the shared-Stroop task, one participant named the ink colour of words in one colour (e.g. red), while ignoring stimuli in the other colour (e.g. green); the other participant either named the other ink colour or did not respond. Crucially, participants either provided feedback about the correctness of their partner's response (Experiment 3) or did not (Experiment 2). Interference was greater when both participants responded than when they did not, but only when their partners provided feedback. We argue that feedback increased interference because monitoring one's partner enhanced representations of the partner's target utterance, which in turn interfered with self-monitoring of the participant's own utterance.

[1]  Joris Van de Cavey,et al.  Interference in joint picture naming. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  J. Bavelas,et al.  Listeners as co-narrators. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Bernard Guerin,et al.  Mere presence effects in humans: A review , 1986 .

[4]  Colin M. Macleod.  Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  M. Pickering,et al.  Early preparation during turn-taking: Listeners use content predictions to determine what to say but not when to say it , 2018, Cognition.

[6]  Eva Belke,et al.  Language production in a shared task: Cumulative Semantic Interference from self- and other-produced context words. , 2016, Acta psychologica.

[7]  Joint language production: an electrophysiological investigation of simulated lexical access on behalf of task partner , 2021 .

[8]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  What is Shared in Joint Action? Issues of Co-representation, Response Conflict, and Agent Identification , 2011 .

[9]  Geert J. M. van Boxtel,et al.  The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[10]  Wen-Jui Kuo,et al.  Action Co-representation is Tuned to Other Humans , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  W. Glaser,et al.  Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Edinburgh Research Explorer A cognitive architecture for the coordination of utterances , 2022 .

[13]  G. Dell,et al.  Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production , 2011, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Elena Rusconi,et al.  Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task , 2010, Cognition.

[15]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  How Social Are Task Representations? , 2009, Psychological science.

[16]  M. Pickering,et al.  Predicting While Comprehending Language: A Theory and Review , 2018, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A Solution to the Effect of Sample Size on Outlier Elimination , 1994 .

[18]  M. Pickering,et al.  Understanding Dialogue , 2021 .

[19]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Joint action: bodies and minds moving together , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  How “Social” is the social Simon effect? , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[21]  Marcel Brass,et al.  Does the Human Motor System Simulate Pinocchio's Actions? , 2007, Psychological science.

[22]  M. Pickering,et al.  How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task , 2015, Cortex.

[23]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  Neural correlates of verbal joint action: ERPs reveal common perception and action systems in a shared-Stroop task , 2016, Brain Research.

[24]  P. Kay,et al.  Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  D. Melcher,et al.  No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task , 2017, Psychological Research.

[26]  Rasha Abdel Rahman,et al.  Having a task partner affects lexical retrieval: Spoken word production in shared task settings , 2017, Cognition.

[27]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  The Virtual Co-Actor: The Social Simon Effect does not Rely on Online Feedback from the Other , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[28]  Albert Costa,et al.  On predicting others’ words: Electrophysiological evidence of prediction in speech production , 2014, Cognition.

[29]  A. Voss,et al.  Social Presence Effects on the Stroop Task: Boundary Conditions and an Alternative Account , 2008 .

[30]  Henk Aarts,et al.  When competition merges people's behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations , 2010 .

[31]  Jan-Peter de Holger N. J. Ruiter,et al.  Projecting the End of a Speaker's Turn: A Cognitive Cornerstone of Conversation , 2006 .

[32]  Matthew Ray,et al.  Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? , 2007, Human movement science.

[33]  J. Wicherts,et al.  Heterogeneity in direct replications in psychology and its association with effect size. , 2020, Psychological bulletin.

[34]  L. Ferrand,et al.  The influence of mere social presence on Stroop interference: New evidence from the semantically-based Stroop task , 2012 .

[35]  W. Levelt,et al.  Monitoring and self-repair in speech , 1983, Cognition.

[36]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  Towards a New Model of Verbal Monitoring , 2020, Journal of cognition.

[37]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Human Neuroscience Hypothesis and Theory Article Self-, Other-, and Joint Monitoring Using Forward Models , 2022 .

[38]  Laurel Brehm,et al.  Mental representations of partner task cause interference in picture naming. , 2019, Acta psychologica.

[39]  R. Cubelli,et al.  When task sharing reduces interference: evidence for division-of-labour in Stroop-like tasks , 2018, Psychological Research.

[40]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.