Interference in the Shared-Stroop Task: A Comparison of Self- and Other-Monitoring

Co-acting participants represent and integrate each other’s actions, even when they are not required to monitor one another. However, monitoring the actions of a partner is an important component of successful interactions, and particularly of linguistic interactions. Moreover, monitoring others may rely on similar mechanisms to those that are involved in self-monitoring. In order to investigate the effect of monitoring on shared linguistic representations, we combined a monitoring task with the shared Stroop task. In the shared Stroop task, one participant named the 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 colour of words in the other colour or did not respond. Crucially, participants either had to provide feedback about the correctness of their partner’s response (Experiment 3) or did not (Experiment 2). The results showed that interference was greater when both participants responded than when they did not, but only when partners provided feedback. We argue that feedback increased joint task interference because in order to monitor their partner, participants had to represent their target utterance, and this representation interfered with self-monitoring of their 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]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  M. Pickering,et al.  An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

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

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

[11]  Athanassios Protopapas,et al.  Check Vocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[12]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  Social Offloading: Just Working Together is Enough to Remove Semantic Interference , 2020, CogSci.

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

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

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

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

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

[18]  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.

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

[20]  付伶俐.  打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[21]  M. Pickering,et al.  Understanding Dialogue: Language Use and Social Interaction , 2021 .

[22]  Anna K. Kuhlen,et al.  Mental chronometry of speaking in dialogue: Semantic interference turns into facilitation , 2020, Cognition.

[23]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

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

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

[26]  W. Prinz,et al.  Representing others' actions: just like one's own? , 2003, Cognition.

[27]  Wendy Bergervoet,et al.  Monitoring in language perception , 2017 .

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

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

[30]  F. McKenna,et al.  Differential components of the manual and vocal Stroop tasks , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[31]  N. Sebanz,et al.  Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data , 2011 .

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

[33]  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.

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

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

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

[37]  Rupert Brown,et al.  Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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