Inhaltszusammenfassung

Response retrieval theories assume that stimuli and responses become integrated into “event files” (Hommel, 1998 Hommel, B. 1998. Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5: 183–216. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) in memory so that a second encounter with a specific stimulus automatically retrieves the response that was previously associated with this stimulus. In this article, we tested a specific p... Response retrieval theories assume that stimuli and responses become integrated into “event files” (Hommel, 1998 Hommel, B. 1998. Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5: 183–216. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) in memory so that a second encounter with a specific stimulus automatically retrieves the response that was previously associated with this stimulus. In this article, we tested a specific prediction of a recent variant of stimulus retrieval theories as introduced by Rothermund, Wentura, and De Houwer (2005) Rothermund, K., Wentura, D. and De Houwer, J. 2005. Retrieval of incidental stimulus–response associations as a source of negative priming: Evidence from task switching studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31: 482–495. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]: In selection tasks where target stimuli are accompanied by distractors, responses to target stimuli are automatically bound to distractor stimuli as well; repeating the distractor should retrieve the response to the target that formerly accompanied the distractor. In three experiments we confirmed this prediction: Distractor repetition facilitated responding in the probe in the case of response repetition whereas repeating the distractor delayed responding in the case of response change. » weiterlesen» einklappen

Autoren

Klassifikation

DDC Sachgruppe:
Psychologie