Advertisement

Socially alerted cognition evoked by a confederate’s mere presence: analysis of reaction-time distributions and delta plots

  • Michael B. SteinbornEmail author
  • Lynn Huestegge
Original Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

We examined aspects of social alerting as induced through the presence of an attentive but non-evaluative confederate on mental efficiency. To this end, individuals were administered with a chained mental-arithmetic task (levels: low vs. high demand) in two contextual conditions (levels: alone vs. presence). In addition, we examined self-report measures of subjective state for purposes of control. As a result, the presence (vs. alone) condition improved (not hampered) processing speed (while error rate remained low overall), and this effect was differentially more pronounced for high (vs. low) demand. Reaction-time distributional analyses revealed that improvements in average performance actually originated from a selective speeding-up in the slower percentiles, indicating that social alerting promotes stability of information-processing throughput. These results challenge prevalent theoretical notions of mere-presence effects as individuals became consistently faster and less vulnerable to commit attention failure. Our findings indicate that social presence promotes not only processing speed but volitional steadiness.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following student research assistants for help with data collection at our lab: Julia Böhme, Kristina Stanzel, Laura Heubeck, Viktoria Dueck, Wiebke Herter.

Compliance with ethical standards

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the participants regarding their agreement with their participation in this research.

Ethical standards

Our study was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 159–182.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0067891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashcraft, M. H. (1992). Cognitive arithmetic—A review of data and theory. Cognition, 44(1–2), 75–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90051-i.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 224–237.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, T. V., Troller-Renfree, S., Pine, D. S., & Fox, N. A. (2015). Individual differences in social anxiety affect the salience of errors in social contexts. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(4), 723–735.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0360-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, R. S., Moore, D., & Sanders, G. S. (1978). Distraction as a source of drive in social facilitation research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 816–824.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartis, S., Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1988). Evaluation and Performance: A two-edged knife. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 242–251.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288142003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 701–725.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belletier, C., Davranche, K., Tellier, I. S., Dumas, F., Vidal, F., Hasbroucq, T., & Huguet, P. (2015). Choking under monitoring pressure: Being watched by the experimenter reduces executive attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1410–1416.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0804-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bills, A. G. (1943). The psychology of efficiency: A discussion of the hygiene of mental work. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation—A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2), 265–292.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bratzke, D., Rolke, B., Steinborn, M. B., & Ulrich, R. (2009). The effect of 40 h constant wakefulness on task-switching efficiency. Journal of Sleep Research, 18(2), 167–172.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2869.2008.00729.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bratzke, D., Steinborn, M. B., Rolke, B., & Ulrich, R. (2012). Effects of sleep loss and circadian rhythm on executive inhibitory control in the Stroop and Simon tasks. Chronobiology International, 29(1), 55–61.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2011.635235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brewer, N. (1995). The effects of monitoring individual and group-performance on the distribution of effort across tasks. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(9), 760–777.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01774.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brewer, N., & Ridgway, T. (1998). Effects of supervisory monitoring on productivity and quality of performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(3), 211–227.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.4.3.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnham, W. H. (1910). The group as a stimulus to mental activity. Science, 31, 761–767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory—A useful conceptual framework for personality, social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111–135.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.92.1.111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Conty, L., Gimmig, D., Belletier, C., George, N., & Huguet, P. (2010). The cost of being watched: Stroop interference increases under concomitant eye contact. Cognition, 115(1), 133–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731–750.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schutz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 84.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Eder, A. B., Rothermund, K., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The prepared emotional reflex: Intentional preparation of automatic approach and avoidance tendencies as a means to regulate emotional responding. Emotion, 10(4), 593–598.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Flehmig, H. C., Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., Scholz, A., & Westhoff, K. (2007). Assessing intraindividual variability in sustained attention: Reliability, relation to speed and accuracy, and practice effects. Psychology Science, 49, 132–149.Google Scholar
  22. Flehmig, H. C., Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., & Westhoff, K. (2007). Neuroticism and the mental noise hypothesis: Relation to lapses of attention and slips of action in everyday life. Psychology Science, 49, 343–360.Google Scholar
  23. Flehmig, H. C., Steinborn, M. B., Westhoff, K., & Langner, R. (2010). Neuroticism and speed-accuracy tradeoff in self-paced speeded mental addition and comparison. Journal of Individual Differences, 31(3), 130–137.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Folkard, S., & Greeman, A. L. (1974). Salience, induced muscle tension, and ability to ignore irrelevant information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(3), 360–367.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gamer, M., Hecht, H., Seipp, N., & Hiller, W. (2011). Who is looking at me? The cone of gaze widens in social phobia. Cognition & Emotion, 25(4), 756–764.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.503117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geen, R. G., & Gange, J. J. (1977). Drive theory of social facilitation—12 years of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(6), 1267–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.84.6.1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilchrist, W. G. (2000). Statistical modelling with quantile functions. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray, R. (2011). Links between attention, performance pressure, and movement in skilled motor action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 301–306.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411416572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Groen, G. J., & Parkman, J. M. (1972). Chronometric analysis of simple addition. Psychological Review, 79(4), 329–343.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guerin, B. (2009). Social facilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 436–455.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions—An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 340–347.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Helton, W. S., Funke, G. J., & Knott, B. A. (2014). Measuring workload in collaborative contexts: Trait versus state perspectives. Human Factors, 56(2), 322–332.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813490727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Helton, W. S., Matthews, G., & Warm, J. S. (2009). Stress state mediation between environmental variables and performance: The case of noise and vigilance. Acta Psychologica, 130(3), 204–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.12.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Helton, W. S., & Naeswall, K. (2015). Short stress state questionnaire factor structure and state change assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(1), 20–30.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1–3), 73–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05223-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Huestegge, L., Pieczykolan, A., & Koch, I. (2014). Talking while looking: On the encapsulation of output system representations. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 72–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.06.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1011–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.1011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance—A theory of the relationship between individual-differences and information-processing. Psychological Review, 91(2), 153–184.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.91.2.153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Imbo, I., Vandierendonck, A., & Vergauwe, E. (2007). The role of working memory in carrying and borrowing. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(4), 467–483.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0044-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 450–463.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2005). Response conflict determines sequential effects in serial response time tasks with short response-stimulus intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 731–748.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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(2), 469–476.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and taskswitching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kraepelin, E. (1902). Die Arbeitskurve [the work curve]. Philosophische Studien, 19, 459–507.Google Scholar
  49. Krishna, A., & Strack, F. (2017). Reflection and impulse as determinants of human behavior. In P. Meusburger, B. Merlen & L. Suarsana (Eds.), Knowledge and action, knowledge and space (pp. 145–167). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kunde, W., Weller, L., & Pfister, R. (2018). Sociomotor action control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 917–931.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1316-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–679.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lacouture, Y., & Cousineau, D. (2008). How to use MATLAB to fit the ex-Gaussian and other probability functions to a distribution of response times. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Langner, R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2013). Sustaining attention to simple tasks: A meta-analytic review of the neural mechanisms of vigilant attention. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 870–900.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Langner, R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Steinborn, M. B. (2011). Mental fatigue modulates dynamic adaptation to perceptual demand in speeded detection. PLoS One, 6(12), e28399.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028399.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Langner, R., Steinborn, M. B., Chatterjee, A., Sturm, W., & Willmes, K. (2010). Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta Psychologica, 133(1), 64–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Langner, R., Steinborn, M. B., Eickhoff, S. B., & Huestegge, L. (2018). When specific action biases meet nonspecific preparation: Event repetition modulates the variable-foreperiod effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000561.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Liepelt, R. (2014). Interacting hands: The role of attention for the joint Simon effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1462.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01462.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward and instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.95.4.492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Manstead, A. S. R., & Semin, G. R. (1980). Social facilitation effects: Mere enhancement of dominant response? British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 119–136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1980.tb00937.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Matthews, G., Campbell, S. E., Falconer, S., Joyner, L. A., Huggins, J., Gilliland, K., et al. (2002). Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: Task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion, 2(4), 315–340.  https://doi.org/10.1037//1528-3542.2.4.315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Matthews, G., Warm, J. S., Reinerman, L. E., Langheim, L. K., & Saxby, D. J. (2010). Task engagement, attention, and executive control. In Handbook of individual differences in cognition (pp. 205–230). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Matthews, G., Warm, J. S., Reinerman-Jones, L. E., Langheim, L. K., Washburn, D. A., & Tripp, L. (2010). Task engagement, cerebral blood flow velocity, and diagnostic monitoring for sustained attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(2), 187–203.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2012). Individual differences in attentional networks: Trait and state correlates of the ANT. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 574–579.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Miller, J. (2006). A likelihood ratio test for mixture effects. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 92–106.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192754.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Miller, J., & Ulrich, R. (2013). Mental chronometry and individual differences: Modeling reliabilities and correlations of reaction time means and effect sizes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(5), 819–858.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0404-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.2.247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The “relative self”: Informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 23–38.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Notebaert, W., & Soetens, E. (2006). Sustained suppression in congruency tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(1), 178–189.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500151360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ohman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.108.3.483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Parmentier, F. B. R. (2014). The cognitive determinants of behavioral distraction by deviant auditory stimuli: A review. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(3), 321–338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0534-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Pashler, H. (1994). Overlapping mental operations in serial performance with preview. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A(1), 161–191.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749408401148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10.  https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Peterburs, J., Voegler, R., Liepelt, R., Schulze, A., Wilhelm, S., Ocklenburg, S., & Straube, T. (2017). Processing of fair and unfair offers in the ultimatum game under social observation. Scientific Reports, 7, 44062.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44062.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Pieters, J. P. M. (1983). Sternberg additive factor method and underlying psychological processes - Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 93(3), 411–426.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.3.411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Pieters, J. P. M. (1985). Reaction time analysis of simple mental tasks: A general approach. Acta Psychologica, 59, 227–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(85)90046-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66(4), 312–323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0104-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2010). It’s brief but is it better? An evaluation of the brief Implicit Association Test. Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 233–237.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Sanders, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1975). Motivating effects of distraction on task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 956–963.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.32.6.956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1977). Self-focused attention and experience of emotion—Attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 625–636.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.35.9.625.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Heise, E. (2014). Distraction during learning with hypermedia: Difficult tasks help to keep task goals on track. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 268.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00268.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 241–255.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schwarz, W. (2001). The ex-Wald distribution as a descriptive model of response times. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 33(4), 457–469.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schwarz, W., & Miller, J. O. (2012). Response time models of delta plots with negative-going slopes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 555–574.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0254-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schwarz, W., & Miller, J. O. (2014). When less equals more: Probability summation without sensitivity improvement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2091–2100.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., & Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 52–58.  https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.17.1.52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shaw, T. H., Matthews, G., Warm, J. S., Finomore, V. S., Silverman, L., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2010). Individual differences in vigilance: Personality, ability and states of stress. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 297–308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Steinborn, M. B., Flehmig, H. C., Westhoff, K., & Langner, R. (2010). Differential effects of prolonged work on performance measures in self-paced speed tests. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5, 105–113.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0070-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Steinborn, M. B., & Huestegge, L. (2016). A walk down the lane gives wings to your brain: Restorative benefits of rest breaks on cognition and self-control. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 795–805.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Steinborn, M. B., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Phone conversation while processing information: Chronometric analysis of load effects in everyday-media multitasking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 896.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00896.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Steinborn, M. B., & Langner, R. (2011). Distraction by irrelevant sound during foreperiods selectively impairs temporal preparation. Acta Psychologica, 136(3), 405–418.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Steinborn, M. B., & Langner, R. (2012). Arousal modulates temporal preparation under increased time uncertainty: Evidence from higher-order sequential foreperiod effects. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), 65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., Flehmig, H. C., & Huestegge, L. (2016). Everyday life cognitive instability predicts simple reaction time variability: Analysis of reaction time distributions and delta plots. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 92–102.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., Flehmig, H. C., & Huestegge, L. (2018). Methodology of performance scoring in the d2 sustained-attention test: Cumulative-reliability functions and practical guidelines. Psychological Assessment, 30(3), 339–357.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Mobilizing cognition for speeded action: Try-harder instructions promote motivated readiness in the constant-foreperiod paradigm. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 81, 1135–1151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0810-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Steinhauser, M., & Huebner, R. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: Evidence from Ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1398–1412.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016467.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Steinhauser, M., Maier, M., & Hübner, R. (2007). Cognitive control under stress—How stress affects strategies of task-set reconfiguration. Psychological Science, 18(6), 540–545.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01935.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Szalma, J. L., & Teo, G. W. L. (2012). Spatial and temporal task characteristics as stress: A test of the dynamic adaptability theory of stress, workload, and performance. Acta Psychologica, 139(3), 471–485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Thomaschke, R., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Timing affect: Dimension-specific time-based expectancy for affect. Emotion, 18(5), 646–669.  https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 196–218.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038328.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Thorndike, E. L. (1922). The psychology of arithmetic. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thorne, D. R. (2006). Throughput: A simple performance index with desirable characteristics. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 569–573.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. The American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 507–533.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1412188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (1994). Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(1), 34–80.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.123.1.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Ulrich, R., Miller, J., & Schroeter, H. (2007). Testing the race model inequality: An algorithm and computer programs. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 291–302.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Ulrich, R., Schroeter, H., Leuthold, H., & Birngruber, T. (2015). Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Van Breukelen, G. J. P., Roskam, E. E. C. I., Eling, P. A. T. M., Jansen, R. W. T. L., Souren, D. A. P. B., & Ickenroth, J. G. M. (1995). A model and diagnostic measures for response-time series on tests of concentration—Historical background, conceptual framework, and some applications. Brain and Cognition, 27(2), 147–179.  https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1995.1015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Voegler, R., Peterburs, J., Lemke, H., Ocklenburg, S., Liepelt, R., & Straube, T. (2018). Electrophysiological correlates of performance monitoring under social observation in patients with social anxiety disorder and healthy controls. Biological Psychology, 132(2), 71–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.11.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Wagenmakers, E. J., & Brown, S. (2007). On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychological Review, 114(3), 830–841.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.830.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50(3), 433–441.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x312152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (2015). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  114. Wühr, P., & Huestegge, L. (2010). The impact of social presence on voluntary and involuntary control of spatial attention. Social Cognition, 28(2), 145–160.  https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.2.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Zajonc, R. B., & Brickman, P. (1969). Expectancy and feedback as independent factors in task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(2), 148–156.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychologie IIIUniversität WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations