Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Experimental Psychology and Human Agency pp 83–111Cite as

What Is a Task?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

There have been recent attempts by experimental psychologists to explicate the nature of an experimental task. This chapter reviews three such attempts, according to which a task is (1) a goal-directed schema, (2) a rule-based organization of stimulus–response events that shield the actors’ attention against distractors, and (3) a depersonalized goal. These approaches underscore the importance of goals and acknowledge how a task selectively renders parts of a situation visible for the agent performing a task. With reference to goal hierarchies, we can also think of a task in terms of a fixed set of superordinate goals, or from a fixed normative-descriptive perspective, which views actors as equivalent and replaceable. The description of the task can be applied to the activities of experimental psychologists, highlighting the subsequent outcomes, including depersonalized research projects, shields against “distractors,” including questions about societal relevance and theoretical synthesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adam, J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2005). Preparing for perception and action (II): Automatic and effortful processes in response cueing. Visual Cognition, 12(8), 1444–1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognitive Psychology, 46(3), 302–358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Badre, D. (2008). Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization of the frontal lobes. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergner, R. M. (2016). What is behaviour? And why is it not reducible to biological states of affairs? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergner, R. M. (2017). What is a person? What is the self? Formulations for a science of psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37(2), 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108(3), 652–661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind. London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 202–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 227–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Fröber, K. (2018). On how to be flexible (or not): Modulation of the stability-flexibility balance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2007). The role of task rules and stimulus–response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Wenke, D. (2011). The shielding function of task sets and its relaxation during task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1540–1546.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eitam, B., Shoval, R., & Yeshurun, Y. (2015). Seeing without knowing: Task relevance dissociates between visual awareness and recognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339, 125–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eitam, B., Yeshurun, Y., & Hassan, K. (2013). Blinded by irrelevance: Pure irrelevance induced “blindness”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 611–615.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freedberg, M., Wagschal, T. T., & Hazeltine, E. (2014). Incidental learning and task boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1680–1700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. G., & Deng, W. (2018). Building blocks of psychology: On remaking the unkept promises of early schools. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 1–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. G., & Dolcini, N. (2018). Reaching into the unknown: Actions, goal hierarchies, and explorative agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 266.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: The case against simple stimulus-response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 64, pp. 195–245). Amsterdam, The Netherland: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibberd, F. J. (2014). The metaphysical basis of a process psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34(3), 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibberd, F. J., & Gozli, D. G. (2017). Psychology’s fragmentation and neglect of foundational assumptions: An interview with Fiona J. Hibberd. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13, 366–374.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam, The Netherland: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 247–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2015). Between persistence and flexibility: The Yin and Yang of action control. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 2, pp. 33–67). New York, NY: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(3), 188–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2014). The role of effect grouping in free-choice response selection. Acta Psychologica, 150, 49–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kingstone, A., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2008). Cognitive ethology: A new approach for studying human cognition. British Journal of Psychology, 99(3), 317–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62(4), 300–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Künzell, S., Broeker, L., Dignath, D., Ewolds, H., Raab, M., & Thomaschke, R. (2017). What is a task? An ideomotor perspective. Psychological Research, 82(1), 4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mammen, J., & Mironenko, I. (2015). Activity theories and the ontology of psychology: Learning from Danish and Russian experiences. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 681–713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D. (2005). Animals and humans, thinking and nature. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2009). Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. London, UK: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2015). Strange tools: Art and human nature. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossorio, P. (2006). The behavior of persons. Ann Arbor, MI: Descriptive Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, W. T. (1998). Making sense of behavior. Montclair, NJ: Benchmark Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W. (2018). Contingency and similarity in response selection. Consciousness and Cognition, 64, 1–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(4), 541–553.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(4), 444–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. H., & Hazeltine, E. (2016). Hierarchical task representation: Task files and response selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 449–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1234–1246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sellaro, R., Treccani, B., & Cubelli, R. (2018). When task sharing reduces interference: Evidence for division-of-labour in Stroop-like tasks. Psychological Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1044-1

  • Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam, The Netherland: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1991). The pseudoempirical in psychology and the case for psychologic. Psychological Inquiry, 2(4), 325–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2009). The mismatch between current research methods and the nature of psychological phenomena: What researchers must learn from practitioners. Theory & Psychology, 19(6), 778–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P. F. (1992). Analysis and metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2017). From methodology to methods in human psychology. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden, A. H., & Stebbins, S. (1990). The information-processing approach. Psychological Research, 52(2–3), 197–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Steenbergen, H., Langeslag, S. J., Band, G. P., & Hommel, B. (2014). Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 444–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachtel, P. L. (1973). Psychodynamics, behavior therapy, and the implacable experimenter: An inquiry into the consistency of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 324–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, M., Wall, H. J., & Hommel, B. (2017a). Action-effect sharing induces task-set sharing in joint task switching. Cognition, 165, 113–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, M., Wall, H. J., & Hommel, B. (2017b). No evidence for shared representations of task sets in joint task switching. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1166–1177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, M., Wall, H. J., & Hommel, B. (2018). Sharing tasks or sharing actions? Evidence from the joint Simon task. Psychological Research, 82(2), 385–394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, M., Wall, H. J., & Hommel, B. (2019). The roles of action selection and actor selection in joint task settings. Cognition, 182, 184–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Macau, Taipa, Macao

    Davood Gozli

Authors
  1. Davood Gozli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gozli, D. (2019). What Is a Task?. In: Experimental Psychology and Human Agency. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20422-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation