Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

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

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Pickering, Martin J., McLean, Janet F. and Gambi, Chiara (2022) Interference in the shared-Stroop task : a comparison of self- and other-monitoring. Royal Society Open Science , 9 (4). 220107. doi:10.1098/rsos.220107 ISSN 2054-5703.

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220107

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Science > Psychology
Journal or Publication Title: Royal Society Open Science
Publisher: The Royal Society Publishing
ISSN: 2054-5703
Official Date: 27 April 2022
Dates:
DateEvent
27 April 2022Published
29 March 2022Accepted
Volume: 9
Number: 4
Article Number: 220107
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220107
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access (Creative Commons)

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us