Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHood, Audrey V. B.
dc.contributor.authorHutchison, Keith A.
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-20T21:26:27Z
dc.date.available2022-10-20T21:26:27Z
dc.date.issued2020-11
dc.identifier.citationHood, A.V.B., Hutchison, K.A. Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors. Atten Percept Psychophys 83, 85–96 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02169-xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1943-3921
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/17297
dc.descriptionThis version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review (when applicable) and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02169-xen_US
dc.description.abstractPrevious research has shown that list-wide effects in the Stroop task interact with working memory capacity (WMC). The predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance. However, some researchers have challenged whether list-wide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. In the current study, we examined whether goal maintenance explains higher WMC individuals’ better performance within mostly congruent (MC) Stroop lists by providing periodic goal reminders to some of the participants. Two hundred and twelve participants from Montana State University first completed the Automated Operation Span and were then assigned to either a true control, goal reminder, or nongoal reminder condition. During the Stroop task, the true control condition received rest breaks every 60 trials, whereas the goal reminder and nongoal reminder conditions stopped every 12 trials to vocalize either the task goal or a rehearsed statement, respectively. We regressed Stroop errors on reminder condition and WMC, comparing each group to the true control. For the Goal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was an interaction, such that WMC negatively correlated with Stroop errors in the true control, but not in the goal reminder condition. In contrast, for the Nongoal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was only an overall effect of WMC, with greater Stroop errors for those lower in WMC. These data provide evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop interference.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLCen_US
dc.rightscopyright Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2020en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://perma.cc/KDW9-RWNUen_US
dc.subjectcognitive controlen_US
dc.subjectstroop interferenceen_US
dc.subjectgoal neglecten_US
dc.subjectworking memory capacityen_US
dc.titleProviding goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errorsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
mus.citation.extentfirstpage1en_US
mus.citation.extentlastpage12en_US
mus.citation.issue1en_US
mus.citation.journaltitleAttention, Perception, & Psychophysicsen_US
mus.citation.volume83en_US
mus.identifier.doi10.3758/s13414-020-02169-xen_US
mus.relation.departmentPsychology.en_US
mus.relation.universityMontana State University - Bozemanen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


MSU uses DSpace software, copyright © 2002-2017  Duraspace. For library collections that are not accessible, we are committed to providing reasonable accommodations and timely access to users with disabilities. For assistance, please submit an accessibility request for library material.