Abstract
TheSimon effect refers to the observation that subjects identify targets (e.g., colors) faster when the irrelevant spatial location of the target corresponds to the location of the response key. Theoretical accounts of the Simon effect typically explain performance in terms of automatic and controlled processes. Furthermore, the relative contributions of automatic and controlled processes are held to change as a function of the proportion of compatible to incompatible trials (compatibility proportion). Data are presented demonstrating that the reliability of the Simon effect, indexed by correlating its magnitude within subjects across blocks of trials, varied substantially as a function of the compatibility proportion. When the compatibility proportion was high, so was reliability. When the compatibility proportion was low, reliability was low as well. The results are discussed in terms of the relative reliability of automatic and controlled processes and the role of working memory and attentional control in goal maintenance.
Article PDF
References
Buchner, A., &Wippich, W. (2000). On the reliability of implicit and explicit memory measures.Cognitive Psychology,40, 227–259.
Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., &Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency.Psychological Bulletin,125, 777–799.
Hommel, B. (1994a). Effects of irrelevant spatial S—R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity.Psychological Research,56, 179–184.
Hommel, B. (1994b). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation.Psychological Research,56, 261–268.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.
Kane, M. J., &Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 47–70.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.
Lu, C.-H., &Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 174–207.
Madden, D. J., Pierce, T. W., &Allen, P. A. (1993). Age-related slowing and the time course of semantic priming in visual word identification.Psychology & Aging,8, 490–507.
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neely, J. H., &Kahan, T. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation. In H. L. Roediger III, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.),The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Psychology Software Tools (2002). E-Prime [Software]. Pittsburgh: Author.
Salthouse, T. A., &Siedlecki, K. L. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Divided Attention Questionnaire.Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition,12, 89–98.
Salthouse, T. A., Toth, J. P., Hancock, H. E., &Woodard, J. L. (1997). Controlled and automatic forms of memory and attention: Process purity and the uniqueness of age-related influences.Journals of Gerontology,52B, P216-P228.
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: North-Holland.
Stolz, J. A., Besner, D., &Carr, T. H. (2005). Implications of measures of reliability for theories of priming: Activity in semantic memory is inherently noisy and uncoordinated.Visual Cognition,12, 284–336.
Toth, J. P., Levine, B., Stuss, D. T., Oh, A., Winocur, G., &Meiran, N. (1995). Dissociation of processes underlying spatial S—R compatibility: Evidence for the independent influence of what and where.Consciousness & Cognition,4, 483–501.
Williams, R. H., &Zimmerman, D. W. (1996). Are simple gain scores obsolete?Applied Psychological Measurement,20, 59–69.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by Grants A0998 and 183905 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada to D.B. and J.A.S., respectively
Note—Accepted by David A. Balota’s editorial team.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Borgmann, K.W.U., Risko, E.F., Stolz, J.A. et al. Simon says: Reliability and the role of working memory and attentional control in the Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 313–319 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194070
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194070