Abstract
According to the Unexpected-Event Hypothesis (UEH) (Frensch, Haider, Rünger, Neugebauer, Voigt & Werg, 2002), conflicts between expected and actually performed behaviors trigger attribution processes and ultimately lead to the ability to verbally report an incidentally experienced sequential regularity. In two experiments, we manipulated the likelihood that a specific conflict, a premature response, occurred in a sequential version of the Number Reduction Task (NRT). Experiment 1 demonstrated that a longer RSI leads to a larger number of premature responses and to more verbal report than a shorter RSI. However, this effect of the RSI on verbal report was removed when participants were discouraged from emitting premature responses. Experiment 2 revealed that artificially inducing premature responses leads to an increase in verbal report, but only when premature responses are introduced late in training. Overall, the findings strongly support the assumptions of the UEH.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The only reason for using this special kind of keyboard was that we needed to use it in Experiment 2.
The difference between the locked and the unlocked RSI conditions was further supported by a significant four-way interaction with the factors RSI duration (250 vs. 500 ms), Type of RSI (unlocked vs. locked), Response Position, and Block; F(16,1968) = 4.66, MSE = 13340.40, P < 0.01.
One might question our assumption that a relatively small number of experienced unexpected events might be capable of triggering attributional processes. However, from related research on typing, for instance, we know that a single typing error causing the next keystroke time to become lengthened by approximately 300 ms is sufficient to direct participants’ attention to the just typed word (Wilbert & Haider, submitted).
References
Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 227–287.
Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition, 79, 1–37.
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 735–808.
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (2002). A theory of the implicit nature of implicit learning. In R. M. French & A. Cleeremans (Eds.), Implicit learning and consciousness: An empirical, philosophical, and computational consensus in the making (pp. 68–92). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Frensch, P. A., Haider, H., Rünger, D., Neugebauer, U., Voigt, S., & Werg, J. (2002). Verbal report of incidentally experienced environmental regularity: The route from implicit learning to verbal expression of what has been learned. In L. Jiménez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 335–366). New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Frensch, P. A., & Rünger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 13–18.
Grosjean, M., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Elsinger, C. (2001). Timing and reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 256–272.
Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (2002). Why aggregated learning follows the power law of practice when individual learning does not: Comment on Rickard (1997, 1999), Delaney et al. (1998) and Palmeri (1999). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 392–406.
Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (2005). The generation of conscious awareness in an incidental learning situation. Psychological Research, 69, 399–411.
Haider, H., Frensch, P. A., & Joram, D. (2005). Are strategy shifts caused by data-driven processes or by voluntary processes? Consciousness & Cognition, 14, 495–519.
Haider, H., & Rose, M. (2007). How to investigate insight: A proposal. Methods, 42, 49–57.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoffmann, J., & Koch, I. (1997). Stimulus–response compatibility and sequential learning in the serial reaction time task. Psychological Research, 60, 87–97.
Hoyndorf, A., & Haider, H. (2008). The “Not Letting Go” phenomenon: Accuracy instructions can impair behavioral and metacognitive effects of implicit learning processes. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0180-4.
Kanwisher, N. (2001). Neural events and perceptual awareness. Cognition, 79, 89–113.
Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110, 316–339.
Kinder, A., & Shanks, D. R. (2003). Neuropsychological dissociations between priming and recognition: A single-system connectionist account. Psychological Review, 110, 728–744.
Kinder, A., Shanks, D. R., Cock, J., & Tunney, R. J. (2003). Recollection, fluency, and the explicit/implicit distinction in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 551–565.
Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 149–171.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 187–194.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.
Mandler, G. (2002). Consciousness recovered: Psychological functions and origins of conscious thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.
Norman, D. A. (1969). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwarts, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation. Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum Press.
Perruchet, P., Bigand, E., & Benoit-Gonin, F. (1997). The emergence of explicit knowledge during the early phase of learning in sequential reaction time task. Psychological Research, 60, 4–13.
Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (2002). The self-organizing consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 297–330.
Rose, M., Haider, H., Weiller, C., & Büchel, C. (2002). Medial temporal lobe involvement in implicit learning: An event-related fMRI study. Neuron, 36, 1221–1231.
Rose, M., Haider, H., Weiller, C., & Büchel, C. (2004). The relevance of the nature of learned associations for the differentiation of human memory systems. Learning & Memory, 11, 145–152.
Rose, M., Haider, H., & Büchel, C. (2005). Unconscious detection of implicit expectancies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 918–927.
Rosenthal, D. M. (2000). Consciousness, content, and metacognitive judgments. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 203–214.
Rünger, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2008). How incidental sequence learning creates reportable knowledge: The role of unexpected events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1011–1026.
Shanks, D. R. (2003). Attention and awareness in “implicit” sequence learning. In L. Jiménez (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 11–42). New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit Learning. Handbook of Cognition (pp. 202–221). London: Sage Publications.
Shanks, D. R., & Perruchet, P. (2002). Dissociation between priming and recognition in the expression of sequential knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 362–367.
Shanks, D. R., Wilkinson, L., & Channon, S. (2003). Relationship between priming and recognition in deterministic and probabilistic sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 248–261.
Squire, L. (1992). Declarative and nondeclarative memory: Multiple brain systems supporting learning and memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 232–243.
Stadler, M., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Handbook of implicit learning. London: Sage Publications.
Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. G. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence. Psychometric Monographs, No 2 94.
Wagner, U., Gais, S., Haider, H., Verleger, R., & Born, J. (2004). Sleep inspires insight. Nature, 427, 352–355.
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2002). Two routes to remembering (and another to remembering not). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 325–348.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Dorken, J. P. (1993). Incidentally, things in general are particularly determined: An episodic-processing account of implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 227–248.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141–165.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 547–565.
Willingham, D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105, 558–584.
Willingham, D. B., & Goedert-Eschmann, K. (1999). The relation between implicit and explicit learning: Evidence for parallel development. Psychological Science, 10, 531–534.
Wilkinson, L., & Shanks, D. R. (2004). Intentional control and implicit sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 354–369.
Woltz, D. J., Bell, B. G., Kyllonen, P. C., & Gardner, M. K. (1996). Memory for order of operations in the acquisition and transfer of sequential cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 438–457.
Woltz, D. J., Gardner, M. K., & Bell, B. G. (2000). Negative transfer errors in sequential cognitive skills: Strong-but-wrong sequence application. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 601–625.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haider, H., Frensch, P.A. Conflicts between expected and actually performed behavior lead to verbal report of incidentally acquired sequential knowledge. Psychological Research 73, 817–834 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0199-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0199-6