Abstract
Speed-accuracy trade-offs are often considered a confound in speeded choice tasks, but individual differences in strategy have been linked to personality and brain structure. We ask whether strategic adjustments in response caution are reliable, and whether they correlate across tasks and with impulsivity traits. In Study 1, participants performed Eriksen flanker and Stroop tasks in two sessions four weeks apart. We manipulated response caution by emphasising speed or accuracy. We fit the diffusion model for conflict tasks and correlated the change in boundary (accuracy – speed) across session and task. We observed moderate test-retest reliability, and medium to large correlations across tasks. We replicated this between-task correlation in Study 2 using flanker and perceptual decision tasks. We found no consistent correlations with impulsivity. Though moderate reliability poses a challenge for researchers interested in stable traits, consistent correlation between tasks indicates there are meaningful individual differences in the speed-accuracy trade-off.
Highlights
Response control is one of the cornerstones of cognitive psychology, and a topic of interest for both experimental and correlational approaches
Though the application of these tasks across different disciplines is promising for the development of a coherent understanding of response control, recent work has illustrated that there are challenges to interpreting individual differences because they can arise from different sources, including strategic processes (Boy & Sumner, 2014; Hedge, Powell, Bompas, Vivian-Griffiths, & Sumner, 2018; Miller & Ulrich, 2013)
We present the correlations between strategic adjustments of response caution and UPPS-P subscales in supplementary material E
Summary
Response control is one of the cornerstones of cognitive psychology, and a topic of interest for both experimental and correlational approaches. 1.1 Multiple processes underlying individual differences in response control In conflict tasks, such as the Stroop, flanker or Simon tasks, we typically subtract reaction times or errors in a baseline condition (congruent or neutral) from a condition in which the stimulus provides conflicting information (incongruent). The processes underlying behaviour are multifaceted, and variability in the magnitude of an RT cost or error cost cannot be attributed to a single mechanism (Hedge, Powell, Bompas, et al, 2018; Miller & Ulrich, 2013). It has long been theorised that an individual’s reaction time reflects their ability to process a stimulus, and their strategic choice to favour speed or accuracy (Pachella, 1974; Wickelgren, 1977). Individuals who favour accuracy over speed produce larger RT costs, as well as smaller error costs (Hedge, Powell, Bompas, et al, 2018; Hedge, Powell, & Sumner, 2018; Wickelgren, 1977)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
