Abstract

After incidentally learning about a hidden regularity, participants can either continue to solve the task as instructed or, alternatively, apply a shortcut. Past research suggests that the amount of conflict implied by adopting a shortcut seems to bias the decision for vs. against continuing instruction-coherent task processing. We explored whether this decision might transfer from one incidental learning task to the next. Theories that conceptualize strategy change in incidental learning as a learning-plus-decision phenomenon suggest that high demands to adhere to instruction-coherent task processing in Task 1 will impede shortcut usage in Task 2, whereas low control demands will foster it. We sequentially applied two established incidental learning tasks differing in stimuli, responses and hidden regularity (the alphabet verification task followed by the serial reaction task, SRT). While some participants experienced a complete redundancy in the task material of the alphabet verification task (low demands to adhere to instructions), for others the redundancy was only partial. Thus, shortcut application would have led to errors (high demands to follow instructions). The low control demand condition showed the strongest usage of the fixed and repeating sequence of responses in the SRT. The transfer results are in line with the learning-plus-decision view of strategy change in incidental learning, rather than with resource theories of self-control.

Highlights

  • The human factors literature counts many cases where, with experience, people change from processing a task as instructed to applying a shortcut (Reason, 1990; Niessen et al, 1999; Underwood et al, 2002)

  • Beforehand, we checked whether the manipulation of the feasibility of information reduction led to performance effects in the alphabet verification task itself

  • As participants in the low control demand condition could safely skip to check some of the string positions, it was to be expected that they should be generally faster than participants of the high control demand condition

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The human factors literature counts many cases where, with experience, people change from processing a task as instructed to applying a shortcut (Reason, 1990; Niessen et al, 1999; Underwood et al, 2002). This has triggered experimental work on incidental learning to explore the role of cognitive control in strategy change (e.g., Strayer and Kramer, 1994; Haider and Frensch, 1999; Touron and Hertzog, 2004a,b; Haider et al, 2005; Hoyndorf and Haider, 2009). On average this group showed a higher rate of shortcut usage than the group for which more errors would have resulted from disregarding the instructions (high control demand)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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