Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets

Abstract

Response retrieval theories assume that stimuli and responses become integrated into “event files” (Hommel, 1998) in memory so that a second encounter with a specific stimulus automatically retrieves the response that was previously associated with this stimulus. In this article, we tested a specific prediction of a recent variant of stimulus retrieval theories as introduced by Rothermund, Wentura, and De Houwer (2005): In selection tasks where target stimuli are accompanied by distractors, responses to target stimuli are automatically bound to distractor stimuli as well; repeating the distractor should retrieve the response to the target that formerly accompanied the distractor. In three experiments we confirmed this prediction: Distractor repetition facilitated responding in the probe in the case of response repetition whereas repeating the distractor delayed responding in the case of response change.

Notes

¹ The direction of this main effect is opposite to that in the previous experiments. This is because response repetition no longer produces benefits if the target is not repeated. Instead, repeating a response might even lead to a delay if different stimuli are presented in prime and probe (see, e.g., Kleinsorge, 1999; Notebaert & Soetens, 2003; Quinlan, 1999).

² Note that in this ANOVA prime congruency could not orthogonally be varied to probe congruency and priming conditions. This is simply due to the fact that, for example, a trial with target repetition and categorical distractor change can not be congruent in both prime and probe.