Limits...
The influence of observers' sex on attention-demanding performance depends on performers' sex.

Wang L, Tan J, Chen J, Chen A - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: They alternated their roles in two successive blocks.The results revealed that (1) larger PES effect was observed in females than in males in the interaction context; (2) the sex difference of PES effect mainly benefited from the opposite-sex interaction; (3) larger PES effect was observed in the interaction context than in the individual context; (4) females' performance was influenced after an interaction with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, whereas males' performance was merely influenced after an interaction with an opposite-sex partner.Taken together, these findings may suggest that (1) interaction context modulates the PES effect differently for females and males; (2) females are more susceptible to social information and hence more effective to adjust the post-error behaviors.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality of Ministry of Education, School of Psychology, Southwest University , Chongqing, China.

ABSTRACT
Post-error slowing (PES) indicates the slower responses after errors than after correct responses. Prior studies mainly focus on how the observation errors influence one own's performance, there is no study investigating how other's monitoring influence one own's performance. Additionally, the issue that whether social context influences the PES effect differently for females and males is still unclear. To address aforementioned issues, we required the participants to interact with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner to complete a color flanker task together (they sat next to each other, Experiment 1). One was the performer (perform the flanker task), and the other was the observer (monitor the error responses of performer). They alternated their roles in two successive blocks. To further verify the role of the interaction context, a control experiment was conducted in the individual context (Experiment 2). The results revealed that (1) larger PES effect was observed in females than in males in the interaction context; (2) the sex difference of PES effect mainly benefited from the opposite-sex interaction; (3) larger PES effect was observed in the interaction context than in the individual context; (4) females' performance was influenced after an interaction with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, whereas males' performance was merely influenced after an interaction with an opposite-sex partner. Taken together, these findings may suggest that (1) interaction context modulates the PES effect differently for females and males; (2) females are more susceptible to social information and hence more effective to adjust the post-error behaviors.

No MeSH data available.


Schematic illustration of the procedures. (A) The experimental setup of the interaction context used in Experiment 1. (B) The experimental setup of the individual context used in Experiment 2. Notably, in the interaction context, two participants were arranged to sit next to someone of the same sex or the opposite sex and to complete the task together. One was responsible for performing the flanker task (performer), and the other was responsible for observing the partner’s performance (observer). They exchanged their roles after completing one block. The cross fixation (+) cued participant A as the performer, and the asterisk (*) cued participant B as the performer. In the individual context, the participant completed the task alone.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4553392&req=5

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the procedures. (A) The experimental setup of the interaction context used in Experiment 1. (B) The experimental setup of the individual context used in Experiment 2. Notably, in the interaction context, two participants were arranged to sit next to someone of the same sex or the opposite sex and to complete the task together. One was responsible for performing the flanker task (performer), and the other was responsible for observing the partner’s performance (observer). They exchanged their roles after completing one block. The cross fixation (+) cued participant A as the performer, and the asterisk (*) cued participant B as the performer. In the individual context, the participant completed the task alone.

Mentions: Figure 1A displays the timing of one trial in the interaction context. Each trial started with a 300 ms fixation (+/*). The cross (+) fixation cued participant A as a performer, while the asterisk (*) fixation cued participant B as a performer. After completing one block, their roles exchanged. When the fixation disappeared, a blank screen was presented in a random interval for 300–500 ms. Then, an array of five color rounds presented in the center of the screen for 110 ms, followed by a 1,000 ms blank screen. Participants needed to respond to the central target in this interval, with a maximal time limitation of 1,000 ms. After a response was made, the blank screen immediately disappeared and the response of the performer (one of the four response keys) presented in the screen for 1,000 ms, which would help the observers to realize the correctness of key-press of their partners. Next, the number sign (#) presented the screen for 1,000 ms. Here, the observers were instructed to press the spacebar when they observed their partners made wrong responses (terminated after the spacebar was pressed within this interval). When the performers’ responses were correct, the observers did not need to respond, and the number sign would last for 1,000 ms. Finally, a 800–1,000 ms interval was presented (interval varied randomly).


The influence of observers' sex on attention-demanding performance depends on performers' sex.

Wang L, Tan J, Chen J, Chen A - Front Psychol (2015)

Schematic illustration of the procedures. (A) The experimental setup of the interaction context used in Experiment 1. (B) The experimental setup of the individual context used in Experiment 2. Notably, in the interaction context, two participants were arranged to sit next to someone of the same sex or the opposite sex and to complete the task together. One was responsible for performing the flanker task (performer), and the other was responsible for observing the partner’s performance (observer). They exchanged their roles after completing one block. The cross fixation (+) cued participant A as the performer, and the asterisk (*) cued participant B as the performer. In the individual context, the participant completed the task alone.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4553392&req=5

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the procedures. (A) The experimental setup of the interaction context used in Experiment 1. (B) The experimental setup of the individual context used in Experiment 2. Notably, in the interaction context, two participants were arranged to sit next to someone of the same sex or the opposite sex and to complete the task together. One was responsible for performing the flanker task (performer), and the other was responsible for observing the partner’s performance (observer). They exchanged their roles after completing one block. The cross fixation (+) cued participant A as the performer, and the asterisk (*) cued participant B as the performer. In the individual context, the participant completed the task alone.
Mentions: Figure 1A displays the timing of one trial in the interaction context. Each trial started with a 300 ms fixation (+/*). The cross (+) fixation cued participant A as a performer, while the asterisk (*) fixation cued participant B as a performer. After completing one block, their roles exchanged. When the fixation disappeared, a blank screen was presented in a random interval for 300–500 ms. Then, an array of five color rounds presented in the center of the screen for 110 ms, followed by a 1,000 ms blank screen. Participants needed to respond to the central target in this interval, with a maximal time limitation of 1,000 ms. After a response was made, the blank screen immediately disappeared and the response of the performer (one of the four response keys) presented in the screen for 1,000 ms, which would help the observers to realize the correctness of key-press of their partners. Next, the number sign (#) presented the screen for 1,000 ms. Here, the observers were instructed to press the spacebar when they observed their partners made wrong responses (terminated after the spacebar was pressed within this interval). When the performers’ responses were correct, the observers did not need to respond, and the number sign would last for 1,000 ms. Finally, a 800–1,000 ms interval was presented (interval varied randomly).

Bottom Line: They alternated their roles in two successive blocks.The results revealed that (1) larger PES effect was observed in females than in males in the interaction context; (2) the sex difference of PES effect mainly benefited from the opposite-sex interaction; (3) larger PES effect was observed in the interaction context than in the individual context; (4) females' performance was influenced after an interaction with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, whereas males' performance was merely influenced after an interaction with an opposite-sex partner.Taken together, these findings may suggest that (1) interaction context modulates the PES effect differently for females and males; (2) females are more susceptible to social information and hence more effective to adjust the post-error behaviors.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality of Ministry of Education, School of Psychology, Southwest University , Chongqing, China.

ABSTRACT
Post-error slowing (PES) indicates the slower responses after errors than after correct responses. Prior studies mainly focus on how the observation errors influence one own's performance, there is no study investigating how other's monitoring influence one own's performance. Additionally, the issue that whether social context influences the PES effect differently for females and males is still unclear. To address aforementioned issues, we required the participants to interact with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner to complete a color flanker task together (they sat next to each other, Experiment 1). One was the performer (perform the flanker task), and the other was the observer (monitor the error responses of performer). They alternated their roles in two successive blocks. To further verify the role of the interaction context, a control experiment was conducted in the individual context (Experiment 2). The results revealed that (1) larger PES effect was observed in females than in males in the interaction context; (2) the sex difference of PES effect mainly benefited from the opposite-sex interaction; (3) larger PES effect was observed in the interaction context than in the individual context; (4) females' performance was influenced after an interaction with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, whereas males' performance was merely influenced after an interaction with an opposite-sex partner. Taken together, these findings may suggest that (1) interaction context modulates the PES effect differently for females and males; (2) females are more susceptible to social information and hence more effective to adjust the post-error behaviors.

No MeSH data available.