Limits...
Attentional bias in competitive situations: winner does not take all.

Sun Z, Bai T, Yu W, Zhou J, Zhang M, Shen M - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: After observing one of these games, participants were asked to judge a stimulus presented on either the winner's or loser's side of a screen.Both experiments yielded the same results, indicating that the onlookers made much quicker judgments on stimuli presented on the loser's side than the winner's side.Our findings provide a new lens through which the influence of competition results on human cognitive processing can be understood.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou China.

ABSTRACT
Compared to previous studies of competition with participants' direct involvement, the current study for the first time investigated the influence of competitive outcomes on attentional bias from a perspective of an onlooker. Two simple games were employed: the Rock-Paper-Scissors game (Experiment 1) in which the outcome is based on luck, and Arm-wrestling (Experiment 2), in which the outcome is based on the competitors' strength. After observing one of these games, participants were asked to judge a stimulus presented on either the winner's or loser's side of a screen. Both experiments yielded the same results, indicating that the onlookers made much quicker judgments on stimuli presented on the loser's side than the winner's side. This suggests the existence of an attention bias for loser-related information once a competition has ended. Our findings provide a new lens through which the influence of competition results on human cognitive processing can be understood.

No MeSH data available.


Results of Experiment 1. (A) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions with three paired gestures. The error bars represent one SEM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4585104&req=5

Figure 2: Results of Experiment 1. (A) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions with three paired gestures. The error bars represent one SEM.

Mentions: Interestingly, for RT, a significant main effect for test-item position was found, F(1,13) = 7.03, p = 0.020, = 0.35, while none was found for winner-loser situation (see Figure 2A), F(2,26) = 1.08, p > 0.250, = 0.08. Post hoc contrast analyses revealed a somewhat faster response speed for items on the loser side [784.83 ± 101.25, 95% Confidence Interval or 95% CI (727.53, 842.13)] compared to the winner side [811.34 ± 108.61, 95% CI (749.05, 873.63)]. Moreover, no interaction was found between test-item position and winner-loser situation, F(2,26) = 0.93, p > 0.250, = 0.07, implying that performance with all three winner-loser situations shared almost the same tendency in terms of results (see Figure 2B)1. No main effect for accuracy was found for either test-item position [Test-in-Winner, 93.06 ± 3.89%, 95% CI (90.81%, 95.30%)]; [Test-in-Loser, 92.56 ± 3.68%, 95% CI (90.44%, 94.68%)], F(1,13) = 0.28, p > 0.250, = 0.02, or winner-loser situation, F(2,26) = 0.08, p > 0.250, = 0.01, nor was there interaction between the variables, F(2,26) = 1.23, p > 0.250, = 0.09. The accuracy results strongly confirmed that the salient RT difference was not due to a speed-accuracy trade-off.


Attentional bias in competitive situations: winner does not take all.

Sun Z, Bai T, Yu W, Zhou J, Zhang M, Shen M - Front Psychol (2015)

Results of Experiment 1. (A) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions with three paired gestures. The error bars represent one SEM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4585104&req=5

Figure 2: Results of Experiment 1. (A) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) for Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions with three paired gestures. The error bars represent one SEM.
Mentions: Interestingly, for RT, a significant main effect for test-item position was found, F(1,13) = 7.03, p = 0.020, = 0.35, while none was found for winner-loser situation (see Figure 2A), F(2,26) = 1.08, p > 0.250, = 0.08. Post hoc contrast analyses revealed a somewhat faster response speed for items on the loser side [784.83 ± 101.25, 95% Confidence Interval or 95% CI (727.53, 842.13)] compared to the winner side [811.34 ± 108.61, 95% CI (749.05, 873.63)]. Moreover, no interaction was found between test-item position and winner-loser situation, F(2,26) = 0.93, p > 0.250, = 0.07, implying that performance with all three winner-loser situations shared almost the same tendency in terms of results (see Figure 2B)1. No main effect for accuracy was found for either test-item position [Test-in-Winner, 93.06 ± 3.89%, 95% CI (90.81%, 95.30%)]; [Test-in-Loser, 92.56 ± 3.68%, 95% CI (90.44%, 94.68%)], F(1,13) = 0.28, p > 0.250, = 0.02, or winner-loser situation, F(2,26) = 0.08, p > 0.250, = 0.01, nor was there interaction between the variables, F(2,26) = 1.23, p > 0.250, = 0.09. The accuracy results strongly confirmed that the salient RT difference was not due to a speed-accuracy trade-off.

Bottom Line: After observing one of these games, participants were asked to judge a stimulus presented on either the winner's or loser's side of a screen.Both experiments yielded the same results, indicating that the onlookers made much quicker judgments on stimuli presented on the loser's side than the winner's side.Our findings provide a new lens through which the influence of competition results on human cognitive processing can be understood.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou China.

ABSTRACT
Compared to previous studies of competition with participants' direct involvement, the current study for the first time investigated the influence of competitive outcomes on attentional bias from a perspective of an onlooker. Two simple games were employed: the Rock-Paper-Scissors game (Experiment 1) in which the outcome is based on luck, and Arm-wrestling (Experiment 2), in which the outcome is based on the competitors' strength. After observing one of these games, participants were asked to judge a stimulus presented on either the winner's or loser's side of a screen. Both experiments yielded the same results, indicating that the onlookers made much quicker judgments on stimuli presented on the loser's side than the winner's side. This suggests the existence of an attention bias for loser-related information once a competition has ended. Our findings provide a new lens through which the influence of competition results on human cognitive processing can be understood.

No MeSH data available.