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 2. (A) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions in three match situations. The error bars represent one SEM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 3: Results of Experiment 2. (A) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions in three match situations. The error bars represent one SEM.

Mentions: The results for RT almost replicated those in Experiment 1. A significant main effect was only found for test-item position (see Figure 3A), F(1,13) = 10.27, p = 0.007, = 0.44. Post hoc contrast showed a relatively shorter RT in the Test-in-Loser condition [533.58 ± 98.28, 95% CI (477.78, 591.28)] than in Test-in-Winner [546.87 ± 96.45, 95% CI (491.74, 603.39)]. Nor significant main effect for match situation, F(2,26) = 1.13, p > 0.250, = 0.08, nor interaction was found (see Figure 3B), F(2,26) = 0.49, p > 0.250, = 0.04.


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 2. (A) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions in three match situations. The error bars represent one SEM.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 3: Results of Experiment 2. (A) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions. (B) Reaction times (ms) of Test-in-Winner and Test-in-Loser conditions in three match situations. The error bars represent one SEM.
Mentions: The results for RT almost replicated those in Experiment 1. A significant main effect was only found for test-item position (see Figure 3A), F(1,13) = 10.27, p = 0.007, = 0.44. Post hoc contrast showed a relatively shorter RT in the Test-in-Loser condition [533.58 ± 98.28, 95% CI (477.78, 591.28)] than in Test-in-Winner [546.87 ± 96.45, 95% CI (491.74, 603.39)]. Nor significant main effect for match situation, F(2,26) = 1.13, p > 0.250, = 0.08, nor interaction was found (see Figure 3B), F(2,26) = 0.49, p > 0.250, = 0.04.

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.