Do slower target responses in an Eriksen Flanker task mean that 1) the distractor created a lot interference and thus STRONGER distractor/response INHIBITION was applied or 2) the distractor created a lot interference because of INEFFECTIVE INHIBITORY processes (i.e., LESS INHIBITION)?
The first question to answer would be "what is interference". If interference is a state where perceptions are competing for your attention and in turn your response capacities I would say that a delay in response most likely can be attributed to an ineffective inhibitory process. If the inhibitory process was in place the conflicting stimuli would not be a challenge and thus not cause any delay in RT.
What then happens on the next trial would be depend on whether you'd think that there is conflict adaptation process going on (which would improve RT on the next trial), or whether there is instead the case of cognitive depletion (which should cause longer RT's).
Did that answer your question?
If you only consider average RT to congruent vs incongruent stimuli (i.e. those where non-target stimuli are associated with the same response required by the target or a different one), you are fully right in noting that longer RTs with incongruent stimuli leave open two possible interpretations.
However, if you also consider individual differences, you can note that the people who show a larger cost for incongruent stimuli are those who have less efficient inhibitory processes (as shown by their performance in other tasks, or suggested by their age or their pathological conditions). Therefore, you can assume that particualrly long RTs with incongruent stimuli are a marker of ineffective inhibition.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude