| Title |
Ironic capture: top-down expectations exacerbate distraction in visual search
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-017-0917-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Greg Huffman, Jason Rajsic, Jay Pratt |
| Abstract |
Ironic processing refers to the phenomenon where attempting to resist doing something results in a person doing that very thing. Here, we report three experiments investigating the role of ironic processing in visual search. In Experiment 1, we informed observers that they could predict the location of a salient color singleton in a visual search task and found that response times were slower in that condition than in a condition where the singleton's location was random. Experiment 2 used the same experimental design but did not inform participants of the color singleton's behavior. Experiment 3 showed that the cost in the predictable condition was not due to dual task costs or block order effects and participants attempting to use the strategy showed a larger cost in the predictable condition than those who abandoned using that location foreknowledge. In this case, responses in the predictable color singleton condition were equivalent with the random color singleton condition. This suggests that having more knowledge about an upcoming, salient distractor ironically increases its interfering influence on performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,448,386
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#870
of 973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,229
of 316,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.