Lien Mei-Ching, Ruthruff Eric, Remington Roger W, Johnston James C
Department of Psychology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Apr;31(2):299-315. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.2.299.
This study investigated the nature of advance preparation for a task switch, testing 2 key assumptions of R. De Jong's (2000) failure-to-engage theory: (a) Task-switch preparation is all-or-none, and (b) preparation failures stem from nonutilization of available control capabilities. In 3 experiments, switch costs varied dramatically across individual stimulus-response (S-R) pairs of the tasks-virtually absent for 1 pair but large for others. These findings indicate that, across trials, task preparation was not all-or-none but, rather, consistently partial (full preparation for some S-R pairs but not others). In other words, people do not prepare all of the task some of the time, they prepare some of the task all of the time. Experiments 2 and 3 produced substantial switch costs even though time deadlines provided strong incentives for optimal advance preparation. Thus, there was no evidence that people have a latent capability to fully prepare for a task switch.
本研究调查了任务切换的提前准备的本质,检验了R. 德容(2000年)的未参与理论的两个关键假设:(a)任务切换准备是全或无的,以及(b)准备失败源于未利用可用的控制能力。在3个实验中,切换成本在任务的各个刺激-反应(S-R)对之间有很大差异——对于一对几乎不存在,但对其他对则很大。这些发现表明,在多次试验中,任务准备不是全或无的,而是始终部分存在(对一些S-R对进行了充分准备,但对其他对则没有)。换句话说,人们不是有时对所有任务进行准备,而是始终对部分任务进行准备。实验2和实验3产生了大量的切换成本,即使时间期限为最佳提前准备提供了强烈激励。因此,没有证据表明人们具有为任务切换进行充分准备的潜在能力。