Executive control processes can broaden attention for those with high approach tendencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overriding one's dominant response tendencies by exercising self-control has been suggested to affect whether people see the "forest or the trees" (i.e., global/local bias), which is corroborated by evidence from both behavioural and electrophysiological measures. Since there are reliable individual differences in global/local processing, the extent to which the self-control exercise is producing this change - above and beyond the effect of people's individual differences in trait-like bias - is still unclear. Trait self-control and approach-motivated tendencies have both been suggested in past research to affect global/local processing. Here undergraduate participants viewed hierarchical letters (e.g., the letter F made of T's), both before and after completing incongruent (high self-control) or congruent (low self-control) colour Stroop tasks, and they were asked to report the target letters within the global and local levels of the images as quickly as possible. Also, participants completed self-report questionnaires to measure their general trait-like tendencies (e.g., Circumplex Affect Questionnaire, Behavioural Inhibition Scale; BIS, Behavioural Activation Scale; BAS, Self-Control Scale, Impulsivity Scale). Results showed that there was only a significant change in global bias (Local RT – Global RT) during the incongruent condition relative to the congruent condition when considering participant's approach-like tendencies; higher BAS and lower BIS participants tended to show a greater global bias after the self-control task compared to the pre-Stroop baseline, relative to people with lower BAS and higher BIS scores. The findings from this study provide further support that approach-motivated tendencies are integral to better understanding the effect that executive functioning has on global/local bias. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".