Talking and driving: applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language

Talking reduces attention resulting in real-world crash risks to drivers that talk on a phone and drive. Driving is a behavior that is very demanding on spatial attention, suggesting potentially large interference by spatial codes in language. The current study investigated how different types of verbal codes influence visual attention during dual-task performance. In two experiments, participants performed a spatial or non-spatial verbal task while simultaneously performing a visual attention task. The results showed a larger decrement to visual attention performance when participants were concurrently engaged in a spatial verbal task. The results of the second experiment isolated this effect to the right cerebral hemisphere, consistent with a role for shared right parietal resources. These results are consistent with the idea that processing codes are an important component of coordinating talking and driving but generally inconsistent with a broad class of bottleneck approaches that describes dual-task decrements but treats component tasks as cognitively equivalent.     

The influence of perceived accountability and outcome interdependence on goals and effort

Self‐regulatory processes are central to achievement contexts, as individuals spend much of their time in these situations pursuing goals. This study investigated the effects of accountability and outcome interdependence on goal and effort regulation over time. Participants completed five task trials, reporting goals and intended effort prior to each trial and receiving performance feedback after each trial. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses indicated that there was a positive within‐person relationship between performance and subsequent goals. More importantly, findings indicated that the performance–goal relationship was moderated by accountability and the performance–effort relationship was moderated by outcome interdependence. These results reveal that the goal and effort regulation patterns observed in prior studies are influenced by common social contextual factors, leading to different patterns of self‐regulation.