How semantic categorization influences inhibitory processing in middle-childhood: an Event Related Potentials study

Throughout middle-childhood, inhibitory processes, which underlie many higher order cognitive tasks, are developing. Little is known about how inhibitory processes change as a task becomes conceptually more difficult during these important years. In adults, as Go/NoGo tasks become more difficult there is a systematic decrease in the P3NoGo response, indicating the use of effective inhibitory strategies (Maguire et al., 2009). This paper investigates the age at which children employ similar inhibitory strategies by studying behavioral and Event Related Potential (ERP) measures of response inhibition for three Go/NoGo tasks. Seventeen 7-8 year-olds and twenty 10-11-year-olds completed three Go/NoGo tasks that differed in the level of categorization necessary to respond. Both age groups displayed slower reaction times as the tasks became more difficult. Further, both groups displayed the predicted Go vs. NoGo P3 amplitude differences in the two simplest tasks, but no significant P3 differences for the most complex task. The reason for this pattern of responses was different in the different age groups. Similar to adults in previous work, the oldest children showed an attenuation of the P3 NoGo response with task difficulty, and no corresponding changes in the Go amplitude. The younger children displayed the opposite pattern, a significant increase in the Go amplitude with task difficulty, and no changes in the NoGo response. These response patterns indicate that efficient inhibitory strategies are developing throughout middle-childhood.     

7种嫉妒评估量表的信度与效度研究

研究西方7种嫉妒评估量表在中国使用的信度与效度。结果发现,7种嫉妒评估量表具有较高的分半信度和内部一致性信度;内容效度和效标关联效度能够满足中国被试者的使用要求;但各量表内容重复性较大,适用范围限于爱情及关系嫉妒,并不适合评估其他嫉妒类型。     

False consensus in situational judgment tests: What would others do?

We introduce an alternative response instruction to reduce the fakability of situational judgment tests. This novel instruction is based on the false consensus effect, a robust social psychological bias whereby people infer that the majority of other people’s thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors are aligned with their own. In four studies, including both field and laboratory data (total N = 882), we demonstrate that participants show a false consensus bias when asked what others would do in situational judgment tests. Furthermore, the situational judgment test based on the false consensus effect turned out to relatively difficult to be fake, and produced scores that were meaningfully correlated with conceptually related traits, as well as both self-reported and behavioral outcomes.     

Driver conflict response during supervised automation: Do hands on wheel matter?

Securing appropriate driver responses to conflicts is essential in automation that is not perfect (because the driver is needed as a fall-back for system limitations and failures). However, this is recognized as a major challenge in the human factors literature. Moreover, in-depth knowledge is lacking regarding mechanisms affecting the driver response process. The first aim of this study was to investigate how driver conflict response while using highly reliable (but not perfect) supervised automation differ for drivers that (a) crash or avoid a conflict object and (b) report high trust or low trust in automation to avoid the conflict object. The second aim was to understand the influence on the driver conflict response of two specific factors: a hands-on-wheel requirement (with vs. without), and the conflict object type (garbage bag vs. stationary vehicle). Seventy-six participants drove with highly reliable but supervised automation for 30 min on a test track. Thereafter they needed to avoid a static object that was revealed by a lead-vehicle cut-out. The driver conflict response was assessed through the response process: timepoints for driver surprise reaction, hands-on-wheel, driver steering, and driver braking. Crashers generally responded later in all actions of the response process compared to non-crashers. In fact, some crashers collided with the conflict object without even putting their hands on the wheel. Driver conflict response was independent of the hands-on-wheel requirement. High-trust drivers generally responded later than the low-trust drivers or not at all, and only high trust drivers crashed. The larger stationary vehicle triggered an earlier surprise reaction compared to the garbage bag, while hands-on-wheel and steering response were similar for the two conflict object types. To conclude, crashing is associated with a delay in all actions of the response process. In addition, driver conflict response does not change with a hands-on-wheel requirement but changes with trust-level and conflict object type. Simply holding the hands on the wheel is not sufficient to prevent collisions or elicit earlier responses. High trust in automation is associated with late response and crashing, whereas low trust is associated with appropriate driver response. A larger conflict object trigger earlier surprise reactions.