ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2025
Investigating the gaze-driven reversed congruency effect in the spatial Stroop task: A distributional approach.
Article in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Face masks do not hinder gaze-triggered social attention.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Perceptual distraction causes attentional but outdated information to intrude into working memory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- When gaze conflicts with space: Implicit eye contact and the reversed congruency effect.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Investigating the gaze-driven reversed congruency effect in the spatial Stroop task: A distributional approach.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025Article
- Ethnicity does not matter: Comparable reversed congruency effects for gaze stimuli from same- and other-ethnicity faces.Psychological research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated how social (faces and eyes) and non-social (arrows) stimuli modulate attentional orienting in a spatial Stroop task, using a distributional approach. Data from 11 studies (N = 705) were analysed through cumulative distribution functions (CDF), delta functions, and polynomial trend analyses. Three models were applied: (1) a reaction time (RT) model comparing social (faces and eyes) vs. non-social stimuli under congruent and incongruent conditions, (2) a delta model assessing conflict effects across quantiles, and (3) a trend model identifying specific delta function patterns. Non-social targets produced a standard congruency effect (SCE), with faster responses in congruent trials but no consistent conflict reduction across the distribution. In contrast, social stimuli exhibited a reversed congruency effect (RCE), with faster responses in incongruent trials, emerging from the second quantile onward and minimal conflict among the fastest responses. Social targets exhibited comparable reaction times in the RT model and similar early delta plot patterns, suggesting shared initial perceptual and attentional mechanisms between faces and eyes. However, faces eventually induced a larger RCE, possibly due to their more complex configuration. These findings highlight distinctive patterns between social and non-social processing in the spatial Stroop task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.