Submission 131
Do Cognitive Stability and Flexibility Trade off? It Depends on How You Ask
SymposiumTalk-03
Presented by: Luca Moretti
It is almost intuitive that, at any given moment, we shield ongoing activities from distraction (i.e., we maintain stability), while remaining ready to switch to a new task if needed (i.e., we maintain flexibility). What is currently unclear, is whether the abilities to be flexible or stable are regulated independently, or one impacts the other. According to control-dilemmas accounts, cognitive flexibility and stability reflect antagonistic processing modes that must be optimally balanced depending on the circumstances. Under this view, greater flexibility entails less stability, and vice-versa. However, recent task-switching studies challenge this notion, showing that manipulations enhancing cognitive flexibility (e.g., increasing the proportion of switch trials) do not impact stability (as indexed by the congruency effect), and, complementarily, manipulations enhancing cognitive stability (e.g., increasing the proportion of incongruent trials) do not impact flexibility (measured with the switch cost). Although these findings have been replicated, it is unknown whether they generalize to other measures of stability and flexibility. We investigated this question by employing an alternative operationalization of stability, the valency effect (the difference between bivalent-congruent and univalent trials). Across three experiments and a re-analysis of published datasets, we manipulated the proportion of switch trials (promoting/discouraging flexibility) and the proportion of bivalent trials (promoting/discouraging stability). We observed that both manipulations held opposite effects on the switch cost and the valency effect. These results align with the trade-off view and highlight the need for a broader range of stability and flexibility measures to characterize the interplay between task shielding and task switching.