312 Action Selection
flick the switch up. One of the most widely studied popula-
tion stereotypes is that of direction of motion. Operators of
systems that require control of direction of motion must make
decisions regarding which direction to move a control in
order to move the system or display indicator in a particular
direction. Across populations of individuals, many arrange-
ments show preferred relations between the direction of con-
trol action and outcome of system output (see Loveless,
1962).
Obviously, when a linear control is in the same orientation
as a linear display, the stereotype is to expect the display to
move in the same direction as the control. More interesting,
when a linear display is oriented perpendicularly to the linear
control, right is paired with upward movement and left is
paired with downward movement. With control knobs, clock-
wise rotation tends to be associated with up or right move-
ments (see Hoffman, 1990a, 1990b). In addition, there is a
stereotype, called Warrick’s principle, that the display is ex-
pected to move in the same direction as the part of the control
that is nearest to the display. With a vertical display, a clock-
wise rotation would be preferred if the control were located
to the right of the display and a counter-clockwise rotation if
it were located to the left.
Hoffman (1990a, 1990b) evaluated the relative strength of
the stereotypes for two- and three-dimensional display and
control relationships. He found that different populations (in
this case, engineers and psychologists) differed in their pref-
erence. Engineers were more likely to follow Warrick’s prin-
ciple, most likely because it has a mechanical basis, whereas
psychologists tended to follow the stereotype of preferring
clockwise for up and right movement. This difference em-
phasizes not only that the specific experience of individuals is
important, but also that the preferred relations are based on
the individual’s mental model for the task.
SUMMING UP
Action selection is an important part of behavior inside and
outside of the laboratory because choices among alternative
actions are required in virtually all situations. Action selec-
tion has been a topic of interest in human experimental psy-
chology since Donders’s (1868/1969) seminal work, with
contemporary research on the topic being at the forefront of
the cognitive revolution in the 1950s. S-R compatibility,
which is the quintessential action-selection topic, saw a surge
in research in the 1990s, with significant advances made in
the development of theoretical frameworks for explaining a
variety of phenomena in terms of common mechanisms.
As we move into the twenty-first century, the range of tasks
and environments in which compatibility effects play a sig-
nificant role, and the significant insights these effects provide
regarding human performance, is only now coming to be
fully appreciated.REFERENCESAdam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., & Umiltà, C. (1998). The
up-right/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and
horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis.
Journal of Experiment Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 24,1582–1597.
Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, H., (1994). Shifting intentional
set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M.
Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance: Vol. 15. Con-
scious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1990). Display-control compat-
ibility in the cockpit: Guidelines for display layout analysis.
(ARL-90-12/NASA-A^3 I-90-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois,
Aviation Research Laboratory.
Baldo, J. V., Shimamura, A., & Prinzmetal, W. (1998). Mapping
symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-
like tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 60,427–437.
Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial
two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 13,90–102.
Bertelson, P. (1967). The time course of preparation. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19,272–279.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
Campbell, K. C., & Proctor, R. W. (1993). Repetition effects with
categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19,
1345–1362.
Chapanis, A., & Lindenbaum, L. E. (1959). A reaction time study of
four control-display linkages. Human Factors, 1(4), 1–7.
Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Effect of an initiating action on
the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli
and horizontally arrayed responses. Journal of Experiment
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27,472–484.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the con-
trol of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing ac-
count of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97,332–361.
Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the
rotation of mental images. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual informa-
tion processing(pp. 75–176). New York: Academic Press.
Dalrymple-Alford, E. C., & Budayr, B. (1966). Examination of
some aspects if the Stroop color-word test. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 23,1211–1214.