On the Assimilation of Instructions: Stimulus-response Associations are Implemented but not Stimulus-task Associations

		DF	MSE	F	p	BF	η²_p
Experiment 1	RT	(2,60)	153.74	22.17	< 0.001	> 1000 ± 1.49%	.42
	ER	(2,60)	.0004	6.04	< 0.01	9.07 ± 0.71%	.17
Experiment 2	RT	(2,84)	213.53	19.63	< 0.001	> 1000 ± 0.89%	.32
	ER	(2,84)	.0005	4.18	< 0.05	2.20 ± 0.99%	.09
Experiment 3	RT	(2,90)	204.37	32.54	< 0.001	> 1000 ± 0.99%	.42
	ER	(2,90)	.0003	18.6	< 0.001	> 1000 ± 0.63%	.29
Experiment 4	RT	(3,114)	293.88	3.18	< 0.05	1.34 ± 0.52%	.08
	ER	(3,114)	.001	14.96	< 0.001	> 1000 ± 0.84%	.28

RTs (bars) and ERs (printed values) as a function of stimulus type in each experiment. Error bars denote standard errors. Standard errors for ERs are printed between brackets.

Table 2

Outcome of the paired t-tests used for decomposing the main effects of Experiments 1–3.

			Diff.	lower CI	upper CI	DF	t	p	BF	g_av
Exp. 1	RT	Incongruent – Congruent	20.76	15.22	26.3	30	7.65	< .001	> 1000	.24
		Univalent – Congruent	7.79	0.88	14.72	30	2.3	< .05	1.86	.10
		Incongruent – Univalent	12.96	6.22	19.71	30	3.92	< .001	64.05	.15
	ER	Incongruent – Congruent	.02	0.01	.03	30	3.43	< .01	19.83	.54
		Univalent – Congruent	.01	.00	.02	30	1.40	.17	.46	.22
		Incongruent – Univalent	.01	.00	.02	30	2.03	.05	1.14	.29
Exp. 2	RT	Incongruent – Congruent	19.63	12.62	26.63	42	5.65	< .001	> 1000	.22
		Univalent – Congruent	7.91	2.56	13.26	42	2.98	< .01	7.59	.09
		Incongruent – Univalent	11.71	5.11	18.32	42	3.58	< .01	33.27	.13
	ER	Incongruent – Congruent	.01	.00	.02	42	2.49	< .05	2.59	.39
		Univalent – Congruent	.00	–.01	.01	42	.39	0.69	.18	.06
		Incongruent – Univalent	.01	.00	.02	42	2.46	< .05	2.42	.33
Exp. 3	RT	Incongruent – Congruent	24.04	17.95	30.19	45	7.95	< .001	> 1000	.28
		Univalent – Congruent	12.43	8.25	16.61	45	5.99	< .001	> 1000	.25
		Incongruent – Univalent	11.61	4.29	18.93	45	3.19	< .01	12.69	.14
	ER	Incongruent – Congruent	.02	.02	.03	45	5.99	< .001	> 1000	.87
		Univalent – Congruent	.02	.01	.03	45	4.72	< .001	908.21	.69
		Incongruent – Univalent	.00	–.01	.01	45	.89	0.38	.23	.11

Table 3

Outcome of the paired t-tests used for decomposing the main effects of Experiment 4.

		Diff.	lower CI	upper CI	DF	t	p	BF	g_av
RT	Incongruent – Congruent	11.8	3.59	20.01	38	2.91	< .01	6.35	.12
	Un. String – Congruent	4.08	–2.86	11.02	38	1.19	.24	.33	.04
	Un. Noun – Congruent	5.32	–2.07	12.71	38	1.46	.15	.46	.06
	Incongruent – Un. String	–7.72	–16.06	.62	38	1.87	.07	.84	.08
	Incongruent – Un. Noun	–6.48	–15.69	2.74	38	1.42	.16	.44	.07
	Un. String – Un. Noun	–1.24	–8.01	5.53	38	.37	.71	.18	.01
ER	Incongruent – Congruent	.03	.02	.05	38	5.06	< .001	> 1000	.96
	Un. String – Congruent	.03	.02	.04	38	6.08	< .001	> 1000	.85
	Un. Noun – Congruent	.01	–.001	.02	38	1.75	.09	.69	.28
	Incongruent – Un. String	.002	–.01	.02	38	.33	.75	.18	.06
	Incongruent – Un. Noun	.02	.01	.04	38	4.02	< .001	101.47	.71
	Un. String – Un. Noun	.02	.01	.01	38	3.66	< .01	39.71	.60

Table 4

Outcome of the paired t tests used to contrast average performance on congruent and incongruent bivalent stimuli with performance on univalent stimuli.

			Diff.	lower CI	upper CI	DF	t	p	BF	g_av
Exp. 1	Bivalent – Univalent Noun	RT	1.66	–4.67	7.99	30	.54	.60	.22	.02
		ER	.00	–.01	0.01	30	–.46	.70	.21	.06
Exp. 2	Bivalent – Univalent Noun	RT	1.91	–2.99	6.79	42	.79	.44	.22	.02
		ER	.00	–.01	.00	42	–1.18	.24	.32	.15
Exp. 3	Bivalent – Univalent String	RT	.41	–5.54	4.71	45	.16	.87	.16	.01
		ER	.01	.00	.02	45	2.11	< .05	1.20	.26
Exp. 4	Bivalent – Univalent String	RT	1.82	–4.66	8.30	38	.57	.57	.20	.02
		ER	.01	.00	.02	38	2.79	< .01	4.89	.42
	Bivalent – Univalent Noun	RT	.58	–6.69	7.85	38	.16	.87	.18	.01
		ER	–0.01	–.02	.00	38	–1.73	.09	.68	.26