Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching.
The switch cost asymmetry (i.e., larger costs when switching from a nondominant into a dominant task than vice versa) has been explained in terms of the trial-to-trial carryover of activation levels required for the dominant versus the nondominant task. However, there is an open question about whether an actual switch in task is in fact necessary to obtain a "selection" cost asymmetry. In Experiments 1 and 2, we modified an alternating-runs paradigm to include either long or short response-to-stimulus intervals (RSIs) after each pair of trials (i.e., AA-AA-BB-BB), thereby inducing selection costs not only at the point of a task switch (i.e., AA-BB), but also between same-task pairs (i.e., AA-AA). Using spatially compatible versus incompatible response rules (Experiment 1) and Stroop word versus color naming (Experiment 2), we found asymmetric effects not only at task-change transitions, but also at task-repeat transitions when the RSI was long (presumably inducing frequent losses of set). In Experiments 3A and 3B, a cost asymmetry for long RSIs was obtained even when competing tasks were separated into alternating single task blocks, but not when the tasks were compared in a between-subjects design. This general pattern cannot be explained by activation carryover models, but is consistent with the idea that the asymmetry arises as a result of interference from long-term memory traces.