Conflicts as signals: bridging the gap between conflict detection and cognitive control

Stürmer, Birgit; Sommer, Werner; Frensch, Peter A. · 2008 · Psychological Research

DOI: 10.1007/s00426-008-0222-y

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This editorial introduces a Special Issue of *Psychological Research* that investigates the functional role of cognitive conflicts as signals triggering adaptive control processes. The authors address a gap in existing literature, which has largely focused on conflict elicitation and resolution rather than the consequences of conflict for subsequent information processing. Motivated by the conflict monitoring account (Botvinick et al.), the paper posits that conflicts act as signals that bias behavior away from effortful strategies, thereby optimizing system configuration through proactive control. The Special Issue aims to disentangle the mechanisms mediating conflict signals and subsequent optimization, addressing five central questions: whether different conflict types yield distinct adaptive processes, the relationship between adaptation and top-down regulation, the role of affect, and the existence of interindividual and developmental differences in conflict-driven adaptation. The Special Issue comprises twelve contributions derived from workshops held in Berlin and Binz, Germany, in 2007. These studies employ diverse methodologies, including modified change signal tasks, visual selection tasks with event-related potential measurements, Stroop paradigms, incidental learning tasks, and psychophysiological measures such as skin conductance response (SCR) and corrugator muscle activity. The research examines various conflict types, including response, retrieval, and emotional conflicts, as well as conflicts between expectations and behaviors. Specific investigations include Brown’s computational modeling of error likelihood versus conflict, Kehrer et al.’s analysis of negative priming and N2 amplitudes, and Klonek et al.’s comparison of the conflict monitoring account against the Multiple-Read-Out-Model using word stem completion tasks. Key findings reveal that conflict-driven adaptation is multifaceted and context-dependent. Brown found that adaptation due to error anticipation and conflict-related adaptation rely on distinct processes. Kehrer et al. demonstrated that negative priming occurs as a consequence of prior conflict, with N2 amplitudes increasing under high cognitive control demands. Mayr and Awh showed that conflict-driven adaptation in the Stroop task occurs only during early processing phases, suggesting it is tied to top-down processing rather than direct item repetition. Alpay et al. found that cue-induced adaptation did not override conflict-driven adjustments, supporting two distinct adjustment processes. Li et al. linked conflict cost to fluid intelligence and processing fluctuation across the lifespan, supporting neuromodulation theories of aging. Conversely, Keye et al. found weak links between working memory and conflict control, challenging theories of a general cognitive control ability. Schacht et al. indicated that NoGo interference is obstructive rather than aversive, while Botvinick and Rosen showed that anticipatory SCR increases prior to high-demand actions, indicating early anticipation of effortful control. The significance of this collection lies in reframing conflicts not as nuisances but as functional signals that trigger optimization within the human information processing system. The findings suggest that conflict monitoring involves distinct mechanisms for different conflict types and is influenced by developmental, individual, and affective factors. This perspective advances the field by integrating neurovisceral, affective, and cognitive domains, offering a more comprehensive understanding of how cognitive control adapts to maintain flawless behavior.

Key finding

Cognitive conflicts function as signals that trigger adaptive control processes and subsequent optimization mechanisms within the cognitive system.

Methodology

review

Sample size: 12

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via author_sweep_intake on 2026-05-28.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• executive function