When performing a conflict task, performance is typically worse on trials with conflict between two responses (i.e., incongruent trials) compared to when there is no conflict (i.e., congruent trials), a finding known as the congruency effect. The congruency effect is reduced when the proportion of incongruent trials is high, relative to when most of the trials are congruent (i.e., the proportion congruency effect). In the current work, it was tested whether different kinds of instructions can be used to induce a proportion congruency effect, while holding the actual proportion of congruent trials constant. Participants were instructed to strategically use the (invalid) information that most of the trials would be congruent versus incongruent, or they were told to adopt a liberal versus a conservative response threshold. All strategies effectively altered the size of the congruency effect relative to baseline, although in terms of statistical significance the effect was mostly limited to the error rates. A diffusion-model analysis of the data was partially consistent with the hypothesis that both types of instructions induced a proportion congruency effect by means of different underlying mechanisms.
