Prevention and correction in post-error performance: an ounce of prevention, a pound of cure

Abstract

Error detection serves 2 different functions: prevention and cure. Prevention engages post-error slowing to reduce future errors, whereas cure engages processes that correct the error. Thus, prevention predicts post-error slowing, and cure does not. We investigated this distinction in skilled typists in 3 experiments. In Experiment 1, post-error performance was investigated in 800 typists who completed a short continuous typing test where correction was disallowed. In Experiments 2 and 3, post-error performance and post-correction performance were investigated by manipulating whether typists were allowed to correct their mistakes. Across experiments, there was limited evidence that typists used error detection for prevention; typists preferred the cure. After making mistakes, they corrected them and rapidly resumed typing at normal rates. Post-error slowing occurred only when correction was disabled; post-error speeding occurred when correction was enabled. This finding offers support for the novel hypothesis that post-error slowing reflects the inhibition of pre-potent tendencies to correct mistakes. Error-detection processes in general will be better understood by distinguishing between tasks that allow performers to cure their errors through correction rather than reduce their errors through prevention.