RESUMO
People respond more slowly in two-choice tasks when either a previous stimulus feature or the previous response repeats in partial repetition trials than when (a) both repeat in complete repetition trials or (b) both alternate in complete alternation trials. The binding account posits that such partial repetition costs index a memory-retrieval conflict, which occurs because partial repetition trials trigger the retrieval of a previous stimulus feature or response that conflicts with a current stimulus feature or response. However, such costs may additionally reflect a simple decision-making heuristic that uses the repetition or alternation of a previous stimulus feature as a "signal" to bias response selection toward a repetition or an alternation of the previous response. To determine whether signaling contributes to partial repetition costs, we employed a four-choice task. Here, a stimulus feature repetition still signals a response repetition, but a stimulus feature alternation does not signal which of the three remaining responses to make. Consistent with an influence of signaling, we sometimes observed complete repetition advantages without complete alternation advantages. Exploratory analyses further revealed that partial repetition costs measured more broadly were smaller in the four-choice task than in a matched two-choice task. These findings suggest that partial repetition costs index a mixture of binding and signaling.