The reported experiments examine the nature of the orienting of attention in response to indirect cues (central arrow cues). Part 1 (Experiments 1-4) provides experiments that challenge the claim of involuntary made by previous studies (Eimer, 1997; Gibson & Bryant, in press; Hommel et al., 2001; Ristic et al., 2002, Tipples, 2002). Direct cues (peripheral color singletons) are used in a context where meaning-driven attentional orienting can be overridden. There is also further clarification as to the role blocking and expectancy play in any such override process. Part 2 (Experiments 5-8) includes experiments that determine if previous findings in this line of research actually do reflect attentional orienting or if they follow an alternative location compatibility account. A display size manipulation was used in order to determine whether indirect cues affected attentional orienting during search or if their effects were post-search. In contrast to much of the literature, support is found for a post-search, location compatibility account. Finally, the findings of Part 2 are reconciled with the findings of Part 1, clarifying when and under what conditions attentional orienting is occurring and what mechanisms are being overridden.