Top

Psychological Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

08-02-2020 | Original Article

Induced affective states do not modulate effort avoidance

Auteurs: Carlos González-García, Beatriz García-Carrión, Raúl López-Benítez, Alberto Sobrado, Alberto Acosta, María Ruz

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2021

Abstract

Recent research reveals that when faced with alternative lines of action, humans tend to choose the less cognitively demanding one, suggesting that cognitive control is intrinsically registered as costly. This idea is further supported by studies showing that the exertion of cognitive control evokes negative affective states. Despite extensive evidence for mood-induced modulations on control abilities, the impact of affective states on the avoidance of cognitive demand is still unknown. Across two well-powered experiments, we tested the hypothesis that negative affective states would increase the avoidance of cognitively demanding tasks. Contrary to our expectations, induced affective states did not modulate the avoidance of demand, despite having an effect on task performance and subjective experience. Altogether, our results indicate that there are limits to the effect of affective signals on cognitive control and that such interaction might depend on specific affective and control settings.

vorige artikel Affective states influence emotion perception: evidence for emotional egocentricity

volgende artikel Memory effects of conflict and cognitive control are processing stage-specific: evidence from pupillometry

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

A paired Wilcoxon test (a Saphiro-Wilk test of normality revealed a significant deviation from normality, p < 0.001) was performed on RTs of correct switch (M = 1593 ms, SD = 435 ms) and non-switch trials (M = 1111 ms, SD = 269 ms), revealing a significant effect of switching (W_71,1 = 75, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.94). An analysis of accuracy scores also revealed a switching effect (W_71,1 = 1683, p = 0.002, effect size = 0.28).

The 30 new images were selected to match the valence and arousal values of those presented during the experiment. Specifically, the scores for each dimension of the new images were: Positive [valence = 6.84, SD = 0.35; arousal = 6.42, SD = 0.89]; Negative [valence = 2.44, SD = 0.65; arousal = 6.01, SD = 0.75]; Neutral [valence = 4.73, SD = 0.46; arousal = 3.77, SD = 0.54].

A paired Wilcoxon test (a Saphiro-Wilk test of normality revealed a significant deviation from normality, p < 0.001) was performed on the reaction times (RTs) of correct switch (M = 1407 ms, SD = 348 ms) and non-switch trials (M = 1000 ms, SD = 209 ms), revealing a significant effect of switching (W_71,1 = 75, p < 0.001, effect size = 1). An analysis of accuracy scores also revealed a switching effect (W_71,1 = 1842, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.4).

Bäuml, K.-H., & Kuhbandner, C. (2007). Remembering can cause forgetting—but not in negative moods. Psychological Science, 18(2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01857.x. CrossRefPubMed

Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience.. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.4.356. (Springer-Verlag) CrossRefPubMed

Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2014). The computational and neural basis of cognitive control: Charted territory and new frontiers. Cognitive Science, 38(6), 1249–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12126. CrossRefPubMed

Botvinick, M. M., & Rosen, Z. B. (2009). Anticipation of cognitive demand during decision-making. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73(6), 835–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0197-8. CrossRefPubMed

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9. CrossRefPubMed

Braem, S., De Houwer, J., Demanet, J., Yuen, K. S. L., Kalisch, R., & Brass, M. (2017a). Pattern analyses reveal separate experience-based fear memories in the human right amygdala. The Journal of Neuroscience, 37(34), 8116–8130. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0908-17.2017. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Braem, S., King, J. A., Korb, F. M., Krebs, R. M., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2017b). The role of anterior cingulate cortex in the affective evaluation of conflict. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(1), 137–149. CrossRef

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. CrossRef

Demanet, J., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2011). Valence, arousal, and cognitive control: A voluntary task-switching study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00336. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Desender, K., Calderon, C. B., Van Opstal, F., & Van den Bussche, E. (2017). Avoiding the conflict: Metacognitive awareness drives the selection of low-demand contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(7), 1397–1410. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000391. CrossRefPubMed

Dignath, D., Janczyk, M., & Eder, A. B. (2017). Phasic valence and arousal do not influence post-conflict adjustments in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 174, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2017.01.004. CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). The role of affect and reward in the conflict-triggered adjustment of cognitive control. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 342. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00342. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2015). Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569569. CrossRef

Dreisbach, G., Reindl, A. L., & Fischer, R. (2018). Conflict and disfluency as aversive signals: Context-specific processing adjustments are modulated by affective location associations. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82(2), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0822-x. CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., Fröber, K., Berger, A., & Fischer, R. (2019). Unexpected conflict signals loom larger in a positive context: Evidence from context specific control adjustments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(8), 1398–1409. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000662. CrossRef

Fritz, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: Conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0147-1. CrossRef

Gold, J. M., Kool, W., Botvinick, M. M., Hubzin, L., August, S., & Waltz, J. A. (2015). Cognitive effort avoidance and detection in people with schizophrenia. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0308-5. CrossRef

Hefer, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). The volatile nature of positive affect effects: Opposite effects of positive affect and time on task on proactive control. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1086-4. CrossRefPubMed

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century.

Inzlicht, M., Bartholow, B. D., & Hirsh, J. B. (2015). Emotional foundations of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2015.01.004. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jeffreys, H. (1998). The theory of probability. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

Johnson, V. E., Payne, R. D., Wang, T., Asher, A., & Mandal, S. (2017). On the reproducibility of psychological science. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(517), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1240079. CrossRefPubMed

Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., & Pelli, D. G. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoobox-3? Perception, 36(14), 1.

Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020198. CrossRef

Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–679. CrossRef

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, 1, 39–58.

Mirandola, C., & Toffalini, E. (2016). Arousal-but not valence-reduces false memories at retrieval. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0148716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148716. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Moltó, J., Montañés, S., Gil, R. P., Cabedo, P. S., Verchili, M. C. P., Irún, M. P. T., et al. (1999). Un método para el estudio experimental de las emociones: el International Affective Picture System (IAPS). Adaptación española. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada: Revista de La Federación Española de Asociaciones de Psicología, 52(1), 55–87.

Nusbaum, A. T., Wilson, C. G., Stenson, A., Hinson, J. M., & Whitney, P. (2018). Induced positive mood and cognitive flexibility: Evidence from task switching and reversal learning. Collabra Psychology, 4(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.150. CrossRef

Okon-Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., & Shackman, A. J. (2015). The neurobiology of emotion–cognition interactions: fundamental questions and strategies for future research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 58. CrossRef

Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2009.01.006. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., & Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001. CrossRef

Sanz, J. (2001). Un instrumento para evaluar la eficacia de los procedimientos de inducción de estado de ánimo: la “Escala de Valoración del Estado de Ánimo”(EVEA). Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 27(111), 71–110.

Sanz, J., Gutiérrez, S., & García-Vera, M. P. (2014). Propiedadades psicométricas de la escala de valoración del estado de ánimo (EVEA): una revisión. Ansiedad y Estrés, 20(1), 27–49.

Schouppe, N., Demanet, J., Boehler, C. N., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Notebaert, W. (2014). The role of the striatum in effort-based decision-making in the absence of reward. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(6), 2148–2154. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1214-13.2014. CrossRefPubMed

Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. CrossRef

Uhrig, M. K., Trautmann, N., Baumgärtner, U., Treede, R.-D., Henrich, F., Hiller, W., et al. (2016). Emotion elicitation: A comparison of pictures and films. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00180. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2010). In the mood for adaptation. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1629–1634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385951. CrossRefPubMed

Vermeylen, L., Braem, S., & Notebaert, W. (2019). The affective twitches of task switches: Task switch cues are evaluated as negative. Cognition, 183, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.11.002. CrossRefPubMed

Westbrook, A., & Braver, T. S. (2015). Cognitive effort: A neuroeconomic approach. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0334-y. CrossRefPubMed

Xie, W., & Zhang, W. (2018). Mood-dependent retrieval in visual long-term memory: Dissociable effects on retrieval probability and mnemonic precision. Cognition and Emotion, 32(4), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1340261. CrossRefPubMed

Zhang, X., Yu, H. W., & Barrett, L. F. (2014). How does this make you feel? A comparison of four affect induction procedures. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00689. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Induced affective states do not modulate effort avoidance
Auteurs: Carlos González-García
Beatriz García-Carrión
Raúl López-Benítez
Alberto Sobrado
Alberto Acosta
María Ruz
Publicatiedatum: 08-02-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01300-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2021

Case mixing impedes early lexical access: converging evidence from the masked priming paradigm

Noting a difference: change in social context prompts spontaneous recall in 46-month-olds, but not in 35-month-olds

Presuppositions of determiners are immediately used to disambiguate utterance meaning: A mouse-tracking study on the German language

Human vs. machine: the psychological and behavioral consequences of being compared to an outperforming artificial agent

Perceptual-cognitive processes underlying creative expert performance in soccer

Embodied self-other overlap in romantic love: a review and integrative perspective