Between Persistence and Flexibility

Abstract

Traditional approaches to action control assume the existence of a more or less unitary control system that struggles with, and serves to overcome action tendencies induced by automatic processes. In this article, I point out that and why these approaches fail to capture the complexity and dynamics of cognitive control. I describe an alternative approach that assumes that control emerges from the interaction of at least two counteracting forces: one system promoting persistence and the maintenance of action goals and another promoting mental and behavioral flexibility. I describe how this interaction might be shaped by various factors, including genetic predisposition, learning, personal experience, and the cultural context, and suggest a simple functional model (the Metacontrol State Model, MSM) that explains how this shaping process works. Then I provide an overview of studies from various fields (including perception, attention, performance monitoring, conflict resolution, creativity, meditation, religion, and interpersonal perception and behavior) that successfully tested predictions from the MSM.

Introduction

Human action is often goal-oriented (to a degree that the existence of goals is often considered to be the defining aspect of human action), often initiated in the absence of action-related external stimulation, often spontaneous and nonhabitual, and can commonly be adjusted rapidly if no longer functional or not meeting situational challenges. The human capacity to achieve all of this is commonly ascribed to what we now call cognitive control or executive functions. The general idea is that the processes captured by these labels constitute a kind of second layer of information processing: while the first layer consists of basic processes to translate stimulation or input (the terms preferred by behavioristic and information-processing approaches, respectively)—such as sensory registration, identification, attentional selection, response decision, and motor execution—the second layer operates on the first by rewiring the respective processes in such a way that behavior is optimized and intended goals are reached (e.g., Verbruggen, McLaren, & Chambers, 2014).

Even though the terms cognitive control and executive function are relatively new (with Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; as one of the first proponents), the underlying concepts and the investigation of the underlying mechanisms are much older. In the following, I will discuss two predecessors and the related theoretical implications that have survived the terminological transition and that still dominate the discussion of human action control. Concepts that are used for such a long time and that have stimulated so much research are unlikely to be entirely incorrect, but I do think that they have limitations that need to be overcome in future research. I will thus present an alternative view of human action control, at least of some relevant aspects of it, that is also not without predecessors but has the advantage of providing a more dynamic, and thus probably more realistic, view of how humans keep their actions adaptive. I will begin by discussing two more traditional and popular views of action control—one assuming a will that is fighting against habits and another assuming an ego that mediates between societal requirements and personal urges—and point out a number of limitations of these views. Then I will synthesize the positive aspects of these two views and bring them together with more recent ideas from cognitive psychology and the cognitive neurosciences, to construct a more dynamic approach to human action control. Finally, I will sketch major determinants of the operation characteristics of control functions and provide some empirical examples to illustrate and justify my choices. However, I will not start without emphasizing that this chapter is a (empirical and theoretical) work in progress, a developing theoretical approach rather than a complete theory.