Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

No pain, no gain: the affective valence of congruency conditions changes following a successful response

  • Published:
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The cognitive control theory of Botvinick, Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366 (2007) integrates cognitive and affective control processes by emphasizing the aversive nature of cognitive conflict. Using an affective priming paradigm, we replicate earlier results showing that incongruent trials, relative to congruent trials, are indeed perceived as more aversive (Dreisbach & Fischer, Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98 (2012)). Importantly, however, in two experiments we demonstrate that this effect is reversed following successful responses; correctly responding to incongruent trials engendered relatively more positive affect than correctly responding to congruent trials. The results are discussed in light of a recent computational model by Silvetti, Seurinck, and Verguts, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5:75 (2011) where it is assumed that outcome expectancies are more negative for incongruent trials than congruent trials. Consequently, the intrinsic reward (prediction error) following successful completion is larger for incongruent than congruent trials. These findings divulge a novel perspective on 'cognitive' adaptations to conflict.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As an extra check we also conducted an additional 2 (prime congruency) x 2 (target valence) repeated measures ANOVA with individuals’ standardized mean prime RT as a covariate. We observed no significant three-way interaction between mean prime RT, target valence and prime congruency, F < 1, while the two-way interaction between prime congruency and target valence remained significant, F(1, 18) = 5.2, p < .05.

  2. We also conducted a 3 (prime congruency) x 2 (target valence) repeated measures ANOVA with standardized mean prime RT as a covariate. This analysis showed a marginally significant interaction between prime congruency and target valence, F(2, 29) = 2.8, p = .08, while the three-way interaction with prime RT was non-significant, F < 1.

References

  • Aarts, K., De Houwer, J., & Pourtois, G. (2012). Evidence for the automatic evaluation of self-generated actions. Cognition, 124(2), 117–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alessandri, J., Darcheville, J. C., Delevoye-Turrell, Y., & Zentall, T. R. (2008). Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay. Learning & Behavior, 36(4), 352–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, W. H., & Brown, J. W. (2011). Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor. Nature Neuroscience, 14(10), 1338–1344.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 2 (pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2013). Neuroscience of affect: Brain mechanisms of pleasure and displeasure. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 294–303.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulated function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braem, S., Verguts, T., Roggeman, C., & Notebaert, N. (2012). Reward modulates adaptations to conflict. Cognition, 125, 324–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braem, S., King, J. A., Korb, F. M., Krebs, R. M., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2013). Affective modulation of cognitive control is determined by performance-contingency and mediated by ventromedial prefrontal and cingulate cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(43), 16961–16970.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brouillet, T., Ferrier, L. P., Grosselin, A., & Brouillet, D. (2011). Action compatibility effects are hedonically marked and have incidental consequences on affective judgment. Emotion, 11(5), 1202–1205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, P. R., Hayes, A. E., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). Sensorimotor fluency influences affect: Evidence from electromyography. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 681–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 353–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G. (2006). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: The costs and benefits of reduced maintenance capability. Brain and Cognition, 60, 11–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98.

  • Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014a). The congruency sequence effect 3.0: a critical test of conflict adaptation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Duthoo, W., Abrahmse, E.L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014b). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: an update. Frontiers in Cognition. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001

  • Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99(2), 248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition & Emotion, 15(2), 115–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). The time course of the aversive conflict-signal. Experimental Psychology.

  • Fritz, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: Conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 311–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, D., & De Houwer, J. (1994). Affective and subjective familiarity ratings of 740 Dutch words. Psychologica Belgica, 34, 115–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychologica, 149, 60–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, E. D., Bhatt, R. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2005). Contrast and the justification of effort. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(2), 335–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhbandner, C., & Zehetleitner, M. (2011). Dissociable effects of valence and arousal in adaptive executive control. PloS One, 6(12), e29287.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. T., Riddle, T. A., & Morsella, E. (2012). The phenomenology of quitting: Effects from repetition and cognitive effort. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 23, 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Molapour, T., & Morsella, E. (2011). Valence from conflict? Preliminary evidence from Stroop interference. In L. M. Warfelt (Ed.), Language Acquisition (pp. 1–16). Nova Science Publishers.

  • Mordkoff, T. J. (2012). Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 750–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nigbur, R., Cohen, M. X., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Stürmer, B. (2012). Theta dynamics reveal domain-specific control over stimulus and response conflict. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1264–1274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Vol. 4. Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2006). Stimulus conflict predicts conflict adaptation in a numerical flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1078–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2011). Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 136, 212–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite, T.D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J., Elliott, M.A., Gerraty, R.T., Calkins, M.E., …, & Wolf, D.H. (2012). Being right is its own reward: Load and performance related ventral striatum activation to correct responses during a working memory task in youth. NeuroImage, 61 (3), 723-729.

  • Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 615–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica, 138, 176–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PloS One, 9(7), e102337.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schouppe, N., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Context-specific control and context selection in conflict tasks. Acta Psychologica, 146, 63–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schouppe, N., De Houwer, J., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Conflict: Run! Reduced Stroop interference with avoidance responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(6), 1052–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch, S. & Koch, I. (2014). Mood states influence cognitive control: The case of conflict adaptation. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0602-4

  • Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80(1), 1–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2011). The integration of negative affect, pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(3), 154–167.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silvetti, M., Seurinck, R., & Verguts, T. (2011). Value and prediction error in medial frontal cortex: Integrating the single-unit and systems levels of analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(75). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00075

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stürmer, B., Nigbur, R., Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2011). Reward and punishment effects on error processing and conflict control. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(335). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00335

  • Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 727–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Borght, L., Braem, S., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Disentangling posterror and postconflict reduction of interference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0628-z

  • van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2009). Reward counteracts conflict adaptation: Evidence for a role of affect in executive control. Psychological Science, 20, 1473–1477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2005). Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: A functional MRI study. NeuroImage, 27, 497–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 252–257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., Heldmann, M., Münte, T. F., & Kluwe, R. H. (2007). Disentangling sequential effects of stimulus- and response- related conflict and stimulus-response repetition using brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1104–1112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zentall, T. R. (2010). Justification of effort by humans and pigeons cognitive dissonance or contrast? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 296–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author note

The research reported in this article was supported by grant no. 3F011209 and G.0098.09N of Research Foundation - Flanders.

Author contributions

N. Schouppe, S. Braem, and W. Notebaert developed the study concept. All authors contributed to the study design. N. Schouppe and S. Braem performed the data collection and data analysis. N. Schouppe and S. Braem interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript under supervision of J. De Houwer, T. Verguts, R. Ridderinkhof, and W. Notebaert. All authors provided critical revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Nathalie Schouppe, Senne Braem, Massimo Silvetti, Tom Verguts & Wim Notebaert

  2. Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Senne Braem & Jan De Houwer

  3. Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    K. Richard Ridderinkhof

  4. Cognitive Science Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    K. Richard Ridderinkhof

Authors
  1. Nathalie Schouppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Senne Braem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan De Houwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Massimo Silvetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tom Verguts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. Richard Ridderinkhof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wim Notebaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Senne Braem.

Additional information

Nathalie Schouppe; Senne Braem contributed equally to the present manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schouppe, N., Braem, S., De Houwer, J. et al. No pain, no gain: the affective valence of congruency conditions changes following a successful response. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 15, 251–261 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0318-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0318-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation