Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 5/2015

01-09-2015 | Original Article

Mood states influence cognitive control: the case of conflict adaptation

Auteurs: Stefanie Schuch, Iring Koch

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Conflict adaptation can be measured by the “congruency sequence effect”, denoting the reduction of congruency effects after incongruent trials (where response conflict occurs) relative to congruent trials (without response conflict). Recently, it has been reported that conflict adaptation is larger in negative mood than in positive mood (van Steenbergen et al., Psychological Science 21:1629–1634, 2010). We conducted two experiments further investigating this important finding. Two different interference paradigms were applied to measure conflict adaptation: Experiment 1 was a Flanker task, Experiment 2 was a Stroop-like task. To get as pure a measure of conflict adaptation as possible, we minimized the influence of trial-to-trial priming effects by excluding all kinds of stimulus repetitions. Mood states were induced by presenting film clips with emotional content prior to the interference task. Three mood states were manipulated between subjects: amused, anxious, and sad. Across both interference paradigms, we consistently found conflict adaptation in negative, but not in positive mood. Taken together with van Steenbergen et al. (Psychological Science 21:1629–1634, 2010) findings, the results suggest that the negative-mood-triggered increase in conflict adaptation is a general phenomenon that occurs independently of the particular mood-induction procedure and interference paradigm involved.
vorige artikel Not all mind wandering is created equal: dissociating deliberate from spontaneous mind wandering
volgende artikel Simple arithmetic: evidence of an inhibitory mechanism to select arithmetic facts
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
The questionnaire data were also analyzed in 3 × 3 ANOVAs with Group (amused, anxious, sad) and time point (before mood induction, after mood induction, after RT experiment) as independent variables. For the STAI state scale, the ANOVA yielded a significant interaction, F(4,114) = 6.73, p < 0.01, as well as a main effect of time point, F(2,114) = 17.62, p < 0.01, and no effect of mood group, F < 1. A preplanned contrast comparing the time points “before mood induction” and “after mood induction” revealed a significant interaction, F(2,57) = 10.34, p < 0.01. The respective ANOVA on the PANAS negative affect scale also yielded a significant interaction, F(4,114) = 3.37, p = 0.01, as well as a main effect of time point, F(2,114) = 8.88, p < 0.01, and no main effect of mood group, F < 1. The preplanned contrast comparing the time points “before mood induction” and “after mood induction” revealed a significant interaction, F(2,57) = 5.02, p = 0.01. As to the PANAS positive affect scale, there was also a significant interaction, F(4,114) = 3.06, p = 0.02, a main effect of time point, F(2,114) = 7.63, p < 0.01, and no effect of mood group, F < 1. The preplanned contrast comparing the time points “before mood induction” and “after mood induction” did not reveal a significant interaction, F(2,57) = 1.45, p = 0.24.
 
2
For the STAI state scale, the 3 × 3 ANOVA yielded a significant interaction, F(4,114) = 7.11, p < 0.01, as well as a main effect of time point, F(2,114) = 22.62, p < 0.01, and no effect of mood group, F < 1. A preplanned contrast comparing the time points “before mood induction” and “after mood induction” revealed a significant interaction, F(2,57) = 9.53, p < 0.01. The respective ANOVA on the PANAS negative affect scale did not yield a significant interaction, F(4,114) = 1.61, p = 0.18; there was a main effect of time point, F(2,114) = 14.40, p < 0.01, and no main effect of mood group, F < 1. The preplanned contrast comparing the time points “before mood induction” and “after mood induction” did not reveal a significant interaction with mood group, F(2,57) = 1.53, p = 0.23. As to the PANAS positive affect scale, the 3 × 3 interaction was not significant, F(4,114) = 1.79, p = 0.14; there was a main effect of time point, F(2,114) = 4.68, p = 0.01, and no effect of mood group, F < 1. The preplanned contrast comparing the time points “before mood induction” and “after mood induction” revealed a significant interaction, F(2,57) = 5.36, p < 0.01.
 
Literatuur
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550.CrossRefPubMed
Becker, M. W., & Leinenger, M. (2011). Attentional selection is biased toward mood-congruent stimuli. Emotion, 11, 1248–1254.CrossRefPubMed
Botvinick, M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulated function. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366.CrossRef
Botvinick, M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.CrossRefPubMed
Botvinick, M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–546.CrossRefPubMed
Braem, S., Verguts, T., Roggeman, C., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Reward modulates adaptation to conflict. Cognition, 125, 324–332.CrossRefPubMed
Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012b). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 72, 94–98.CrossRef
Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390.CrossRef
Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1784–1790.CrossRefPubMed
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRef
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, 175–191.CrossRefPubMed
Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective states trigger processes of assimilation and accommodation. In L. L. Martin & G. S. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: a user’s guidebook (pp. 85–98). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Forgas, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Feeling and thinking: the role of affect in social cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, J. R. (2001). Emotional modulation of cognitive control: approach-withdrawal states double-dissociate spatial from verbal two-back task performance. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 130, 436–452.CrossRef
Gray, J. R. (2004). Integration of emotion and cognitive control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 46–48.CrossRef
Hengstler, M., Holland, R. W., van Steenbergen, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (2014). The influence of approach-avoidance motivational orientation on conflict adaptation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience,. doi:10.​3758/​s13415-014-0295-6. (online first).
Hewig, J., Hagemann, D., Seifert, J., Gollwitzer, M., Naumann, E., & Bartussek, D. (2005). A revised film set for the induction of basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1095–1109.CrossRef
Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.CrossRefPubMed
Hübner, R., Steinhauser, M., & Lehle, C. (2010). A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychological Review, 117, 759–784.CrossRefPubMed
Izard, C. E. (2007). Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 260–280.CrossRefPubMed
Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C. W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Form der Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Diagnostica, 42, 139–156.
Laux, L., Glanzmann, P., Schaffner, P., & Spielberger, C.D. (1981). Das State-Trait-Angstinventar: Theoretische Grundlagen und Handanweisungen. (The State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory: Theoretical and Practical Issues) Weinheim: Beltz Test GmbH.
Matt, G. E., Vazquez, C., & Campbell, W. K. (1992). Mood-congruent recall of affectively toned stimuli: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 227–255.CrossRef
Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.PubMed
Melcher, T., Obst, K., Mann, A., Paulus, C., & Gruber, O. (2012). Antagonistic modulatory influences of negative affect on cognitive control: reduced and enhanced interference resolution capability after the induction of fear and sadness. Acta Psychologica, 139, 507–514.CrossRefPubMed
Mitchell, R. L. C., & Phillips, L. H. (2007). The psychological, neurochemical and functional neuroanatomical mediators of the effects of positive and negative mood on executive functions. Neuropsychologia, 45, 617–629.CrossRefPubMed
Plessow, F., Fischer, R., Kirschbaum, C., & Goschke, T. (2011). Inflexibly focused under stress: acute psychosocial stress increased shielding of action goals at the expense of reduced cognitive flexibility with increasing time-lag to the stressor. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3218–3227.CrossRefPubMed
Rottenberg, J., Ray, R. R., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion elicitation using films. In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), The handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 9–28). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schuch, S., Werheid, K., & Koch, I. (2012). Flexible and inflexible tasks: asymmetric interference when switching between emotional expression, sex, and age classification of perceived faces. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 994–1005.CrossRefPubMed
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Van Steenbergen, H. (2014). Affective modulation of cognitive control: a biobehavioral perspective. In G. Gendolla, M. Tops, S. Koole (Eds.), Biobehavioral Foundations of Self-Regulation. Heidelberg: Springer.
Van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2009). Reward counteracts conflict adaptation. Psychological Science, 20, 1473–1477.CrossRefPubMed
Van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2010). In the mood for adaptation: how affect regulates conflict-driven control. Psychological Science, 21, 1629–1634.CrossRefPubMed
Van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., Hommel, B., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2014). Hedonic hotspots regulate cingulate-driven adaptation to cognitive demands. Cerebral Cortex,. doi:10.​1093/​cercor/​bht416. (online first).PubMed
Van Steenbergen, H., Booij, L., Band, G. P. H., Hommel, B., & van der Does, A. J. W. (2012). Affective regulation of conflict-driven control in remitted depressive patients after acute tryptophan depletion. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 280–286.CrossRef
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of Positive and Negative Affect: the PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefPubMed
Westermann, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. W. (1996). Relative effectiveness and validity of mood induction procedures: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 557–580.CrossRef
Yiend, J. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: a review of attentional processing of emotional information. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 3–47.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Mood states influence cognitive control: the case of conflict adaptation
Auteurs
Stefanie Schuch
Iring Koch
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0602-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

Psychological Research 5/2015 Naar de uitgave

Original Article

The effects of emotional stimuli on visuo-spatial vigilance

Original Article

Food for creativity: tyrosine promotes deep thinking

Original Article

Interference in episodic memory: retrieval-induced forgetting of unknown words

Original Article

Simple arithmetic: evidence of an inhibitory mechanism to select arithmetic facts

Original Article

Semantic similarity between old and new items produces false alarms in recognition memory

Original Article

Empirical validation of the diffusion model for recognition memory and a comparison of parameter-estimation methods