Top

Gepubliceerd in:

20-06-2020 | Original Article

Precrastination and individual differences in working memory capacity

Auteurs: Nisha Raghunath, Lisa R. Fournier, Clark Kogan

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2021

Abstract

When ordering tasks, people tend to first perform the task that can be started or completed sooner (precrastination) even if it requires more physical effort. Evidence from transport tasks suggests that precrastination can reduce cognitive effort and will likely not occur if it increases cognitive effort. However, some individuals precrastinate even when it increases cognitive effort. We examined whether individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) influence this suboptimal choice. Participants retrieved two cups of water along a corridor, in the order of their choosing. We measured the frequency of choosing the close cup first (precrastination) while varying water levels in each cup (attention demand) located at different distances. Results showed that the tendency to select the far cup first (avoid precrastination) increases when the close cup is full (high attention demand) vs. not full (low attention demand). Post-hoc results showed high (vs. low) WMC individuals more frequently bypass decisions with relatively higher costs of cognitive effort, avoiding precrastination when the attentional demand of carrying the close (vs. far) cup is relatively high (close-cup full and far-cup half full), but not when it is relatively low (far-cup full). However, there was no evidence that WMC could explain why some individuals always precrastinated, at costs of cognitive effort. Instead, individuals who always precrastinated reported automatic behavior, and those who avoided precrastinating reported decisions of efficiency. Learning, the relationship between precrastination and tendencies to enjoy/engage in thinking or procrastinate, and evidence that precrastination required more cognitive effort in our task, are discussed.

vorige artikel Practice effects vs. transfer effects in the Simon task

volgende artikel Using working memory performance to predict mathematics performance 2 years on

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

See Fournier, Stubblefield, Dyre & Rosenbaum, 2018.

Almost never means participants precrastinated (i.e., chose the close cup first) no more than 1 out of 12 trials.

The statistical conclusions were similar when each memory span task was separately included in the model.

It is also possible that participants made choices that would minimize time to complete the task, and those with higher working memory capacities were more sensitive to conserving time. It is difficult to separate time on task and attention demand, as economical strategies in terms of time (e.g., Gray, Sims, Fu & Schoelles, 2006) would affect the duration of attention deployed in this task—and hence it does not pose a problem for our hypothesis. Importantly, our participants appeared very concerned about not spilling, and travel time was influenced by this factor with participants walking very slowly when transporting the cup(s). Also, anyone who spilled even a little, stopped and steadied themselves, and also appeared distressed and often vocalized their distress. Finally, subjective reports showed that 22 participants explicitly stated they made their first cup choice to minimize spilling while only 6 participants mentioned that time or distance of the cups played a role in their first-cup choices. Thus, we believe choices appear to be driven to minimize relative carrying time of the more attention-demanding, full cup—and those with high working memory capacities may be more proactively engaged in this strategy.

Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995). Memory representations in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66.CrossRefPubMed

Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X97001611.CrossRef

Bates, D., Achler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRef

Behmer, L. P., Jr., & Fournier, L. R. (2014). Working memory modulates neural efficiency over motor components during a novel action planning task: An EEG study. Behavioral Brain Research, 260, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.11.031.CrossRef

Blinch, J., & DeWinne, C. R. (2019). Pre-crastination and procrastination effects occur in a reach-to-grasp task. Experimental Brain Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05493-3. (Advance online publication).CrossRefPubMed

Botvinick, M. M., Buxbaum, L. J., Bylsma, L. M., & Jax, S. A. (2009a). Toward an integrated account of object and action selection: A computational analysis and empirical findings from reaching-to-grasp and tool-use. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.024.CrossRefPubMed

Botvinick, M. M., Huffstetler, S., & McGuire, J. T. (2009b). Effort discounting in human nucleus accumbens. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.9.1.16.CrossRef

Botvinick, M. M., & Rosen, Z. B. (2008). Anticipation of cognitive demand during decision making. Psychological Research, 73(6), 835–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0197-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual-mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.CrossRefPubMed

Castiello, U. (1996). Grasping a fruit: Selection for action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(3), 582–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.3.582.CrossRefPubMed

Christenfeld, N. (1995). Choices from identical situations. Psychological Science, 6(1), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00304.x.CrossRef

Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilheim, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.CrossRef

Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Umiltà, C. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Evidence for visuomotor priming effect. NeuroReport, 8(1), 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1673.CrossRefPubMed

Droll, J. A., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2007). Trade-offs between gaze and working memory use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1352–1365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1352.CrossRefPubMed

Dunn, T. L., Lutes, D. J., & Risko, E. F. (2016). Metacognitive evaluation in the avoidance of demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1372–1388. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000236.CrossRefPubMed

Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x.CrossRef

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(19), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160.CrossRef

Engle, R. W. (2010). Role of working-memory capacity in cognitive control. Current Anthropology, 51(1), S17–S26. https://doi.org/10.1086/650572.CrossRef

Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier.

Feghhi, I., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2020). Effort avoidance is not simply error avoidance. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01331-2. (in press).CrossRefPubMed

Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory and Cognition, 43(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7.CrossRefPubMed

Fournier, L. R., Behmer, L. P., Jr., & Stubblefield, A. M. (2014). Interference due to shared features between action plans is influenced by working memory span. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1524–1529. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0627-0.CrossRef

Fournier, L. R., Coder, E., Kogan, C., Raghunath, N., Taddese, E. T., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2019). Which task will we choose first? Precrastination and cognitive load in task ordering. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1633-5.CrossRef

Fournier, L. R., Stubblefield, A., Dyre, B. P., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). Starting or finishing sooner? Sequencing preferences in object transfer tasks. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1022-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113(3), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.461.CrossRefPubMed

Harrell Jr., F. E. (2018). RMS: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 5.1-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms.

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

Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2001). Detection by action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-defined templates in search. Nature Neuroscience, 4(1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/82940.CrossRefPubMed

Jax, S. A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115(2), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jax, S. A., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007). Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: Evidence that the dorsal stream does not only control visually guided actions in real time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.425.CrossRefPubMed

Kane, M. J., Brown, L. H., McVay, J. C., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T. R. (2007). For whom the mind wanders, and when. Psychological Science, 18(7), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01948.x.CrossRefPubMed

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 336–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.336.CrossRefPubMed

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), 665–682. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12003196.CrossRef

Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20(4), 474–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(86)90127-3.CrossRef

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley

McGuire, J. T., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, and the registration of decision costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(17), 7922–7926. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910662107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory and Cognition, 29(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195736.CrossRefPubMed

Pavese, A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2002). Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9(4–5), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280143000584.CrossRef

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534.CrossRef

Qualtrics (2005). Version March, 2019. Provo, Utah, USA. https://www.qualtrics.com. Accessed Mar 2019

Redick, T. S. (2014). Cognitive control in context: Working memory capacity and proactive control. Acta Psychologica, 145, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.10.010.CrossRefPubMed

Rizopoulos, D. (2020). GLMMadaptive: Generalized linear mixed models using adaptive Gaussian quadrature. R package version 0.6-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GLMMadaptive.

Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of categorization. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rosenbaum, D. A., Fournier, L. R., Levy-Tzedek, S., McBride, D. M., Rosenthal, R., Sauerberger, K., VonderHaar, R. L., Wasserman, E. A., Zentall, T. R. (2019). Sooner rather than later: Precrastination rather than procrastination. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419833652.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Gong, L., & Potts, C. A. (2014). Precrastination: Hastening sub-goal completion at the expense of extra physical effort. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1487–1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614532657.CrossRefPubMed

Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207.CrossRefPubMed

R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/

Tipper, S. P., Paul, M., & Hayes, A. (2006). Vision-for action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 493–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193875.CrossRef

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830.CrossRefPubMed

Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5.CrossRef

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefPubMed

VonderHaar, R. L., McBride, D. M., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2019). Task order choices in cognitive and perceptual-motor tasks: The cognitive-load-reduction (CLEAR) hypothesis. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2517–2525. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01754-z.CrossRef

Wasserman, E. A., & Brzykcy, S. J. (2015). Precrastination in the pigeon. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1130–1134. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0758-3.CrossRef

Zbrodoff, N. J. (1999). Effects of counting in alphabet arithmetic: Opportunistic stopping and priming of intermediate steps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.299.CrossRef

Titel: Precrastination and individual differences in working memory capacity
Auteurs: Nisha Raghunath
Lisa R. Fournier
Clark Kogan
Publicatiedatum: 20-06-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01373-6

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2021

Emotional SNARC: emotional faces affect the impact of number magnitude on gaze patterns

Do interoceptive accuracy and interoceptive sensibility predict emotion regulation?

Generalization of novel sensorimotor associations among pianists and non-pianists: more evidence that musical training effects are constrained

Dual mechanisms of cognitive control in mindful individuals

Response mode modulates the congruency sequence effect in spatial conflict tasks: evidence from aimed-movement responses

Pretty crowds are happy crowds: the influence of attractiveness on mood perception