Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 5/2021

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

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

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.

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Psychologie Totaal

Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.

Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
See Fournier, Stubblefield, Dyre & Rosenbaum, 2018.
 
2
Almost never means participants precrastinated (i.e., chose the close cup first) no more than 1 out of 12 trials.
 
3
The statistical conclusions were similar when each memory span task was separately included in the model.
 
4
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.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century.
go back to reference 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, 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
go back to reference Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of categorization. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge: MIT Press. Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of categorization. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Metagegevens
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