People have to constantly decide how to allocate their mental effort, and in doing so can be motivated by both the positive outcomes that effort accrues and the negative outcomes that effort avoids. For example, someone might persist on a project for work in the hopes of being promoted or to avoid being reprimanded or even fired. Understanding how people weigh these different types of incentives is critical for understanding variability in human achievement as well as sources of motivational impairments (e.g., in major depression). We show that people not only consider both potential positive and negative outcomes when allocating mental effort, but that the profile of effort they engage under negative incentives differs depending on whether that outcome is contingent on sustaining good performance (negative reinforcement) or avoiding bad performance (punishment). Clarifying the motivational factors that determine effort exertion is an important step for understanding motivational impairments in psychopathology.
This content will become publicly available on December 7, 2024
Make or break: The influence of expected challenges and rewards on the motivation and experience associated with cognitive effort exertion
Challenging goals can induce harder work but also greater stress, in turn potentially undermining goal achievement. We sought to examine how mental effort and subjective experiences thereof interact as a function of challenge level and the size of the incentives at stake. Participants performed a task that rewarded individual units of effort investment (correctly performed Stroop trials) but only if they met a threshold number of correct trials within a fixed time interval (challenge level). We varied this challenge level (Study 1, N = 40), and the rewards at stake (Study 2, N = 79), and measured variability in task performance and self-reported affect across task intervals. Greater challenge and higher rewards facilitated greater effort investment but also induced greater stress, while higher rewards (but less challenge) simultaneously induced greater positive affect. Current findings further our understanding of task demands and incentives on mental effort exertion and wellbeing.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2046111
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10524031
- Publisher / Repository:
- bioRxiv
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Institution:
- bioRxiv
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
It is well known that people will exert effort on a task if sufficiently motivated, but how they distribute these efforts across different strategies (e.g., efficiency vs. caution) remains uncertain. Past work has shown that people invest effort differently for potential positive outcomes (rewards) versus potential negative outcomes (penalties). However, this research failed to account for differences in the context in which negative outcomes motivate someone - either as punishment or reinforcement. It is therefore unclear whether effort profiles differ as a function of outcome valence, motivational context, or both. Using computational modeling and our novel Multi-Incentive Control Task, we show that the influence of aversive outcomes on one’s effort profile is entirely determined by their motivational context. Participants (N:91) favored increased caution in response to larger penalties for incorrect responses, and favored increased efficiency in response to larger reinforcement for correct responses, whether positively or negatively incentivized.more » « less
Statement of Relevance -
Ahn, Woo-Young (Ed.)To invest effort into any cognitive task, people must be sufficiently motivated. Whereas prior research has focused primarily on how the cognitive control required to complete these tasks is motivated by the potential rewards for success, it is also known that control investment can be equally motivated by the potential negative consequence for failure. Previous theoretical and experimental work has yet to examine how positive and negative incentives differentially influence the manner and intensity with which people allocate control. Here, we develop and test a normative model of control allocation under conditions of varying positive and negative performance incentives. Our model predicts, and our empirical findings confirm, that rewards for success and punishment for failure should differentially influence adjustments to the evidence accumulation rate versus response threshold, respectively. This dissociation further enabled us to infer how motivated a given person was by the consequences of success versus failure.more » « less
-
To achieve a goal, people have to keep track of how much effort they are putting in (effort monitoring) and how well they are performing (performance monitoring), which can be informed by endogenous signals, or exogenous signals providing explicit feedback about whether they have met their goal. Interventions to improve performance often focus on adjusting feedback to direct the individual on how to better invest their efforts, but is it possible that this feedback itself plays a role in shaping the experience of how effortful the task feels? Here, we examine this question directly by assessing the relationship between effort monitoring and performance monitoring. Participants (N = 68) performed a task in which their goal was to squeeze a handgrip to within a target force level (not lower or higher) for a minimum duration. On most trials, they were given no feedback as to whether they met their goal, and were largely unable to detect how they had performed. On a subset of trials, however, we provided participants with (false) feedback indicating that they had either succeeded or failed at meeting their goal (positive vs. negative feedback blocks, respectively). Sporadically, participants rated their experience of effort exertion, fatigue, and confidence in having met the target grip force on that trial. Despite being non-veridical to their actual performance, we found that the type of feedback participants received influenced their experience of effort. When receiving negative (vs. positive) feedback, participants fatigued faster and adjusted their grip strength more for higher target force levels. We also found that confidence gradually increased with increasing positive feedback and decreased with increasing negative feedback, again despite feedback being uniformly uninformative. These results suggest differential influences of feedback on experiences related to effort and further shed light on the relationship between experiences related to performance monitoring and effort monitoring.more » « less
-
Although inattention is a key symptom subdomain of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the mechanisms underlying this subdomain and related symptoms remain unclear. There is a need for more granular approaches that allow for greater specificity in linking disruptions in specific domains of cognitive performance (e.g., executive function and reward processing) with behavioral manifestations of ADHD. Such approaches may inform the development of more targeted therapeutic interventions. Here, we describe the results of a pilot study of elementary-aged children (ages 6–12years) with ADHD ( n =50) and typically developing children ( n =48) utilizing a cognitive science task designed to target two dissociable mechanisms of attentional selection: a goal-driven mechanism (i.e., reward/value-driven) and a salience-driven mechanism. Participants were asked to optimally extract and combine information about stimulus salience and value to maximize rewards. While results of this pilot study are ambiguous due to the small sample size and limited number of task trials, data suggest that neither participants with ADHD nor typically developing participants performed optimally to maximize rewards, though typically developing participants were somewhat more successful at the task (i.e., more likely to report high-value targets) regardless of task condition. Further, the manuscript examines several follow-up questions regarding group differences in task response times and group differences in task performance as related to sustained attention across the duration of the task. Finally, the manuscript examines follow-up questions related to heterogeneity in the ADHD group (i.e., age, DSM 5 presentation, and comorbid diagnosis) in predicting task performance.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound but incompletely understood adverse effects on youth. To elucidate the role of brain circuits in how adolescents responded to the pandemic’s stressors, we investigated their prepandemic organization as a predictor of mental/emotional health in the first ~15 months of the pandemic. We analyzed resting-state networks from n = 2,641 adolescents [median age (interquartile range) = 144.0 (13.0) months, 47.7% females] in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, and longitudinal assessments of mental health, stress, sadness, and positive affect, collected every 2 to 3 months from May 2020 to May 2021. Topological resilience and/or network strength predicted overall mental health, stress and sadness (but not positive affect), at multiple time points, but primarily in December 2020 and May 2021. Higher resilience of the salience network predicted better mental health in December 2020 (β = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.31], P = 0.01). Lower connectivity of left salience, reward, limbic, and prefrontal cortex and its thalamic, striatal, amygdala connections, predicted higher stress (β = −0.46 to −0.20, CI = [−0.72, −0.07], P < 0.03). Lower bilateral robustness (higher fragility) and/or connectivity of these networks predicted higher sadness in December 2020 and May 2021 (β = −0.514 to −0.19, CI = [−0.81, −0.05], P < 0.04). These findings suggest that the organization of brain circuits may have played a critical role in adolescent stress and mental/emotional health during the pandemic.
