Display options
Cite
Janczyk M, Feghhi I, Rosenbaum DA. What matters in making demand-based decisions: Time alone or difficulty too?. Psychol Res. 2021;doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01583-6.
Janczyk, M., Feghhi, I., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2021). What matters in making demand-based decisions: Time alone or difficulty too?. Psychological research, . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01583-6
Janczyk, Markus, et al. "What matters in making demand-based decisions: Time alone or difficulty too?." Psychological research vol. (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01583-6
Janczyk M, Feghhi I, Rosenbaum DA. What matters in making demand-based decisions: Time alone or difficulty too?. Psychol Res. 2021 Sep 21; doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01583-6. Epub 2021 Sep 21. PMID: 34545427.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Psychol Res. 2021 Sep 21; doi: 10.1007/s00426-021-01583-6. Epub 2021 Sep 21.

What matters in making demand-based decisions: Time alone or difficulty too?.

Psychological research

Markus Janczyk, Iman Feghhi, David A Rosenbaum

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. [email protected].
  2. Department of Psychology, UC Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA.

PMID: 34545427 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-021-01583-6

Abstract

Which task is easier, doing arithmetic problems of specified form for some specified duration, or carrying a bucket of specified weight over some specified distance? If it is possible to choose between the "more cognitive" task and the "more physical" task, how are the difficulty levels of the tasks compared? We conducted two experiments in which participants chose the easier of two tasks, one that involved solving addition or multiplication problems (Experiment 1) or addition problems with different numbers of addends (Experiment 2) for varying amounts of time (in both experiments), and one that involved carrying a bucket of different weights over a fixed distance (in both experiments). We found that the probability of choosing to do the bucket task was higher when the bucket was empty than when it was weighted, and increased when the cognitive task was harder and its duration grew. We could account for the choice probabilities by mapping the independent variables onto one abstract variable, Φ. The functional identity of Φ remains to be determined. It could be interpreted as an inferred effort variable, subjective duration, or an abstract, amodal common code for difficulty.

© 2021. The Author(s).

References

  1. Ashcraft, M. H., & Guillaume, M. M. (2009). Mathematical cognition and the problem size effect. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 121–151). Academic Press. - PubMed
  2. Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9> 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4, 243–249. - PubMed
  3. Botvinick, M. M., & Rosen, Z. B. (2009). Anticipation of cognitive demand during decision-making. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73, 835–842. - PubMed
  4. Craig, A. D. (2013). An interoceptive neuroanatomical perspective on feelings, energy, and effort. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 685–686. - PubMed
  5. Dunn, T. L., & Risko, E. F. (2019). Understanding the cognitive miser: Cue-utilization in effort-based decision making. Acta Psychologica, 198, 102863. - PubMed
  6. 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, 1372–1387. - PubMed
  7. Dunn, T. L., Koehler, D. J., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Evaluating effort: Influences of evaluation mode on judgments of task-specific efforts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 869–888. - PubMed
  8. Dunn, T. L., Gaspar, C., & Risko, E. F. (2019a). Cue awareness in avoiding effortful control. Neuropsychologia, 123, 77–91. - PubMed
  9. Dunn, T. L., Inzlicht, M., & Risko, E. F. (2019b). Anticipating cognitive effort: Roles of perceived error-likelihood and time demands. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83, 1033–1056. - PubMed
  10. Feghhi, I., & Rosenbaum, D. (2019). Judging the subjective difficulty of different kinds of task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 45, 983–994. - PubMed
  11. Feghhi, I., & Rosenbaum, D. (2021). Effort avoidance is not simply error avoidance. Psychological Research, 85, 1462–1472 - PubMed
  12. Feghhi, I., Franchak, J. M., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2021). Towards a common code for difficulty: Navigating a narrow gap is like memorizing an extra digit. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics,. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02356-4 - PubMed
  13. Fournier, L. R., Coder, E., Kogan, C., Raghunath, N., Taddese, E., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2019). Which task will we choose first? Precrastination and cognitive load in task ordering. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 489–503. - PubMed
  14. Gold, J. M., Kool, W., Botvinick, M. M., Hubzin, L., August, S., & Waltz, J. A. (2015). Cognitive effort avoidance and detection in people with schizophrenia. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 145–154. - PubMed
  15. Gray, W. D., & Fu, W. T. (2004). Self-constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cognitive Science, 28, 359–382. - PubMed
  16. 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, 461–482. - PubMed
  17. Grondin, S. (Ed.). (2008). Psychology of time. Emerald. - PubMed
  18. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC). A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937. - PubMed
  19. Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 343–355. - PubMed
  20. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. Appleton-Century. - PubMed
  21. Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego-depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693. - PubMed
  22. 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, 665–682. - PubMed
  23. McGuire, J. T., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, and the registration of decision costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 7922–7926. - PubMed
  24. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193–251. - PubMed
  25. Ornstein, R. E. (1969). On the experience of time. Penguin. - PubMed
  26. Potts, C. A., Pastel, S., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). How are cognitive and physical difficulty compared? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 500–511. - PubMed
  27. Prinz, W. (1984). Modes of linkage between perception and action. In W. Prinz & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes (pp. 185–193). Springer. - PubMed
  28. Prinz, W. (1992). Why don’t we perceive our brain states? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 1–20. - PubMed
  29. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. - PubMed
  30. Rosenbaum, D. A. (2008). Reaching while walking: Reaching distance costs more than walking distance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1100–1104. - PubMed
  31. Rosenbaum, D. A., & Bui, B. B. (2019). Does task sustainability provide a unified measure of subjective task difficulty? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1980–1987. - PubMed
  32. Rosenbaum, D. A., Brach, M., & Semenov, A. (2011). Behavioral ecology meets motor behavior: Choosing between walking and reaching paths. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43, 131–136. - PubMed
  33. Rosenbaum, D. A., Chapman, K. M., Coelho, C. J., Gong, L., & Studenka, B. E. (2013). Choosing actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00273 - PubMed
  34. Schweitzer, N. J., Baker, D. A., & Risko, E. F. (2013). Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages. Cognition, 129, 501–511. - PubMed
  35. Taatgen, N. A. (2007). The minimal control principle. In W. Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 368–379). Oxford University Press. - PubMed
  36. Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3–18. - PubMed
  37. Weigelt, M., Rosenbaum, D. A., Huelshorst, S., & Schack, T. (2009). Moving and memorizing: Motor planning modulates the recency effect in serial and free recall. Acta Psychologica, 132, 68–79. - PubMed
  38. Zhang, L., Wininger, M., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2014). Word generation affects continuous hand movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 46, 115–123. - PubMed
  39. Zhou, X., Chen, C., Zang, Y., et al. (2007). Dissociated brain organization for single-digit addition and multiplication. NeuroImage, 35, 871–880. - PubMed
  40. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley. - PubMed

Publication Types