Literature DB >> 28368164

Avoiding the conflict: Metacognitive awareness drives the selection of low-demand contexts.

Kobe Desender1, Cristian Buc Calderon2, Filip Van Opstal2, Eva Van den Bussche1.   

Abstract

Previous research attempted to explain how humans strategically adapt behavior in order to achieve successful task performance. Recently, it has been suggested that 1 potential strategy is to avoid tasks that are too demanding. Here, we report 3 experiments that investigate the empirically neglected role of metacognitive awareness in this process. In these experiments, participants could freely choose between performing a task in either a high-demand or a low-demand context. Using subliminal priming, we ensured that participants were not aware of the visual stimuli creating these different demand contexts. Our results showed that participants who noticed a difference in task difficulty (i.e., metacognitive aware participants) developed a clear preference for the low-demand context. In contrast, participants who experienced no difference in task difficulty (i.e., metacognitive unaware participants) based their choices on variables unrelated to cognitive demand (e.g., the color or location associated with a context), and did not develop a preference for the low-demand context. Crucially, this pattern was found despite identical task performance in both metacognitive awareness groups. A multiple regression approach confirmed that metacognitive awareness was the main factor driving the preference for low-demand contexts. These results argue for an important role of metacognitive awareness in the strategic avoidance of demanding tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28368164     DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  8 in total

Review 1.  Monitoring and control in multitasking.

Authors:  Stefanie Schuch; David Dignath; Marco Steinhauser; Markus Janczyk
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

2.  Induced affective states do not modulate effort avoidance.

Authors:  Carlos González-García; Beatriz García-Carrión; Raúl López-Benítez; Alberto Sobrado; Alberto Acosta; María Ruz
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2020-02-08

Review 3.  Conflict monitoring and the affective-signaling hypothesis-An integrative review.

Authors:  David Dignath; Andreas B Eder; Marco Steinhauser; Andrea Kiesel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

Review 4.  Filling the gaps: Cognitive control as a critical lens for understanding mechanisms of value-based decision-making.

Authors:  R Frömer; A Shenhav
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 5.  Measuring Adaptive Control in Conflict Tasks.

Authors:  Senne Braem; Julie M Bugg; James R Schmidt; Matthew J C Crump; Daniel H Weissman; Wim Notebaert; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 20.229

6.  Developmental Differences in Subjective Recollection and Its Role in Decision Making.

Authors:  Diana Selmeczy; Alireza Kazemi; Simona Ghetti
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2021-06-24

7.  Developing adaptive control: Age-related differences in task choices and awareness of proactive and reactive control demands.

Authors:  J C Niebaum; N Chevalier; R M Guild; Y Munakata
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 3.526

8.  Cost-benefit trade-offs in decision-making and learning.

Authors:  Nura Sidarus; Stefano Palminteri; Valérian Chambon
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 4.475

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.