Literature DB >> 32564130

Precrastination and individual differences in working memory capacity.

Nisha Raghunath1,2, Lisa R Fournier3, Clark Kogan4.   

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.
© 2020. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32564130     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-020-01373-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  26 in total

1.  The efficient assessment of need for cognition.

Authors:  J T Cacioppo; R E Petty; C F Kao
Journal:  J Pers Assess       Date:  1984-06

2.  Trade-offs between gaze and working memory use.

Authors:  Jason A Droll; Mary M Hayhoe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Memory representations in natural tasks.

Authors:  D H Ballard; M M Hayhoe; J B Pelz
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Grasping a fruit: selection for action.

Authors:  U Castiello
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Metacognitive evaluation in the avoidance of demand.

Authors:  Timothy L Dunn; David J C Lutes; Evan F Risko
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework.

Authors:  Todd S Braver
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 20.229

7.  Evidence for visuomotor priming effect.

Authors:  L Craighero; L Fadiga; C A Umiltà; G Rizzolatti
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1996-12-20       Impact factor: 1.837

8.  Toward an integrated account of object and action selection: a computational analysis and empirical findings from reaching-to-grasp and tool-use.

Authors:  Matthew M Botvinick; Laurel J Buxbaum; Lauren M Bylsma; Steven A Jax
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-11-30       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Anticipation of cognitive demand during decision-making.

Authors:  Matthew M Botvinick; Zev B Rosen
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-11-21

10.  The left cerebral hemisphere may be dominant for the control of bimanual symmetric reach-to-grasp movements.

Authors:  Jarrod Blinch; Jason W Flindall; Łukasz Smaga; Kwanghee Jung; Claudia Lr Gonzalez
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.