Subjective (dis)utility of effort: mentally and physically demanding tasks.


Journal

Cognitive research: principles and implications
ISSN: 2365-7464
Titre abrégé: Cogn Res Princ Implic
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697632

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 06 2020
Historique:
received: 13 11 2019
accepted: 06 05 2020
entrez: 7 6 2020
pubmed: 7 6 2020
medline: 22 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Effort as a concept, whether momentary, sustained, or as a function of different task conditions, is of critical importance to resource theories of attention, fatigue/boredom, workplace motivation, career selection, performance, job incentives, and other applied psychology concerns. Various models of motivation suggest that there is an inverted-U-shaped function describing the personal utility of effort, but there are expected to be individual differences in the optimal levels of effort that also are related to specific domain preferences. The current study assessed the disutility of effort for 125 different tasks/activities and also explored individual differences correlates of task preferences, in a sample of 77 undergraduate participants. The participants rated each activity in terms of the amount of compensation they would require to perform the task for a period of 4 h. They also completed paired comparisons for a subset of 24 items, followed by a set of preference judgments. Multidimensional scaling and preference scaling techniques were used to determine individual differences in task preference. Personality, motivation, and interest traits were shown to be substantially related to task preferences. Implications for understanding which individuals are oriented toward or away from tasks with different effort demands are discussed, along with considerations for the dynamics of attentional effort allocations during task performance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32504129
doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00226-5
pii: 10.1186/s41235-020-00226-5
pmc: PMC7275105
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

26

Références

Psychol Bull. 1997 Mar;121(2):219-45
pubmed: 9100487
Behav Processes. 2013 Nov;100:192-6
pubmed: 24140077
Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Dec;36(6):661-79
pubmed: 24304775
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010 Nov;139(4):665-82
pubmed: 20853993
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007 Jun;13(2):57-78
pubmed: 17535132
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 22;8(7):e68210
pubmed: 23894295
Psychol Rev. 1959 Jan;66(1):27-44
pubmed: 13645849
Multivariate Behav Res. 1981 Apr 1;16(2):149-70
pubmed: 26825420
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2015 Jun;15(2):395-415
pubmed: 25673005
Mem Cognit. 1989 May;17(3):337-48
pubmed: 2657319
Psychol Bull. 2013 Jul;139(4):841-69
pubmed: 23231531
J Psychol. 2003 Nov;137(6):569-95
pubmed: 14992349

Auteurs

Phillip L Ackerman (PL)

School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry Street, MC 0170, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0170, USA. plackerman@gatech.edu.

Corey E Tatel (CE)

School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry Street, MC 0170, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0170, USA.

Sibley F Lyndgaard (SF)

School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry Street, MC 0170, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0170, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH