3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Spillover Effect of Autonomy Frustration on Human Motivation and Its Electrophysiological Representation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          It is a commonplace that some people may adopt a controlling style, which brings about autonomy frustration to others. Existing studies on autonomy frustration mainly examined its effect in the primary thwarting context, ignoring its potential spillover to subsequent activities. In this study, we examined whether prior autonomy frustration would have a sustaining negative impact on one’s motivation in another autonomy-supportive activity that follows. In this electrophysiological study, participants worked on two irrelevant tasks organized by two different experimenters. We adopted a between-group design and manipulated participants’ autonomy frustration by providing varied audio instructions during Session 1. In Session 2, all participants were instructed to complete a moderately difficult task that is autonomy-supportive instead, and we observed a less pronounced reward positivity (RewP) difference wave and a smaller P300 in the autonomy-frustration group compared with the control group. These findings suggested that the negative influence of autonomy frustration is longstanding and that it can undermine one’s motivation and attention in a following activity that is autonomy-supportive itself. Thus, our findings provided original neutral evidence for the adverse intertemporal effect of autonomy frustration, and suggested important practical implications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system.

            Psychologists and neuroscientists have had a long-standing interest in the P3, a prominent component of the event-related brain potential. This review aims to integrate knowledge regarding the neural basis of the P3 and to elucidate its functional role in information processing. The authors review evidence suggesting that the P3 reflects phasic activity of the neuromodulatory locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) system. They discuss the P3 literature in the light of empirical findings and a recent theory regarding the information-processing function of the LC-NE phasic response. The theoretical framework emerging from this research synthesis suggests that the P3 reflects the response of the LC-NE system to the outcome of internal decision-making processes and the consequent effects of noradrenergic potentiation of information processing. Copyright 2005 APA, all rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn't).

              ERP experiments generate massive datasets, often containing thousands of values for each participant, even after averaging. The richness of these datasets can be very useful in testing sophisticated hypotheses, but this richness also creates many opportunities to obtain effects that are statistically significant but do not reflect true differences among groups or conditions (bogus effects). The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how common and seemingly innocuous methods for quantifying and analyzing ERP effects can lead to very high rates of significant but bogus effects, with the likelihood of obtaining at least one such bogus effect exceeding 50% in many experiments. We focus on two specific problems: using the grand-averaged data to select the time windows and electrode sites for quantifying component amplitudes and latencies, and using one or more multifactor statistical analyses. Reanalyses of prior data and simulations of typical experimental designs are used to show how these problems can greatly increase the likelihood of significant but bogus results. Several strategies are described for avoiding these problems and for increasing the likelihood that significant effects actually reflect true differences among groups or conditions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Hum Neurosci
                Front Hum Neurosci
                Front. Hum. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1662-5161
                22 April 2020
                2020
                : 14
                : 134
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Business Administration, Guangdong University of Finance , Guangzhou, China
                [2] 2Laboratory of Neuromanagement and Decision Neuroscience, Guangdong University of Technology , Guangzhou, China
                [3] 3School of Management, Guangdong University of Technology , Guangzhou, China
                [4] 4School of Business and Management, Shanghai International Studies University , Shanghai, China
                [5] 5Laboratory of Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Shanghai International Studies University , Shanghai, China
                [6] 6Wharton Neuroscience Initiative, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Praveen K. Pilly, HRL Laboratories, United States

                Reviewed by: Richard M. Ryan, Australian Catholic University, Australia; Weihui Dai, Fudan University, China

                *Correspondence: Liang Meng, promise_land@ 123456shisu.edu.cn

                This article was submitted to Cognitive Neuroscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

                Article
                10.3389/fnhum.2020.00134
                7189215
                32390813
                d0ae390c-1b0f-44f0-b2f8-d32d52c46e1a
                Copyright © 2020 Fang, Wan, Zheng and Meng.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 06 October 2019
                : 23 March 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 72, Pages: 11, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China-Yunnan Joint Fund 10.13039/501100011002
                Funded by: Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China 10.13039/501100002338
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Original Research

                Neurosciences
                self-determination theory,autonomy frustration,controlling context,autonomous motivation,event-related potentials,reward positivity (rewp)

                Comments

                Comment on this article