23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Effect of Perceived Effort on Reward Valuation: Taking the Reward Positivity (RewP) to Dissonance Theory

      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

          The present research was designed to test whether the subjective experience of more effort related to more reward valuation as measured by a neural response. This prediction was derived from the theory of cognitive dissonance and its effort justification paradigm. Young adult participants ( n = 82) engaged in multiple trails of a low or high effort task that resulted in a loss or reward on each trial. Neural responses to the reward (loss) cue were measured using EEG so that the event-related potential known as the Reward Positivity (RewP) could be assessed. Results revealed no significant differences between low and high effort conditions on the RewP. However, within the high effort condition, a more subjective experience of effort was associated with a larger RewP. This research extends past research on the effort justification paradigm of cognitive dissonance theory by suggesting that effort justification is associated with an implicit measure of reward valuation. It, therefore, challenges recent perspectives on dissonance processes that posit that these evaluative changes should only occur on explicit but not implicit measures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

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

          Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain.

          Previous research has shown that two components of the event-related brain potential, the P300 and feedback negativity, are sensitive to information about rewards and penalties. The present study investigated the properties of these components in a simple gambling game that required participants to choose between cards that were unpredictably associated with monetary gains and losses of variable magnitude. The aim was to determine the sensitivity of each component to two critical features of reward stimuli: magnitude (small or large) and valence (win or loss). A double dissociation was observed, with the P300 sensitive to reward magnitude but insensitive to reward valence and the feedback negativity showing the opposite pattern, suggesting that these two fundamental features of rewarding stimuli are evaluated rapidly and separately in the human brain. Subsequent analyses provided additional evidence of functional dissociations between the feedback negativity and P300. First, the P300 (but not the feedback negativity) showed sensitivity to the reward value of alternative, nonselected stimuli. Second, individual differences in the amplitude of the feedback negativity correlated with individual differences in risk-taking behavior observed after monetary losses, whereas individual differences in P300 amplitude were related to behavioral adjustments observed in response to alternative, unchosen outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The reward positivity: from basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression.

            Feedback indicating monetary loss elicits an apparent negative deflection in the event-related potential (ERP) that has been referred to as the feedback error-related negativity, medial frontal negativity, feedback-related negativity, and feedback negativity-all conceptualizations that suggest a negative ERP component that is greater for loss than gain. In the current paper, I review a programmatic line of research indicating that this apparent negativity actually reflects a reward-related positivity (RewP) that is absent or suppressed following nonreward. I situate the RewP within a broader nomological network of reward processing and individual differences in sensitivity to rewards. Further, I review work linking reductions in the RewP to increased depressive symptoms and risk for depression. Finally, I discuss future directions for research on the RewP.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Effort Paradox: Effort Is Both Costly and Valued

              According to prominent models in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and economics, effort (be it physical or mental) is costly: when given a choice, humans and non-human animals alike tend to avoid effort. Here, we suggest that the opposite is also true and review extensive evidence that effort can also add value. Not only can the same outcomes be more rewarding if we apply more (not less) effort, sometimes we select options precisely because they require effort. Given the increasing recognition of effort’s role in motivation, cognitive control, and value-based decision-making, considering this neglected side of effort will not only improve formal computational models, but also provide clues about how to promote sustained mental effort across time.
                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
                14 May 2020
                2020
                : 14
                : 157
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales , Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [2] 2Department of Experimental, Clinical, and Health Psychology, Ghent University , Ghent, Belgium
                Author notes

                Edited by: Xing Tian, New York University Shanghai, China

                Reviewed by: Anna N. Shestakova, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia; Frédéric Vanderhaegen, University of Valenciennes and Hainaut-Cambresis, France

                *Correspondence: Eddie Harmon-Jones eddiehj@ 123456gmail.com

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

                Article
                10.3389/fnhum.2020.00157
                7241252
                32477082
                e427c344-589c-49e4-8ee0-1c1055f63cf2
                Copyright © 2020 Harmon-Jones, Clarke, Paul and Harmon-Jones.

                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
                : 18 December 2019
                : 09 April 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 41, Pages: 8, Words: 5594
                Categories
                Human Neuroscience
                Brief Research Report

                Neurosciences
                effort,reward,cognitive dissonance,reward positivity,event-related potentials
                Neurosciences
                effort, reward, cognitive dissonance, reward positivity, event-related potentials

                Comments

                Comment on this article