eval Flashcards
prerequisit for control
to recruit modulate and disengage control, control processes must have access to control systems and information + be able to adust in accordance to current demands
conflict monitoring theory
Botvinick 2001
describe
Specific neural pathways act to eval current levels of conflict and emit necessary info to control centres to emcourage adjustment in control strength
reaction to environmental demands - high or low conflict
when less task demand, then less control is engaged
Kahenman 1973
how is control recruited
recruit control processess when engage in a difficult task, not in preparation of it
ie stroop: heightened interference at the beginning of stroop trials before recognise the need to control and improve performance
problem with strength model - conflict monitoring
focus on the influence of control exertion but do not explain how the control process itself came to be
what activated control recruitment, how is it optimised and modulated and what governs when it is withdrawn?
conflict monitoring theory
Botvinick 2001
Low conflict/interference
act on autopilot
ie stroop: congruent word and colour
conflict monitoring theory
Botvinick 2001
high conflict/interference
focused attention
ie stroop: incongruent word to colour
conflict monitoring theory
Botvinick 2001
neural circuit
dACC (conflict monitor: detects conflicts, evaluates control)
– reorients PFC (cog control) = initiates control process, regulates performance
feedback loop
Carver and Sheier 1992
self reg: cybernetic control theory
model
TOTE:
test, operate, test, exit
feedback at each stage
Carver and Sheier 1992
self reg: cybernetic control theory
step by step process
- hold a goal
- TOT…
- monitor progress
- aim to reduce discrepancy between current behaviour and outcome state
- if success: exit, if not: retest
Carver and Sheier 1992
self reg: cybernetic control theory
TEST 1
stimulus input eval via comparison with reference value/standard (goal)
Carver and Sheier 1992
self reg: cybernetic control theory
OPERATE
act on discrepancy to bring beh in line with standard value - output
Carver and Sheier 1992
self reg: cybernetic control theory
TEST 2
re-eval output to check standard has been reached
yes - exit
no - feedback loop
Carver and Sheier 1992
self reg: cybernetic control theory
GOALS
differ in abstraction level
organised hierachially - vary in importance
lower order goals are a means to an end and controlled by overarching higher order goals (“be” goals)
diff between carver and sheier cyber control + bau strength
vohs and bau 2004
theories are complementary
c+S: self reg highlights self monitoring as crucial for acting upon discrepancy between current state and goal
bau - emphasised resources in change and adjustment towards goal state - focused WITHIN c+S operate stage and reduced emphasis on performance monitoring and regulation
self control on self regulation
bau
considers self control synonymous with successful self regulation
self control on self regulation
c+s
percieves positive outcome expectancies to be more important in explaining self reg behaviours
control readiness model of self control
kleiman, vogt, trope and fishbach
control activated in one domain can facilitate control in another domain - mechanism based on conflict monitoring
conflict between intentions and current response detected by conflict monitoring system
- increases the strength of top down control processes to facilitate the intended responses.
process on a trial by-trial basis i.e. incongruent Stroop
- adjusted so that the response to a subsequent incongruent trial is facilitated.
control in initial trial biases attention toward goal-relevant + away from irrelevant distractors
- activating control aids control via a selective attention
mechanism domain generally
control readiness model of self control
kleiman, vogt, trope and fishbach
METHOD
sc vs control
sc: generate x4 activities to “try and avoid” this month to pursue study goals
control: generate x4 music genres to avoid listening to (control - make sure not due to primed avoidance effect but because of motivation pursue goal stimuli via assoc avoidance)
DV: m&ms cnsumed in taste test (high and low eating restraint pps)
control readiness model of self control
kleiman, vogt, trope and fishbach
RESULTS
activating study self control reduces m+m consumption ONLY in those motivated to restrain diet
- transfer of self control in one domain leads to domain general facilitation only when individual is motivated in second sc episode
- goal of study important - motivates and generalises to goal of restraint
- goal of music not important - does nto motivate
control readiness model of self control
kleiman, vogt, trope and fishbach
VS BAU
control readiness is not a direct contradiction of bau
1st goal being pursued not reduce resources as only planning control strategies
- means have resources to control self
control readiness model of self control
kleiman, vogt, trope and fishbach
problems
stud goal only relevant in those motivated to study - ignores hierachy of importance and how that might influence ability to generalise control/motivation to control
desribe parallel activation of inhibition
desribe
activation of motivational/beh tendencies facilitates similar motivating behaviours and hampers dissimilar behaviours
- activation of inhibition spillover in inhibitory ability across domains
Parallel activation of inhibition
Tuk, Trampe + Worlorp 2011
network
inhibitor network for cognitive/motor/affective responses
involve ACC: faciliate general self control, not specific to one task domain - allows spillover
conflict monitoring does not contend the nature of ACC conflict adjustment across domains
Parallel activation of inhibition
Tuk, Trampe + Worlorp 2011
to what extend does the hypothesis extend **questions
is it across sensory modes and systems ie visceral (bladder) and cognitive (health beh)
does it work vise versa? - disinhibition of one domain lead to release of control in another? - can you maintain/switch
is there a tipping point?/threshold? - at what point does spillover lead to depletion?
how long can the spillover last? days/weeks/months? - regular sc in one domain faciliate regular sc in others long term?
Parallel activation of inhibition
tuk, zhang and sweldens 2015
successful sc
parallel activation makes sense:
choice between acting on impulse or controlling against:
a lot of diff inhibitory decisions must be made to pursue ones goal
thought to involve lPFC, vmPFC and ACC “inhibitory network”
Parallel activation of inhibition
berkham, berklund and lieberman 2009
go no go spillover
inhibitory network = inhibits beh from one singular area
go no go motor inhibition facilitates consequtive emotional inhibition of the amygdala
Parallel activation of inhibition
berman et al 2009
internal meta analysis
METHOD
control limited to temporal window or else deplete
method: simultaneous or sequential control tasks:
attention, affect, thought suppression, food control, impulsive decision making and stroop
Parallel activation of inhibition
berman et al 2009
internal meta analysis
RESULTs
spillover increase in unrelated control domains when simultaneous > sequential
depletion effect when sequential
beliefs on self control ability
job et al 2015
whether depletion occurs or not is dependent on ones belief of willpower as a limited resource
belief = motivation: influence what you believe and what you can subsequently achieve
belief
bandura et al 1973
belief in ability to achieve/perform a task (self efficacy) - is strong determinant on how likely one is to actually achieving it
- determines belief in self and amount try
belief
non limited theory
do not belief willpower is ‘limitless’ or that one is immune to depletion effects during long and strenuous tasks
but reject that willpower is easily depleted by self control processes
belief
job et al 2010
assess limited/non limted theory via Q
ego depletion perform worse following sc task, non limited present no such impairment
job et al 2010
belief and glucose
glucose (lemonade and sugar) restores those with limited theory
but has no effect on performance in those with a nonlimited theory
vohs et al 2012
bleief and strength
task demands
implicit theories temporarily compendate for lack of resources in mild/moderate demand
but deplete when demands are severe
control, mild or severe depletion (no sc, 2 sc tasks and 4 sc tasks)
- non lmited improve>limited in mild but not when severe
- non lmited may undermine conservation of resources in highly demanding sc tasks and therefore limited perform better in severe
vohs et al 2012
bleief and strength
task demands
problems
lab study - factors beyond the impact of self control may have impacted ones willingnes to continue
- nonlimited may be better as engage in every task regardless of value, whereas limited do worse in second to account for third because percieve as more important
+ low ecological validity - need to look at sc performance in everyday
job et al 2010
belief and study
college students with nonlimited theory superior in everyday self reg in week before finals - when high demand for control
procrastinate less, eat healthier, less excessive spending
- exhibited across grades attained throughout the year
only when sc demand low did non limited theory “waste” resources and relax control efforts
is incorrect, why is bau strength model so widespread?
theory need not be functional to be popular
it only needs to be simple and appealing
ie IQ
potential problem with nonlimited theory
ironic
encourage people to engage in situations of control when illequipped
need effective self reg trategies ie plans and means to avoid and engage in control in the face of temptation
what factors are thought to counteract the effects of ego depletion
cash incentives
social goals
tv/praying
self affirmation
how does bau explain factors that counteract effects of ego depletion
resources fluctuate over the course of a day
factors are moderators
problem with bau and factors that counteract ego depletion
doesnt completely explain how self affirmation or watching tv would regain resources
- may be more likely that a switch in attention/a switch in motivation
resource model
LIMITATIONS
vague
glucose:
do not directly observe a resource - infer its presence based on task performance
metaphorical - no true nature of willpower
needs more specification on what it is, what initiates it and how it implements control - not comprehensive enough
against - madden, job
goals:
doesnt explain relation between goals to behaviour, or how engage in goal pursuit once impulse is inhibited
implementation intents?
how implement, optimise and detract control? - conflict monitoring and cybernetic control - not whole story
resource model
LIMITATIONS
glucose
madden
glucose mediator - research not reliably supportive of this
ignores other energy releases and how they may effect ie protein slow release
doesnt explain how mediators impact control ie beliefs on glucose?
madden - gurgle glusose not consuming still increases resources
resource model
LIMITATIONS
sc success
cant explain why some people do achieve successful self reg long term
- more concerned with what hinders>promotes control
- no suggestion of how to counter depletion and what situations facilitate control
what about strategies: habitual, exposure, reconstrual?
resource model
LIMITATIONS
sc=self reg?
hofmann et al 2012
ignores other important aspects of self reg
ie strategies - avoiding exposure, habit, reconstrual
hoffman - succesful controlers found to experience less conflicts - avoid?
resource model
LIMITATIONS
experiments
carter: publication bias in literature (smaller es than reported)
lacks ecological validity
measures not obective or standardised (hagger - anagram, researcher involvement bias)
resource model
LIMITATIONS
experiments
- anagrams
unsolvable anagrams difficult to generalise cross-culturally
may induce problems as relativel novel to some - harder to some than others
changes across language - cant standardise
resource model
LIMITATIONS
experiments - licensing
cant be certain that reduced efforts are because of depletion or because cant be bothered/no longer motivated to continue
may induce self licensing - “ive done m part” so allow self to not try as hard
compensation for study undervalued so following hard, incentive not great enough to continue
motivational model of ego depletion
inzlicht, schmeichel and macrae 2014
proximate explanatin (how)
T1 self control leads to a shift in motivational orientation and attentional focus - in tandem
motivation:
away from supression/inhibition of immediate desires (“have to tasks”)
towards approach/gratificatino of them (“want to tasks”
attention:
shift away from cues which signal need t exert control
shift towards cues of gratification
- shift monitoring of conflict - less likely to recognise discrepancy with goal when conflict arises
motivational model of ego depletion
carver + herman jones 2009
agg
heightened aggression at time 2 not resource depeletion = lack of self control
= increases impulsive strength/motivation towards gratification of emotion/approach to emotional expression
motivational model of ego depletion
wegner 1984
cybernetic models and attentional shifts
in line with c+S
emphasises the importance of monitoring/attentional components in determining beh outcome and adjustment
motivational model of ego depletion
inzlicht and gutsell 2007
ERN - attentional shifts
acc increase in amplitude during conflict and error detection tasks
depressed ern amplitude at time 2 - weakened monitoring of sc conflict - blunted goal attention and neglect of goal pusuit
motivational model of ego depletion and beliefs
personal theories of sc effect motivations
limited - sensitive to internal signs of depletion/fatigue
nonlimited - identify fatigue as needing to reinforce control
motivational model of ego depletion and self affirmation
schmeichel and vohs 2009
SA heightens degree people attend and react to sc failures
buffers approach motivations
‘kick start’ monitoring sstem and dampen approach system - amplifies ACC cm system
motivational model of ego depletion ultimate account (why)
organisms prefer exploration-exploitation trade offs
pitt the value of exploiting the value of a reward in the moment against the utility of exploring a new environment
motivational/attentional shifts regulate the extent to which the control system favours task enagagement to disengagement and sampling of alt opportunities
motivational model of ego depletion
immediate account
balancing exploitation and exploration is adaptive
time is limited - need to balance external reward of labour with the internal reward of leisure to maximised outcomes
external labour is gratifying but aversive and therefore counteract with internal leisure activities
applications of self control:
limited theory
take breaks
relax
balancing frame
pre plan
applications of self control:
spillover
engage at all things at once
highlight
applications of self control:
muscle strength
brain training/sc freq engaged in
self control and conflict identification
cn initiate self control in immedaite situation if dont identify conflict
width
consistency
ease of monitoring
diagnosticity
hagger multilab 2012
23 labs - e crossing task and multisource inference task (MSIT)
ES close to zero - not a sig effect
reported e crossing effortful
bau and vohs against hagger
e task not sufficiently tax self regulation - effort does not constitute depletion but is a moderator
- despite earlier contestings that this was a good task
