Facilitating Cognitive Control: The Importance of Timing of Positive Feedback and Implicit Achievement Motivation
Linos Vossoughi 11414804 Internship Project Supervisor: Dr. Nils Jostmann
Abstract
Cognitive control is a cognitive process required to perform various difficult tasks, therefore, it would be of interest for several fields to find ways to facilitate it. Positive affect has been found to sometimes facilitate cognitive control. In the present study, positive feedback was used to induce positive affect in a Stroop task, with the main goal to investigate when it should be induced to produce the desired effect. Feedback was either positive or neutral, and was presented either before initiation of a trial (pre-goal) or after performance (post-goal). It was expected that facilitation of cognitive control, as reflected by reductions of Stroop interference indices, would only be observed as a result of positive feedback that was
administered pre-goal. Moreover, to investigate individual differences, implicit achievement motivation was explored as a covariate. Based on previous research that supports that
volitional facilitation is associated with the need for achievement, it was expected that, higher achievement motivation would be associated with greater cognitive control facilitation from positive feedback. The results indicated that none of the hypotheses were confirmed.
However, a closer examination of the data suggests that a trend towards the expected results was found regarding the main hypothesis. That is, Stroop interference was smaller after pre-goal positive feedback than after post-pre-goal positive feedback and pre-pre-goal neutral feedback. Limitations and suggestions for further research are discussed.
Keywords: positive feedback, Stroop, cognitive control, volitional facilitation, achievement motivation
Facilitating Cognitive Control: The Importance of Timing of Positive Feedback and Implicit Achievement Motivation
Most tasks of a certain level of complexity require cognitive control. Cognitive control involves maintaining goals in mind while ignoring distractions and at the same time
alternating between goals as significant changes in the environment occur (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004). Experimentally, cognitive control can be assessed through the Stroop task, in which color words are presented written in either the same (control trials) or a different color (incongruent trials). Alternatively, instead of using color words for the control trial string of letters are used (i.e. “XXXX”). Participants must report the color the words are written in and ignore the color that words represent. For example, if the word blue is written in red, only the latter color must be reported. Therefore, in tasks where words and colors are incongruent one can observe the extra effort that is needed for cognitive control (to ignore the distracting but automatic response of reading the words) in the reaction times. That is, longer reaction times are observed in incongruent trials than in the congruent trials.
Cognitive control is necessary for a vast range of tasks; thus, it would be of great importance to understand how it can be facilitated to improve performance in various domains (i.e. school, sports, therapy, parenting). One way in which cognitive control has been
observed to be facilitated is with positive affect. That is, inducing positive affect has been found to increase cognitive control (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004). However, the notion that positive affect has a positive effect on cognitive control is not always supported, as studies have demonstrated negative effects of positive affect on performance (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2011; Van Steenbergen, 2015). One way people frequently induce positive affect with the intention to improve performance is by means of positive feedback. Nevertheless, studies have shown that positive feedback is not necessarily effective (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991). Therefore, it can be seen that the intuitive notion that positive feedback is beneficial is not always correct; as well put by Ginott (1965): “Praise[a form of positive feedback], like penicillin, must not be administered
haphazardly”(p.39). Hence the question arises of how feedback should be administered to facilitate cognitive control.
Why positive feedback is not always facilitating cognitive control might be explained by a model proposed by Kuhl and Kazen (1999). It is suggested that for positive affect to increase cognitive control, an intention must first be activated in intention memory (a system involved in the regulation of the pathway between intention and execution), preparing an individual to perform a complex task. For example, the researchers suggested that intention
memory needs to be activated to control the performance of a sequence of tasks. Therefore, in Kuhl and Kazen’s (1999) study, positive affect appeared to facilitate cognitive control in a Stroop task only when participants prepared for a sequence of two trials (the second not necessarily a Stroop task) rather than one. Also, facilitation of cognitive control was only observed in the first trial as intention memory would no longer be needed to inhibit an action after the first trial is performed (only one trial left). Intention memory is thought to
incorporate inhibitory mechanisms that block the pathways from intention to execution. Hence, it was proposed that positive affect, by means of increased dopamine (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004), releases this inhibition, which can be observed in increased performance in tasks that require cognitive control.
Moreover, a subsequent study by Kazen and Kuhl (2005) demonstrated that intention memory could also be activated when only one task was present; that is, when participants were reminded that achievement was the primary goal of the task. Specifically, in this study participants were provided with feedback before each trial (positive, negative, or neutral) that concerned their performance on the preceding trial. Trials consisted of only one Stroop task and when feedback was positive, facilitation of cognitive control was observed. Therefore, the researchers concluded that maintaining an achievement context was sufficient to activate intention memory. An explanation for this is that keeping difficult intentions active in memory is a cardinal characteristic of achievement motivation.
Nevertheless, Jostmann (unpublished data) tried to replicate the above mentioned study (Kazen & Kuhl, 2005; Study 4) but results were not consistent. This suggests that there might be something that had been overlooked about how facilitation of cognitive control is induced. The mixed findings could be attributed to the timing of induction of positive affect.
Specifically, it has been observed that positive affect induced after playing a game (post-goal) can have detrimental effects in attention (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2011) which has been termed “coasting” (Carver, 2003). On the other hand, positive affect induced when expecting to perform (pre-goal) has been repeatedly found beneficial to performance (Custers and Aarts, 2010; Kazen & Kuhl, 2005). Translating from the above-mentioned studies, one might infer that timing of positive feedback might also play a role in facilitation of cognitive control; that is, possibly, only pre-goal and not post-goal positive feedback facilitates cognitive control.
Therefore, in the present study, feedback (positive or neutral) was provided either pre-goal or post-pre-goal in a Stroop task. Each trial was opened by an announcement that prepared participants for either one or two trials. It was expected that Stroop interference indices (difference of RTs between incongruent and control trials) would be significantly lower when
positive feedback was provided after the announcement (pre-goal) than after performance (post-goal). No effects of either pre-goal or post-goal neutral feedback were expected.
Additionally, it was examined if participants with high compared to low implicit achievement motivation would show more cognitive control facilitation because of pre-goal positive feedback. Implicit achievement motivation is the inclination to impulsively think of achievement-related themes and can be assessed through implicit tests such as the Operant Multimotive Test (OMT; Kuhl & Scheffer, 1999)). Implicit achievement motivation is thought to play a role in facilitation of cognitive control as it has only been observed with achievement related positive affect as demonstrated in one of Kazen and Kuhl’s studies (2005). They found that participants with higher implicit achievement motivation were more susceptible to the effect. This finding is important as it sheds light into individual differences in the effects of positive feedback. It is valuable to know who would benefit more or less from positive feedback. Hence, another goal of the present study was to replicate this finding of Kazen and Kuhl(2005).
Method Participants
The sample consisted of 90 subjects most of which were university students in the Netherlands that applied for the experiment either for 1 credit point or 10 euro. Participants were recruited at the labs of the University of Amsterdam. Out of the 90 participants 12 were excluded for various reasons. One participant was excluded because of colorblindness, one participant because of possible intoxication, eight participants because of lack of
understanding of the instructions, and two participants because their number of errors in the Stroop task exceeded 2.5 standard deviations above the mean number of errors (M= 5.02%; SD= 12.50). Ages ranged from 18 to 60 years old with a mean age of 24.6 years and 59 out of the 78 participants used in the analysis were females.
Materials
Operant Motive Test
The Operant Motive Test (OMT) consists of a set of pictures and questions and was used to measure individual differences in implicit achievement motivation (Kuhl & Scheffer, 1999). For the present study, only the six pictures that relate to achievement motivation were used (see Appendix A). Pictures depict one or more persons and participants had to respond to the following three questions for each picture: “What is important for the person in this situation and what is the person doing?”, “How does the person feel?”, and “Why does the person feel this way?”. Only when participants indicated that the character on the picture tries
to meet a standard of performance the achievement motive was coded (i.e. “De hoofdpersoon tilt een steen op. Het is belangrijk voor hem/haar om deze steen zo lang mogelijk omhoog te houden.”). Thus, the end scores for implicit achievement motivation ranged from 0 to 6. It has been shown that the OMT is a valid and reliable measure of the implicit achievement motive and has been used in various previous studies (Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2005; Kuhl & Kazén, 2008; Scheffer, Kuhl, & Eichstaedt, 2003). In the present study a Dutch version of the OMT was used.
Stroop Task
The Stroop task included control and incongruent stimuli; the first were rows of Xs in either red, green, blue or yellow, while the latter were color words with incongruent font (i.e. the word red in blue font). Participants responded by pressing one of four buttons indicating the font color of the word in each trial. The colors were alternated across the four buttons (“A”,“S”,” K”, and ”L” buttons of the keyboard) according to the 16 possible combinations to ensure that position would not play a role in participants’ performance.
Procedure
First, participants had to agree to participate after reading the informed consent form and provide some demographic information (sex, age, Dutch language proficiency, etc.). Then, they had to complete the Operant Motive Test to assess their achievement motivation (see Figure 1). This first part of the experiment was conducted using Qualtrics. Afterwards participants began a digital version of a four color Stroop task programed in the software Presentation, which was used to assess cognitive control. Instructions were provided
throughout the Stroop task when necessary and participants were informed about the nature of the feedback (see Appendix B). In the beginning, they were given 8 warm up Stroop trials where feedback was provided (either “CORRECT” or “INCORRECT”) depending on
whether participants press the button representing the appropriate color; this was to make sure participants understood what they had to do. Then participants had to complete 16 practice trials of the Stroop task where each participant’s median reaction time was assessed. During the 16 practice trials no feedback was provided. Subsequently, participants had 16 more trials that followed the same script as the main trial however data was not collected for them as it was just to make them accustomed to the flow of the experiment.
Next, the main trials began which comprised of 256 Stroop trials. Half of the trials consisted of one task while the other half of two tasks (randomly distributed) which was announced every time in the beginning. Moreover, following a randomly generated
trial (post-goal) while the other half after the announcement of the next trial (pre-goal). Feedback was either positive (a smiley) or neutral (an empty grey circle) depending on the participants’ reaction times (RT). If RTs were faster than the 75th percentile (the mean of the 7th and 8th slowest reaction times) derived from the reaction times of the preceding 10 trials, then feedback was positive 66.6% of the time, whereas the remaining 33.3% of the time and when RTs were slower than the 75th percentile feedback was neutral. This way positive feedback was provided approximately 50% of the time. Negative feedback (“INCORRECT”) was only provided when participants responded incorrectly.
A small subject paced break at 128 trials was held for participants to rest before continuing with the remaining 128 trials. After completion of the Stroop task participants had to answer to questions indicating their understanding of instructions, their attention during the experiment, their motivation to perform, and how difficult they found the task during the experiment among other information (see Appendix C). The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Amsterdam’s psychology department (project code 2017-SP7681).
The announcement in the beginning of each trial that indicated whether there will be one or Stroop tasks was presented for 1500ms (see Figure 2). Moreover, feedback was presented for 750ms. In the pre-goal trials, feedback was followed by a blank screen for 1500ms to keep the SOA between feedback and next Stroop trial constant at 2250ms (Kazén & Kuhl, 2005). Positive, neural, and “incorrect” feedback was provided on average 42.88%, 49.55%, and 7.57% of the times respectively (see Table 1 for the frequencies of each
condition).
The study followed a 2x2x2 within subjects design. The independent variables were timing of feedback (pre- vs post-goal), valence of feedback (positive vs neutral) and trial type (1 task vs 2 tasks). Negative feedback was not used in the analysis as it was not proportional to neutral and positive feedback and was only used to inform participants that they made an error. Implicit achievement motivation was used as a covariate. The dependent variable was the Stroop interference index in milliseconds (Incongruent RTs – Control RTs).
Results Data Preparation
Response time data that exceeded 2.5 SDs above or below the mean RTs of each participant was removed before the analysis. The RT data was converted into natural logarithms before it was analyzed. To facilitate the interpretation untransformed data in milliseconds are reported. Stroop interference indices were calculated by subtracting the RTs
of incongruent Stroop trials of each condition by the RTs of control Stroop trials from the corresponding conditions.
Data Analyses
Main Hypothesis. First, a 2 × 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with
timing, valence, and trial type as independent variables and Stroop interference index as the dependent variable. A significant main effect of trial type on the dependent variable was found, F(1,77) = 5.01, p = .028, pη2=.061. Specifically, Stroop interference was smaller in
trials with two tasks (M = 32, SE = 5) compared to trials with one task (M=45, SE=6). Moreover, a marginally significant main effect of timing was found, F(1,77)=3.62, p=.061, partial η2=.045. Specifically, the Stroop interference index was smaller when feedback was provided pre-goal (M=34, SE=5) compared to when it was provided post-goal (M=44, SE=6). Also, a significant interaction effect of valence and trial type was found, F(1,77)=5.78, p=.019, partial η2=.070 (see Figure 3). Specifically, after positive feedback, Stroop interference indices were significantly smaller in trials with two tasks (M=27, SE=7)
compared to trials with one task (M=51, SE=8), p=.004. After neutral feedback there was no difference between trials of two tasks (M=39, SE=7) and trials of one task (M=37, SE=6), p=.945. Moreover, in trials with one task, positive feedback (M=51, SE=8) did not differ from neutral feedback (M=37, SE=6), p=.171. In trials with two tasks there was a marginally significant difference between positive (M=27, SE=7) and neutral feedback(M=39, SE=7), p=.076. The main effect of valence (p=.818) and interaction effects of, valence and timing (p=.258), timing and trial type (p=.494), and timing, valence, and trial type (p=.964), were insignificant.
Secondary Hypothesis. A repeated measures 2x2 ANCOVA was conducted with
implicit achievement motivation scores as the covariate, feedback timing and valence as the independent variables, and Stroop interference index as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed that there was no significant relationship between the covariate and the dependent variable, p= .776. Therefore, the assumption of ANCOVA that the covariate and the dependent variable should be correlated was not met.
Exploratory Analyses. As the effect of positive feedback was only observed in trials
of two tasks, the data of these trials was used to perform a 2x2 ANOVA with timing and valence as independent variables and Stroop interference index as the dependent variable. A marginally significant main effect of timing was found, F(1,77)=3.45, p=.067, partial η2
=.043. Specifically, pre-goal feedback (M=25, SE=6) was found to produce smaller Stroop interference indices compared to post-goal feedback (M=40, SE=7). Also, a marginally
significant main effect of valence was found, F(1,77)=3.22, p=.076, partial η2=.040. Specifically, positive feedback (M=27, SE=7) was found to produce smaller Stroop
interference indices compared to neutral feedback (M=37, SE=6). The interaction effect of valence and timing was found not significant, p=.406. However, pairwise comparisons with contrasts indicated some noteworthy differences (see Figure 4). Particularly, pre-goal positive feedback (M=17, SE=8) was found to be marginally significantly different from post-goal positive feedback (M=37, SE=10) with the former resulting in smaller Stroop interference indices than the latter, p=.059. Another marginally significant difference was found between pre-goal positive feedback (M=17, SE=8) and pre-goal neutral feedback (M=33, SE=8) with the former resulting in smaller Stroop interference indices than the latter, p=.068. The difference between pre-goal neutral feedback (M=33, SE=8) and post-goal neutral feedback (M=42, SE=9) was insignificant, p=.433. Additionally, the difference between post-goal neutral feedback (M=42, SE=9) and post-goal positive feedback (M=37, SE=10) was also insignificant, p=.411.
To explore whether there was a difference between the first and second block as a result of exhaustion or boredom a 2x2x2x2 ANOVA was conducted with timing, valence, trial type, and block as independent variables and Stroop interference index as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed no significant main effect of block and no interaction effect of block, valence, and timing, p>.050. Moreover, a 2x2x2 ANCOVA was conducted with timing, valence, and trial type as independent variables, Stroop interference index as the dependent variable, and reported interest to participate, subjective difficulty of the task, and motivation to perform during the experiment as covariates. The analysis revealed no
significant interactions, p>.05.
Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to examine whether timing of feedback affects the effect of positive feedback on cognitive control. Particularly, it was expected that pre-goal positive feedback would result in smaller Stroop interference indices compared to post-goal positive feedback and neutral feedback regardless of timing. Also, it was examined whether implicit achievement motivation moderates the effect of feedback on cognitive control, expecting greater effects of pre-goal positive feedback with higher achievement motivation. At first glance, it appears that both hypotheses were disconfirmed. That is, no interaction effect of timing and valence was observed as well as no relationship of between implicit motivation and Stroop interference indices.
However, looking closer at the results it could be seen that on a purely descriptive level the expectations of the main hypothesis were met, although the effects were marginally significant. Specifically, it was observed that pre-goal positive feedback resulted in smaller Stroop interference indices compared to post-goal positive feedback and neutral pre-goal feedback. Post-goal positive feedback, though, did not differ from post goal neutral feedback. This is an indication that positive feedback had the facilitating effect only when it was
provided before performance and after announcement of the beginning of a trial (pre-goal). These findings come in support with the notion that timing of feedback might play a role in its effectiveness. They come in line with previous findings that suggest pre-goal positive
feedback is beneficial (Custers and Aarts, 2010; Kazen & Kuhl, 2005) whereas post-goal positive feedback is not, even though it was not as detrimental as some studies have suggested (Carver, 2003; Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2011).
Furthermore, it was observed that the above-mentioned effects were only found in trials that consisted of two tasks. That was contrary to expectations as no difference between trials of one tasks and trials of two tasks were anticipated. This expectation was based on the findings of Kazen and Kuhl (2005) that demonstrated that positive feedback can facilitate performance in a Stroop task even when there was no sequence of steps that had to be taken. Kazen and Kuhl(2005) claimed that even in trials with only one task cognitive control could be facilitated through positive feedback as maintaining an achievement context was sufficient to activate intention memory. Failing to replicate this finding could be attributed to the
possibility that, feedback in the present experiment failed to create an achievement context, or the original finding might have been spurious.
This failure might be a result of feedback in the present study not being as
straightforward as feedback in the study of Kazen and Kuhl(2005). That is, feedback in the present study was more ambiguous and participants were aware of this ambiguity.
Specifically, 30% of the time positive feedback should be provided according to performance, neutral feedback was provided instead. But Kazen and Kuhl(2005) used positive, negative , and neutral feedback that had only one meaning, either indicating better, worse, or the same exact performance. The ambiguity of feedback in the present study might have inhibited participants’ achievement motivation as they knew that feedback was not always in
accordance to their performance; which would mean that their achievement would not always be “rewarded” by the appropriate feedback.
Overall, however, the present study comes in alignment with the studies of volitional facilitation that suggest positive feedback facilitates cognitive control after an intention has
been activated in intention memory (Kazén & Kuhl, 2005; Kuhl & Kazén, 1999). Particularly, the results indicate that positive feedback facilitates performance in a Stroop trial when the trial consists of two tasks. This is in line with the hypothesis that for positive feedback to facilitate cognitive control people must first prepare for a complex task, in order to activate an intention in intention memory, which regulates the pathway between intention and execution. To illustrate in the context of the present experiment, intention memory was activated when participants prepared for a sequence of tasks (a complex task). Then, if positive feedback was provided, the subsequent performance in incongruent trials was better compared to when neutral feedback was provided. Nevertheless, the results were only marginally significant.
The fact that the expected effects were not strong or insignificant in contrast to
previous research (Kazén & Kuhl, 2005; Kuhl & Kazen, 1999) could be attributed to a variety of factors. Such factors explored in the present study were reported difficulty of the task and tiredness (it was assumed that participants would be less tired in the first block than in the second block), however it was found that results were unaffected by either of these factors. Another factor that might have caused this inconsistency of findings could be the nature of neutral feedback in the present experiment. As mentioned above, neutral feedback was ambiguous, meaning that neutral feedback could either be provided when a participant performed better, the same, or worse than in previous trials. This could have led participants to sometimes interpret neutral feedback as positive, and in turn to an unclear distinction between positive and neutral feedback in the results. Looking at the study of Kazén and Kuhl, 2005, where they used neutral feedback one can observe the difference of the nature of the feedback. That is, in the present study neutral feedback was uninformative and could have been interpreted in different ways. Whereas in their study neutral feedback was informative with a clear distinction from positive feedback possibly resulting in a better differentiation between neutral and positive feedback.
Moreover, implicit achievement motivation was not related to the effect of positive feedback on performance on the Stroop task in contrast to what Kazén & Kuhl (2005) have found. However, the data of the OMT in the present study should be considered with care as only one rater scored the test. Consequently, inter-rater reliability was not assessed, hence, it is likely that the OMT scores do not accurately reflect participants’ implicit achievement motivation.
To conclude, the present study indicates that timing might indeed play a role in the effect of positive feedback on facilitation of cognitive control, particularly the facilitating effect of positive feedback might only be observed when it is pre-goal. Also, it comes in
support with Kazen and Kuhl’s studies (1999;2005) and the notion that in order for positive feedback to have an effect a difficult intention must first be activated as the effect was only observed when participants prepared for a sequence of tasks. Nevertheless, all the effects found in the present study were rather weak. Future research should investigate the effect of positive feedback on performance on the Stroop task by comparing it with performance after ambiguous neutral feedback and informative neutral feedback. This way a clear distinction between the two types of neutral feedback might be drawn. Also, more research should be conducted in investigating individual differences in the effect of feedback. Research aiming to understand how and when feedback should be provided is of great importance as feedback is a tool used in a variety of contexts in order to improve performance or outcomes. However, feedback is not always beneficial and the present study provides some indication as to why this happens as timing of feedback seems to be an important factor.
References
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of educational research, 61(2), 213-238. Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: stress-dependent
discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(5), 781.
Brunstein, J. C., & Schmitt, C. H. (2004). Assessing individual differences in achievement motivation with the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Research in
Personality, 38(6), 536-555.
Carver, C. S. (2003). Pleasure as a sign that you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 241-261.
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 30(2), 343-352.
Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011). Attentional consequences of pregoal and postgoal positive affects. Emotion, 11, 1358-1367.
Ginott, H. G. (1965). Between parent and child. New York: Macmillan.
Grusec, J. E. (1991). Socializing concern for others in the home. Developmental Psychology, 27, 338–342.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
Kazén, M., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Intention memory and achievement motivation: Volitional facilitation and inhibition as a function of affective contents of need-related stimuli. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(3), 426.
Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (1999). Volitional facilitation of difficult intentions: joint activation of intention memory and positive affect removes stroop interference. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 382.
Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (2008). Motivation, affect, and hemispheric asymmetry: Power versus affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 456
Kuhl, J., & Scheffer, D. (1999). Der operante multi-motiv-test (OMT): Manual [The operant multi-motive-test (OMT): Manual]. Germany: University of Osnabrück.
Kuhl, J., Scheffer, D., & Eichstaedt, J. (2003). Der Operante Motiv-Test (OMT): Ein neuer Ansatz zur Messung impliziter Motive. Diagnostik von motivation und selbstkonzept, 129-149.
Siegle, G. J., Ghinassi, F., & Thase, M. E. (2007). Neurobehavioral therapies in the 21st century: Summary of an emerging field and an extended example of cognitive control training for depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31(2), 235-262.
Van Steenbergen, H. (2015). Affective modulation of cognitive control: A biobehavioral perspective. In G. Gendolla, M. Tops, & S. Koole (Eds.) Handbook of biobehavioral approaches to self-regulation. (pp. 89-107). New York, NY: Springer.
Table 1
Frequency of each Condition
Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Percentage
(%)
5.6 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.4 6.3 6.3 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.4 7.2
Note. 1= Control, One task, Positive Pre-Goal Feedback; 2= Control, One task, Positive Post-Goal Feedback; 3= Control, Two tasks, Positive Pre-Post-Goal Feedback; 4= Control, Two tasks, Positive Post-Goal Feedback; 5= Incongruent, One task, Positive Pre-Goal Feedback; 6= Incongruent, One task, Positive Post-Goal Feedback; 7= Incongruent, Two tasks, Positive Pre-Goal Feedback; 8= Incongruent, Two tasks, Positive Post-Goal Feedback; 9= Control, One task, Neutral Pre-Goal Feedback; 10= Control, One task, Neutral Post-Goal Feedback; 11= Control, Two tasks, Neutral Pre-Goal Feedback; 12= Control, Two tasks, Neutral Post-Goal Feedback; 13= Incongruent, One task, Neutral Pre-Post-Goal Feedback; 14= Incongruent, One task, Neutral Post-Goal Feedback; 15= Incongruent, Two tasks, Neutral Pre-Goal
Feedback; 16= Incongruent, Two tasks, Neutral Post-Goal Feedback; 17=Trials with Negative Feedback
Figure 2. The left side depicts an incongruent single task Stroop trial with pre-goal positive feedback. The right side depicts an incongruent double task Stroop trial with post-goal neutral feedback.
Figure 3. The interaction effect of trial type and valence of feedback on Stroop interference indices (RT in ms).
Figure 4. Differences in Stroop interference indices between feedback timing and valence in Stroop trials consisting of two tasks.
Appendix A
The instructions, pictures, and questions of the OMT
Er volgen nu een aantal persoonlijkheidstesten. We beginnen met de eerste test.
Op de volgende pagina's staan enkele plaatjes. Elk plaatje is bedoeld om een alledaagse situatie weer te geven.
Je krijgt in totaal 6 plaatjes te zien waarbij je bij elk plaatje 3 vragen moet beantwoorden. Bekijk elk plaatje eerst goed en bedenk dan in uw hoofd een kort verhaal dat volgens jou past bij het plaatje. Je mag het verhaal zelf bedenken.
Één van de personen in elk plaatje heeft de hoofdrol in het verhaal. Je mag voor jezelf bedenken welke persoon dat is.
Je hoeft het verhaal niet op te schrijven; je hoeft alleen de 3 vragen te beantwoorden die bij het plaatje horen.
Er zijn geen goede of slechte verhalen, alles mag. Kijk maar wat er spontaan in je opkomt. Denk niet te lang na over de verhalen en ook niet over je antwoorden
1. Schrijf op: Wat is belangrijk voor de hoofdpersoon in deze situatie en wat doet hij/zij?
2. Schrijf op: Hoe voelt de hoofdpersoon zich?
Appendix B
Instructions for Stroop task
Uitleg 1
Het doel van dit onderzoek is om te weten te komen hoe mensen op feedback reageren tijdens een prestatietaak.
We leggen je nu uit hoe dit onderzoek is opgebouwd. Lees alle instructies zorgvuldig door. Je gaat nu een test doen. De test duurt in totaal ongeveer 30 minuten. Op de helft van de test zal er een korte pauze zijn.
Door op SPACE te drukken kan je telkens verder gaan naar het volgende scherm.
[page break]
Uitleg 2
Elke trial bestaat uit de zogenaamde Stroop taak die er als volgt uitziet:
Er verschijnt een kleurwoord (bijvoorbeeld GROEN of ROOD) of een reeks van XXXX op het scherm.
De kleurwoorden of de reeks van XXXX worden in een bepaalde kleur weergegeven, bijvoorbeeld ROOD geschreven in groene kleur.
Je moet per druk op een knop aangeven in welke kleur het woord of de reeks van XXXX is weergegeven. Je mag niet reageren op de betekenis van het kleurwoord. Die moet je negeren. Wanneer je bijvoorbeeld GROEN geschreven in blauw ziet, druk je zo snel mogelijk op de toets op het toetsenbord met de blauwe sticker erop.
Wanneer je bijvoorbeeld XXXX geschreven in rood ziet, druk je zo snel mogelijk op de toets op het toetsenbord met de rode sticker erop.
[page break]
Uitleg 3
Sommige trials bestaan uit een enkele Stroop taak.
Bij andere trials moet je twee Stroop taken achter elkaar doen.
Vóór de trial krijg je een melding of je slechts één taak moet doen ("taak 1") of twee taken ("taak 1 + taak 2").
[page break]
Uitleg 4
Je krijgt soms ná een trial feedback over hoe je hebt gepresteerd. Maar je krijgt niet altijd feedback te zien.
Je krijgt positieve feedback als je op de voorafgaande trial goed gepresteerd hebt. Dat
betekent dat je sneller hebt gereageerd op de voorafgaande trial dan gemiddeld op de 10 trials daarvóór. Positieve feedback wordt weergegeven door een smiley.
Als je GEEN feedback krijgt, zie je alleen een witte cirkel. Dit teken kan twee dingen betekenen:
1) misschien heb je sneller gereageerd op de voorafgaande trial dan gemiddeld op de 10 trials daarvóór. Je hebt dus goed gepresteerd maar de computer heeft bepaald dat je toch geen feedback te zien krijgt.
2) misschien heb je even snel of zelf langzamer gereageerd op de voorafgaande trial dan gemiddeld op de 10 trials daarvóór. In dat geval krijg je nooit feedback te zien.
Dus als je geen feedback krijgt (en dus de witte cirkel verschijnt), kan het nog steeds zo zijn dat je sneller gereageerd hebt. Als je wel feedback krijgt (en de smiley ziet) dan weet je zeker dat je sneller gereageerd hebt.
[page break]
Uitleg 5
Als je feedback krijgt, dan kan het zijn dat je die direct na afloop van een trial te zien krijgt. Soms krijg je de feedback echter pas later te zien nadat je hebt gelezen of de volgende trial uit een Stroop taak (“taak 1”) of uit twee Stroop taken (“taak 1 + taak 2”) bestaat. De reden hiervoor is dat je in het echte leven soms pas feedback krijgt als je alweer bezig bent met iets anders.
[page break]
We beginnen met enkele oefentrials om je aan de juiste toetsen te laten wennen. Daarna komen er enkele “warming up” trials zodat je een gevoel voor de Stroop taak ontwikkelt. Daarna beginnen de echte trials.
Leg je wijsvingers en je middelvingers op de toetsen met een gekleurde stikker. Zorg ervoor dat je handgewrichten comfortabel op het tafelblad liggen.
Als je met de duim op SPACE drukt beginnen de oefentrials. Tijdens de oefentrials krijg je te zien of je wel of niet de juiste toets hebt gedrukt.
Je krijgt echter nog geen feedback over je snelheid. Succes!
[page break]
[after the first trials]
TER HERINNERING: sommige trials bestaan uit slechts uit één Stroop taak ("taak 1"), en andere trials bestaan uit twee Stroop taken achter elkaar ("taak 1 + taak 2").
Je krijgt vóór de trial een melding uit hoeveel taken de trial bestaat. Tijdens de warming up trials krijg je nog geen feedback over je snelheid. Druk op SPACE om met de warming up trials te beginnen.
[page break]
Dit waren de warming up trials. Als je op SPACE drukt ga je verder met de echte trials. TER HERINNERING:
- soms krijg je feedback over hoe je op de voorafgaande trial hebt gepresteerd.
- als je een verkeerde knop hebt gedrukt krijg je “INCORRECT” te zien. Als je de juiste knop hebt gedrukt, krijg je soms wel en soms geen feedback.
- Als je WEL feedback krijgt (een smiley) betekent het dat sneller bent dan je eigen gemiddelde snelheid op de 10 trials daarvoor.
Dus je kunt alleen feedback krijgen als je goed hebt gepresteerd.
- Als je GEEN feedback krijgt (een witte cirkel), kan het betekenen dat je goed óf dat je
slecht gepresteerd hebt.
[page break] PAUZE!
Je hebt nu 1 minuut pauze om je even te strekken. Druk daarna op SPACE om verder te gaan.
[page break]
Dit was de laatste trial. Je bent klaar met de Stroop taak. Ga nu naar de proefleider. Hij of zij zal je nog enkele vragen voorleggen over hoe je deze test hebt ervaren.
Appendix C Appendix C
