Abstract:It is well known that people will exert effort on a task if sufficiently motivated, but how they distribute these efforts across different strategies (e.g., efficiency vs. caution) remains uncertain. Past work has shown that people invest effort differently for potential positive outcomes (rewards) versus potential negative outcomes (penalties). However, this research failed to account for differences in the context in which negative outcomes motivate someone - either as punishment or reinforcement. It is therefore unclear whether effort profiles differ as a function of outcome valence, motivational context, or both. Using computational modeling and our novel Multi-Incentive Control Task, we show that the influence of aversive outcomes on one's effort profile is entirely determined by their motivational context. Participants (N:91) favored increased caution in response to larger penalties for incorrect responses, and favored increased efficiency in response to larger reinforcement for correct responses, whether positively or negatively incentivized. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: People have to constantly decide how to allocate their mental effort, and in doing so can be motivated by both the positive outcomes that effort accrues and the negative outcomes that effort avoids. For example, someone might persist on a project for work in the hopes of being promoted or to avoid being reprimanded or even fired. Understanding how people weigh these different types of incentives is critical for understanding variability in human achievement as well as sources of motivational impairments (e.g., in major depression). We show that people not only consider both potential positive and negative outcomes when allocating mental effort, but that the profile of effort they engage under negative incentives differs depending on whether that outcome is contingent on sustaining good performance (negative reinforcement) or avoiding bad performance (punishment). Clarifying the motivational factors that determine effort exertion is an important step for understanding motivational impairments in psychopathology.

Within-Subject manipulations of proactive control do not change negative templates benefits: Exploring the effect of reward on negative and positive cues

Why are some individuals better at using negative attentional templates to suppress distractors? Exploration of interindividual differences in cognitive control efficiency.

Neurophysiological Measures of Proactive and Reactive Control in Negative Template Use

Testing the contributions of proactive target and distractor templates in visual search performance

Enhancement of cognitive control by approach and avoidance motivational states

Neural Underpinnings of Proactive and Preemptive Adjustments of Action Control

Motivational context and neurocomputation of stop expectation moderate early attention responses supporting proactive inhibitory control

Suppression on the basis of template for rejection is reactive: Evidence from human electrophysiology

Proactive reward in conflict tasks: Does it only enhance general performance or also modulate conflict effects?

Reward expectation enhances reactive control of distraction by emotionally negative stimuli.

Motivational context determines the impact of aversive outcomes on mental effort allocation

Proactive selective attention across competition contexts

Learned spatial suppression is not always proactive.

Reward Modulates Unconsciously Triggered Adaptive Control Processes

The influence of single-session reward-based attentional bias modification on attentional biases towards threat as measured by the N2pc component

Proactive control in the Stroop task: A conflict-frequency manipulation free of item-specific, contingency-learning, and color-word correlation confounds.

The resolution of proactive interference in a novel visual working memory task: A behavioral and pupillometric study

Proactive selective attention across competition contexts.

Joint contributions of preview and task instructions on visual search strategy selection

Unraveling the influence of trial-based motivational changes on performance monitoring stages in a flanker task

No pupillometric evidence for effortful proactive control in the proportion-congruent Stroop paradigm