4.7 Article

The role of cognitive effort in subjective reward devaluation and risky decision-making

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep16880

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship [098282/Z/12/Z]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Anniversary Future Leader Fellowship [BB/M013596/1]
  3. Wellcome Trust [098282/Z/12/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  4. BBSRC [BB/M013596/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/M013596/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation is underpinned by cost-benefit valuations where costs-such as physical effort or outcome risk-are subjectively weighed against available rewards. However, in many environments risks pertain not to the variance of outcomes, but to variance in the possible levels of effort required to obtain rewards (effort risks). Moreover, motivation is often guided by the extent to which cognitive-not physical-effort devalues rewards (effort discounting). Yet, very little is known about the mechanisms that underpin the influence of cognitive effort risks or discounting on motivation. We used two cost-benefit decision-making tasks to probe subjective sensitivity to cognitive effort (number of shifts of spatial attention) and to effort risks. Our results show that shifts of spatial attention when monitoring rapidly presented visual stimuli are perceived as effortful and devalue rewards. Additionally, most people are risk-averse, preferring safe, known amounts of effort over risky offers. However, there was no correlation between their effort and risk sensitivity. We show for the first time that people are averse to variance in the possible amount of cognitive effort to be exerted. These results suggest that cognitive effort sensitivity and risk sensitivity are underpinned by distinct psychological and neurobiological mechanisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available