Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

If it’s hard to read… try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments

Abstract

Experiencing difficulties during information processing can either be used as signal for the increased need of cognitive effort (“try harder”), or as avoidance signal for future action selection (“avoid and switch”). These alternative ideas are currently reflected in two seemingly opposing theories of anterior cingulate cortex function, namely the conflict monitoring versus the outcome evaluation account. Botvinick (2007) recently suggested that both positions might converge on the detection of aversive signals. Here, we will show that low perceptual fluency, which is known to evoke negative affective reactions, triggers the mobilization of cognitive effort even in the absence of response conflicts. More precisely, in three experiments effort adjustments in reaction to fluency manipulations as indicated by significant interactions of Fluency N  × FluencyN−1 were found. It follows that an aversive signal (here: low fluency) is not only used for effort prediction but also for effort adjustments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    There exists an ongoing debate whether these sequential modulation effects, originally detected by Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1992) can also be explained by repetition priming and/or episodic retrieval (e.g., Hommel, Proctor, & Vu, 2004; Mayr, Awh, & Laurey, 2003). However, even if it is taken care of such partial repetitions, sequential effects can still be found (e.g. Kerns et al., 2004) such that nowadays, most researchers agree that both, repetition priming and control adjustments can account for the observed sequential effects (see Egner, 2007, for a review).

  2. 2.

    The question of why a predictable fluency order results in such a block effect remains and unfortunately, we do not have a satisfying answer for this. In addition, while Mayr & Awh (2008) showed decreasing sequence effects over time, in our lab we found rather increasing sequence effects over time (Plessow, Fischer, Kirschbaum, & Goschke, 2010). We think that the issue of the block effect cannot be resolved in the present study and certainly requires further research.

  3. 3.

    One might wonder, however, why increased effort in response to a non-fluent trial should slow down RTs on fluent trials in the first place. In typical response conflict tasks, compatible trials suffer after incompatible trials, because the irrelevant but response compatible information in compatible trials is (presumably) inhibited. Such mechanism is obviously not applicable to fluent trials in the paradigm used here. However, we think that “trying harder” increases RTs on fluent trials because—when expecting something difficult—the cognitive system is running in a more controlled and less automatic (reading) mode which then results in slower RTs.

References

  1. Ach, N. (1935). Analyse des Willens [Analysis of the will.] In E. Abderhalden (Hrsg.), Handbuch der biologischen Arbeitsmethoden (Vol. 6). Berlin: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

  2. Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 742–748.

  3. Botvinick, M. W. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulated function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366.

  4. Botvinick, M. W., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.

  5. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.

  6. Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 334–338.

  7. Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 468–483.

  8. Dutzi, I. B., & Hommel, B. (2009). The microgenesis of action-effect binding. Psychological Research, 73, 425–435.

  9. Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390.

  10. Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2008). Context-sensitive adjustments of cognitive control: Conflict-adaptation effects are modulated by processing demands of the ongoing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 712–718.

  11. Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2010). Trial-to-trial modulations of the Simon effect in conditions of attentional limitations: Evidence from dual-tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

  12. Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295, 2279–2282.

  13. Goschke, T., & Dreisbach, G. (2008). Conflict-triggered goal-shielding attenuates background-monitoring for prospective memory cues. Psychological Science, 19, 25–32.

  14. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.

  15. Hillgruber, A. (1912). Fortlaufende Arbeit und Willensbetätigung. Untersuchung zur Psychologie und Philosophie, 1, 6.

  16. Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the errorrelated negativity. Psychological Review, 109, 679–709.

  17. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.

  18. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century.

  19. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W. I., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026.

  20. MacDonald, A. W., I. I. I., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288, 1835–1838.

  21. Mayr, U., & Awh, E. (2008). The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research, 73, 794–802.

  22. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.

  23. Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., Holroyd, C. B., Schurger, A., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Sensitivity of electrophysiological activity from medial frontal cortex to utilitarian and performance feedback. Cerebral Cortex, 14, 741–747.

  24. Plessow, F., Fischer, R., Kirschbaum, C., & Goschke, T. (2010). Inflexibly focused under stress: Acute psychosocial stress leads to increased goal shielding at the expense of reduced cognitive flexibility. (submitted for publication).

  25. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.

  26. Scherbaum, S., Fischer, R., Dshemuchadse, M., & Goschke T. (2010). The dynamics of cognitive control: Evidence for within trial conflict adaptation from frequency tagged EEG. Psychophysiology.

  27. Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do. Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986–988.

  28. van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2009). Reward counteracts conflict adaptation: Evidence for a role of affect in executive control. Psychological Science, 20, 1473–1477.

  29. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Gesine Dreisbach.

Additional information

We would like to thank Julia Fritz and Sara Hansen for data collection.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dreisbach, G., Fischer, R. If it’s hard to read… try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research 75, 376–383 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0319-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Anterior Cingulate Cortex
  • Incongruent Trial
  • Response Conflict
  • Conflict Monitoring
  • Perceptual Fluency