Darrell A. Worthy

Regulatory fit effects in a choice task.

This article examines the interface between motivation and choice. In category learning, a regulatory fit has been shown to increase exploration of alternative response strategies even when exploration is suboptimal. In the present study, promotion- and prevention-focused subjects performed a choice task that required them to choose from one of two decks of cards on each trial. They either gained or lost points with each draw. In Experiment 1, optimal performance required an exploratory response pattern that entailed sampling from a deck that initially appeared disadvantageous but ultimately became advantageous. In Experiment 2, optimal performance required an exploitative response pattern. A softmax action selection model that includes an exploitation parameter was applied to each subject’s data from both experiments and revealed greater exploration of alternative strategies for people with a regulatory fit. This response strategy was optimal in Experiment 1 and led to superior performance, but was suboptimal in Experiment 2 and led to inferior performance.

What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus

Previous research (Markman, Maddox, & Worthy, 2006) suggests that pressure leads to choking when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an explicit rule, but it leads to excelling when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an implicit strategy. In this article, we relate social pressure to regulatory focus theory. We propose that the effects of pressure on performance arise because pressure induces a prevention focus that interacts with the more local reward structure of the task. To test this hypothesis, we repeated previous research, but using a losses reward structure, so that participants under pressure were in a regulatory fit. We also successfully replicated previous results by using a gains reward structure. In contrast with participants who attempted to maximize gains on each trial, participants who attempted to minimize losses choked on the implicit-learning task but excelled on the explicit-learning task. The results suggest a three-way interaction between pressure level, task type, and reward structure.

Choking and excelling under pressure in experienced classifiers

We extend previous work examining the effects of pressure on category learning to the effects of pressure on categorization performance in highly trained individuals. After extensive training on either a rule-based or an information-integration classification task, half of the participants performed the same task on a fifth day while under pressure to earn a monetary bonus (

Ratio and Difference Comparisons of Expected Reward in Decision-Making Tasks

50) for themselves and a partner. Performance of this group was compared with that of a low-pressure control group who performed without the pressure manipulation. Pressure caused performance decrements both for experienced classifiers performing rule-based tasks and for those performing information-integration tasks, as compared with control groups. These results contrast with those of previous research, where inexperienced classifiers choked on rule-based tasks but excelled on information-integration tasks. An additional “superpressure” block of trials was given at the end of the fifth session. Under this type of pressure, participants performing an information-integration task outperformed those performing rule-based tasks. Implications for theories of choking under pressure are discussed.

Motivational influences on cognitive performance in children: Focus over fit

Several models of choice compute the probability of selecting a given option by comparing the expected value (EV) of each option. However, a subtle but important difference between two common rules used to compute the action probability is often ignored. Specifically, one common rule type, the exponential rule, compares EVs via a difference operation, whereas another rule type, the power rule, uses a ratio operation. We tested the empirical validity of each rule type by having human participants perform a choice task in which either the difference or the ratio between the reward values was altered relative to a control condition. Results indicated that participants can compare expected rewards by either ratio or difference operations but that altering the ratio between EVs produces the most dramatic changes in behavior. We discuss implications for several related research fields.

Less is More: Stimulus Feedback Co-Occurence in Perceptual Category Learning

Cognitive psychologists have begun to address how motivational factors influence adults performance on cognitive tasks. However, little research has examined how different motivational factors interact with one another to affect behavior across the life span. In the current study, the authors examined how children perform on a classification task when placed in a regulatory fit or mismatch. Nine-year-old children performed a classification task in which they either gained or lost points for each response. Additionally, children were given either a global promotion focus (trying to earn a gift card) or a prevention focus (trying to avoid losing a gift card). Previous work indicates that adults in this task tend to perform better when there is a match (or fit) between the incentive to gain, or avoid losing, a global reward, and the more local task reward structure to either maximize points gained or minimize points lost on a trial-by-trial basis. Unlike adults, 9-year-olds perform better in the promotion condition than in the prevention condition regardless of task reward structure. Possible explanations for the differences between adults and childrens performance are discussed as are possible applications for academic settings.