ArticlePsychological research2019
Anticipating cognitive effort: roles of perceived error-likelihood and time demands.
Article in Psychological research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulation over the Frontopolar Cortex Promotes Willingness to Exert Cognitive Effort in a Foraging-Like Sequential Choice Task.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Trial
- The effect of learning strategies on offloading decisions in response recall.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Student intrinsic motivational states underlie cognitive performance regardless of academic stage.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Age differences in motivation drive performance during the sustained attention to response task.PloS one · 2025Article
- To empathize with a group or an individual? Investigating the role of cognitive cost and distress in empathy choice.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- An experimental manipulation of the value of effort.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Wagers for work: Decomposing the costs of cognitive effort.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Sound localization in noisy contexts: performance, metacognitive evaluations and head movements.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Policy abstraction as a predictor of cognitive effort avoidance.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2023Article
- Judging the difficulty of perceptual decisions.eLife · 2023Article
- Reliability of the empathy selection task, a novel behavioral measure of empathy avoidance.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- People are curious about immoral and morally ambiguous others.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- To organise or not to organise? Understanding search strategy preferences using Lego building blocks.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2022Article
- Towards a common code for difficulty: Navigating a narrow gap is like memorizing an extra digit.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- Appealing to the cognitive miser: Using demand avoidance to modulate cognitive flexibility in cued and voluntary task switching.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2021Article
- Judgements of effort as a function of post-trial versus post-task elicitation.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021Article
- Effort avoidance is not simply error avoidance.Psychological research · 2021Article
- More Effort, Less Fatigue: The Role of Interest in Increasing Effort and Reducing Mental Fatigue.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Why are some actions evaluated as effortful? In the present set of experiments we address this question by examining individuals' perception of effort when faced with a trade-off between two putative cognitive costs: how much time a task takes vs. how error-prone it is. Specifically, we were interested in whether individuals anticipate engaging in a small amount of hard work (i.e., low time requirement, but high error-likelihood) vs. a large amount of easy work (i.e., high time requirement, but low error-likelihood) as being more effortful. In between-subject designs, Experiments 1 through 3 demonstrated that individuals anticipate options that are high in perceived error-likelihood (yet less time consuming) as more effortful than options that are perceived to be more time consuming (yet low in error-likelihood). Further, when asked to evaluate which of the two tasks was (a) more effortful, (b) more error-prone, and (c) more time consuming, effort-based and error-based choices closely tracked one another, but this was not the case for time-based choices. Utilizing a within-subject design, Experiment 4 demonstrated overall similar pattern of judgments as Experiments 1 through 3. However, both judgments of error-likelihood and time demand similarly predicted effort judgments. Results are discussed within the context of extant accounts of cognitive control, with considerations of how error-likelihood and time demands may independently and conjunctively factor into judgments of cognitive effort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29134281What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.