Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768658›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2022

A reference-based theory of motivation and effort allocation.

Francesco Rigoli, Giovanni Pezzulo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Worth the Work? Monkeys Discount Rewards by a Subjective Adapting Effort Cost.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Francesco RigoliDepartment of Psychology, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. francesco.rigoli@city.ac.uk.
Giovanni PezzuloInstitute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council of Italy, Via San Martino della Battaglia 44, 00185, Rome, Italy. giovanni.pezzulo@istc.cnr.it.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 945539
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation is key for performance in domains such as work, sport, and learning. Research has established that motivation and the willingness to invest effort generally increase as a function of reward. However, this view struggles to explain some empirical observations-for example, in the domain of sport, athletes sometimes appear to lose motivation when playing against weak opponents-this despite objective rewards being high. This and similar evidence highlight the role of subjective value in motivation and effort allocation. To capture this, here, we advance a novel theory and computational model where motivation and effort allocation arise from reference-based evaluation processes. Our proposal argues that motivation (and the ensuing willingness to exert effort) stems from subjective value, which in turns depends on one's standards about performance and on the confidence about these standards. In a series of simulations, we show that the model explains puzzling motivational dynamics and associated feelings. Crucially, the model identifies realistic standards (i.e., those matching one's own actual ability) as those more beneficial for motivation and performance. On this basis, the model establishes a normative solution to the problem of optimal allocation of effort, analogous to the optimal allocation of neural and computational resources as in efficient coding.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMotivationCognitionHumansRewardEffortMotivationReference-based modelSubjective value

Identifiers

PMID35768658
PMCPMC9722883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.