Advanced search
1 file | 894.14 KB Add to list

Attention for future reward

Helen Tibboel (UGent) and Baptist Liefooghe (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
When stimuli are consistently paired with reward, attention toward these stimuli becomes biased (e.g., Abrahamse, Braem, Notebaert & Verguts, et al., Psychological Bulletin 142:693–728, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047). An important premise is that participants need to repeatedly experience stimulus–reward pairings to obtain these effects (e.g., Awh, Belopolsky & Theeuwes, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:437–443, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010). This idea is based on associative learning theories (e.g., Pearce & Bouton, Annual Review of Psychology 52:111–139, 2001) that suggest that exposure to stimulus–reward pairings leads to the formation of stimulus–reward associations, and a transfer of salience of the reward to the neutral stimulus. However, novel learning theories (e.g., De Houwer, Learning and Motivation 53:7–23, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2015.11.001) suggest such effects are not necessarily the result of associative learning, but can be caused by complex knowledge and expectancies as well. In the current experiment, we first instructed participants that a correct response to one centrally presented stimulus would be followed by a high reward, whereas a correct response to another centrally presented stimulus would be paired with a low reward. Before participants executed this task, they performed a visual probe task in which these stimuli were presented as distractors. We found that attention was drawn automatically toward high-reward stimuli relative to low-reward stimuli. This implies that complex inferences and expectancies can cause automatic attentional bias, challenging associative learning models of attentional control (Abrahamse et al., 2016; Awh et al., 2012).
Keywords
VISUAL WORKING-MEMORY, AUTOMATIC GUIDANCE, BOTTOM-UP, TOP-DOWN, S-R, CONFLICT, TESTS, MODEL, POWER

Downloads

  • Tibboel-Liefooghe2018 Article AttentionForFutureReward.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 894.14 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Tibboel, Helen, and Baptist Liefooghe. “Attention for Future Reward.” PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, vol. 84, no. 3, 2020, pp. 706–12, doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1094-4.
APA
Tibboel, H., & Liefooghe, B. (2020). Attention for future reward. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, 84(3), 706–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1094-4
Chicago author-date
Tibboel, Helen, and Baptist Liefooghe. 2020. “Attention for Future Reward.” PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG 84 (3): 706–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1094-4.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Tibboel, Helen, and Baptist Liefooghe. 2020. “Attention for Future Reward.” PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG 84 (3): 706–712. doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1094-4.
Vancouver
1.
Tibboel H, Liefooghe B. Attention for future reward. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG. 2020;84(3):706–12.
IEEE
[1]
H. Tibboel and B. Liefooghe, “Attention for future reward,” PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 706–712, 2020.
@article{8573186,
  abstract     = {When stimuli are consistently paired with reward, attention toward these stimuli becomes biased (e.g., Abrahamse, Braem, Notebaert & Verguts, et al., Psychological Bulletin 142:693–728, 2016,  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047). An important premise is that participants need to repeatedly experience stimulus–reward pairings to obtain these effects (e.g., Awh, Belopolsky & Theeuwes, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:437–443, 2012,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010). This idea is based on associative learning theories (e.g., Pearce & Bouton, Annual Review of Psychology 52:111–139, 2001) that suggest that exposure to stimulus–reward pairings leads to the formation of stimulus–reward associations, and a transfer of salience of the reward to the neutral stimulus. However, novel learning theories (e.g., De Houwer, Learning and Motivation 53:7–23, 2009,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2015.11.001) suggest such effects are not necessarily the result of associative learning, but can be caused by complex knowledge and expectancies as well. In the current experiment, we first instructed participants that a correct response to one centrally presented stimulus would be followed by a high reward, whereas a correct response to another centrally presented stimulus would be paired with a low reward. Before participants executed this task, they performed a visual probe task in which these stimuli were presented as distractors. We found that attention was drawn automatically toward high-reward stimuli relative to low-reward stimuli. This implies that complex inferences and expectancies can cause automatic attentional bias, challenging associative learning models of attentional control (Abrahamse et al., 2016; Awh et al., 2012).},
  author       = {Tibboel, Helen and Liefooghe, Baptist},
  issn         = {0340-0727},
  journal      = {PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG},
  keywords     = {VISUAL WORKING-MEMORY,AUTOMATIC GUIDANCE,BOTTOM-UP,TOP-DOWN,S-R,CONFLICT,TESTS,MODEL,POWER},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {706--712},
  title        = {Attention for future reward},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1094-4},
  volume       = {84},
  year         = {2020},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: