Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSeabrooke, T
dc.contributor.authorWills, AJ
dc.contributor.authorHogarth, L
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, CJ
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-03T13:26:13Z
dc.date.issued2018-09-10
dc.description.abstractThe extent to which human outcome-response (O-R) priming effects are automatic or under cognitive control is currently unclear. Two experiments tested the effect of cognitive load on O-R priming to shed further light on the debate. In Experiment 1, two instrumental responses earned beer and chocolate points in an instrumental training phase. Instrumental response choice was then tested in the presence of beer, chocolate, and neutral stimuli. On test, a Reversal instruction group was told that the stimuli signalled which response would not be rewarded. The transfer test was also conducted under either minimal (No Load) or considerable (Load) cognitive load. The Non-Reversal groups showed O-R priming effects, where the reward cues increased the instrumental responses that had previously produced those outcomes, relative to the neutral stimulus. This effect was observed even under cognitive load. The Reversal No Load group demonstrated a reversed effect, where response choice was biased towards the response that was most likely to be rewarded according to the instruction. Most importantly, response choice was at chance in the Reversal Load condition. In Experiment 2, cognitive load abolished the sensitivity to outcome devaluation that was otherwise seen when multiple outcomes and responses were cued on test. Collectively, the results demonstrate that complex O-R priming effects are sensitive to cognitive load, whereas the very simple, standard O-R priming effect is more robust.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 10 September 2018en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1747021818797052
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/34180
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30091396en_GB
dc.rights© Experimental Psychology Society 2018en_GB
dc.subjectOutcome–response primingen_GB
dc.subjectautomaticityen_GB
dc.subjectcognitive controlen_GB
dc.subjectoutcome devaluationen_GB
dc.titleAutomaticity and cognitive control: Effects of cognitive load on cue-controlled reward choice.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2018-10-03T13:26:13Z
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychologyen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record