153 Kognitive Prozesse, Intelligenz
Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- Cognitive control (2) (remove)
Institute
Cognitive control is what makes goal-directed actions possible. Whenever the environment or our impulses strongly suggests a response that is incompatible with our goals, conflict arises. Such conflicts are believed to cause negative affect. Aversive consequences of conflict may be registered in a conflict monitoring module, which subsequently initiates attentional changes and action tendencies to reduce negative affect. This association suggests that behavioral adaptation might be a reflection of emotion regulation. The theoretical cornerstone of current research on emotion regulation is the process model of emotion regulation, which postulates the regulation strategies situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Under the assumption that conflict adaptation and affect regulation share common mechanisms, I derived several predictions regarding cognitive control from the process model of emotion regulation and tested them in 11 experiments (N = 509). Participants engaged in situation selection towards conflict, but only when they were explicitly pointed to action-outcome contingencies (Experiments 1 to 3). I found support for a mechanism resembling situation modification, but no evidence for a role of affect (Experiments 4 to 10). Changing the evaluation of conflict had no impact on the extent of conflict adaptation (Experiment 11). Overall, there was evidence for an explicit aversiveness of cognitive conflict, but less evidence for implicit aversiveness, suggesting that conflict may trigger affect regulation processes, particularly when people explicitly have affect regulation goals in mind.
Conflict Management
(2014)
Humans have a remarkable ability to plan ahead, set goals for the future and then to act accordingly. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Everybody has experienced situations in which motivational urges like a tendency to drink another beer, or over-learned behavioral routines like driving on the right side of the road collide with ones´ goals. This tug of war between impulsive or habitual action tendencies and goal-directed actions is called a conflict.
Conflict is ubiquitous and comes in many different ways. Not surprisingly, the means to control conflict are diverse, too. Clearly, people can manage conflict in multiple ways: When expecting a conflict situation to occur in the future, one can recruit more effort to resolve the conflict, for instance by inhibiting unwanted urges or habits. Alternatively one can avoid the conflict situation and thereby circumvent possible failures to control habits and impulses. Furthermore, when currently facing a conflict, people can mobilize more effort to overcome the conflict. Alternatively they can withdraw from the conflict situation to minimize the risk of indulging in their impulses and habits.
To account for these different ways to master a conflict, the present thesis takes an initial step towards a characterization of the variability of control. To this aim, two dimensions of control will be identified that result from partially incompatible constraints on action control. These dimensions depict a trade-off between flexibility and stability and between anticipatory early selection and reactive late correction of control parameters. To describe how these control trade-offs interact and to explain how conflict is handled to ensure adaptation behavior, the conflict management framework is proposed. A corollary of this framework suggests that one strategy to control conflict comprises of a tendency to withdraw from a conflict situation.
The empirical part probed this behavioral response to conflict and tested whether participants withdraw from conflict situations. To approach this hypothesis, three series of experiments are presented that employ free choice paradigms, speeded response classification tasks and continuous movement tracking tasks to reveal withdrawal from conflict. Results show that conflict caused motivational avoidance tendencies (Experiment 1 &2), biased decision making away from conflict tasks (Experiment 3 & 5) and affected the execution of more complex courses of action (Experiment 6 & 7).
The results lend support for the proposed conflict management framework and provide the ground for a more thorough treatment of how the different conflict strategies can be integrated. As a first step, a connectionist model is presented that accounts for the simultaneous implementation of two conflict strategies observed in Experiments 3 – 5. The remainder of the present thesis analyses failures to integrate different conflict strategies. It is discussed how the conflict management framework can shed light on selected psychopathologies, inter-individual differences in control and break-downs of self-control.