Abstract
The cognitive control theory of Botvinick, Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366 (2007) integrates cognitive and affective control processes by emphasizing the aversive nature of cognitive conflict. Using an affective priming paradigm, we replicate earlier results showing that incongruent trials, relative to congruent trials, are indeed perceived as more aversive (Dreisbach & Fischer, Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98 (2012)). Importantly, however, in two experiments we demonstrate that this effect is reversed following successful responses; correctly responding to incongruent trials engendered relatively more positive affect than correctly responding to congruent trials. The results are discussed in light of a recent computational model by Silvetti, Seurinck, and Verguts, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5:75 (2011) where it is assumed that outcome expectancies are more negative for incongruent trials than congruent trials. Consequently, the intrinsic reward (prediction error) following successful completion is larger for incongruent than congruent trials. These findings divulge a novel perspective on 'cognitive' adaptations to conflict.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As an extra check we also conducted an additional 2 (prime congruency) x 2 (target valence) repeated measures ANOVA with individuals’ standardized mean prime RT as a covariate. We observed no significant three-way interaction between mean prime RT, target valence and prime congruency, F < 1, while the two-way interaction between prime congruency and target valence remained significant, F(1, 18) = 5.2, p < .05.
We also conducted a 3 (prime congruency) x 2 (target valence) repeated measures ANOVA with standardized mean prime RT as a covariate. This analysis showed a marginally significant interaction between prime congruency and target valence, F(2, 29) = 2.8, p = .08, while the three-way interaction with prime RT was non-significant, F < 1.
References
Aarts, K., De Houwer, J., & Pourtois, G. (2012). Evidence for the automatic evaluation of self-generated actions. Cognition, 124(2), 117–127.
Alessandri, J., Darcheville, J. C., Delevoye-Turrell, Y., & Zentall, T. R. (2008). Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay. Learning & Behavior, 36(4), 352–358.
Alexander, W. H., & Brown, J. W. (2011). Medial prefrontal cortex as an action-outcome predictor. Nature Neuroscience, 14(10), 1338–1344.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 2 (pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2013). Neuroscience of affect: Brain mechanisms of pleasure and displeasure. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 294–303.
Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulated function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366.
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.
Braem, S., Verguts, T., Roggeman, C., & Notebaert, N. (2012). Reward modulates adaptations to conflict. Cognition, 125, 324–332.
Braem, S., King, J. A., Korb, F. M., Krebs, R. M., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2013). Affective modulation of cognitive control is determined by performance-contingency and mediated by ventromedial prefrontal and cingulate cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(43), 16961–16970.
Brouillet, T., Ferrier, L. P., Grosselin, A., & Brouillet, D. (2011). Action compatibility effects are hedonically marked and have incidental consequences on affective judgment. Emotion, 11(5), 1202–1205.
Cannon, P. R., Hayes, A. E., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). Sensorimotor fluency influences affect: Evidence from electromyography. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 681–691.
De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 353–359.
Dreisbach, G. (2006). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: The costs and benefits of reduced maintenance capability. Brain and Cognition, 60, 11–19.
Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98.
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353.
Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014a). The congruency sequence effect 3.0: a critical test of conflict adaptation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Duthoo, W., Abrahmse, E.L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014b). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: an update. Frontiers in Cognition. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001
Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99(2), 248.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition & Emotion, 15(2), 115–141.
Fritz, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). The time course of the aversive conflict-signal. Experimental Psychology.
Fritz, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: Conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 311–317.
Hermans, D., & De Houwer, J. (1994). Affective and subjective familiarity ratings of 740 Dutch words. Psychologica Belgica, 34, 115–139.
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216.
Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychologica, 149, 60–68.
Klein, E. D., Bhatt, R. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2005). Contrast and the justification of effort. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(2), 335–339.
Kuhbandner, C., & Zehetleitner, M. (2011). Dissociable effects of valence and arousal in adaptive executive control. PloS One, 6(12), e29287.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.
Lynn, M. T., Riddle, T. A., & Morsella, E. (2012). The phenomenology of quitting: Effects from repetition and cognitive effort. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 23, 25–46.
Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452.
Molapour, T., & Morsella, E. (2011). Valence from conflict? Preliminary evidence from Stroop interference. In L. M. Warfelt (Ed.), Language Acquisition (pp. 1–16). Nova Science Publishers.
Mordkoff, T. J. (2012). Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 750–757.
Nigbur, R., Cohen, M. X., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Stürmer, B. (2012). Theta dynamics reveal domain-specific control over stimulus and response conflict. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1264–1274.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Vol. 4. Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum Press.
Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2006). Stimulus conflict predicts conflict adaptation in a numerical flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1078–1084.
Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2011). Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 136, 212–216.
Satterthwaite, T.D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J., Elliott, M.A., Gerraty, R.T., Calkins, M.E., …, & Wolf, D.H. (2012). Being right is its own reward: Load and performance related ventral striatum activation to correct responses during a working memory task in youth. NeuroImage, 61 (3), 723-729.
Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 615–630.
Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica, 138, 176–186.
Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PloS One, 9(7), e102337.
Schouppe, N., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Context-specific control and context selection in conflict tasks. Acta Psychologica, 146, 63–66.
Schouppe, N., De Houwer, J., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Conflict: Run! Reduced Stroop interference with avoidance responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(6), 1052–1058.
Schuch, S. & Koch, I. (2014). Mood states influence cognitive control: The case of conflict adaptation. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0602-4
Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80(1), 1–27.
Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2011). The integration of negative affect, pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(3), 154–167.
Silvetti, M., Seurinck, R., & Verguts, T. (2011). Value and prediction error in medial frontal cortex: Integrating the single-unit and systems levels of analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(75). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00075
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Stürmer, B., Nigbur, R., Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2011). Reward and punishment effects on error processing and conflict control. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(335). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00335
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 727–735.
Van der Borght, L., Braem, S., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Disentangling posterror and postconflict reduction of interference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0628-z
van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2009). Reward counteracts conflict adaptation: Evidence for a role of affect in executive control. Psychological Science, 20, 1473–1477.
Van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2005). Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: A functional MRI study. NeuroImage, 27, 497–504.
Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 252–257.
Wendt, M., Heldmann, M., Münte, T. F., & Kluwe, R. H. (2007). Disentangling sequential effects of stimulus- and response- related conflict and stimulus-response repetition using brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1104–1112.
Zentall, T. R. (2010). Justification of effort by humans and pigeons cognitive dissonance or contrast? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 296–300.
Author note
The research reported in this article was supported by grant no. 3F011209 and G.0098.09N of Research Foundation - Flanders.
Author contributions
N. Schouppe, S. Braem, and W. Notebaert developed the study concept. All authors contributed to the study design. N. Schouppe and S. Braem performed the data collection and data analysis. N. Schouppe and S. Braem interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript under supervision of J. De Houwer, T. Verguts, R. Ridderinkhof, and W. Notebaert. All authors provided critical revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Nathalie Schouppe; Senne Braem contributed equally to the present manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schouppe, N., Braem, S., De Houwer, J. et al. No pain, no gain: the affective valence of congruency conditions changes following a successful response. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 15, 251–261 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0318-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0318-3