Abstract
Contemporary theories predict that inhibitory control (IC) can be improved when rewards are available for successfully inhibiting. In non-clinical samples empirical research has demonstrated some support; however, “null” findings have also been published. The aim of this meta-analysis was to clarify the magnitude of the effect of reward on IC and identify potential moderators. A total of 73 articles (contributing k = 80 studies) were identified from PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus, published between 1997 and 2020, using a systematic search strategy. A random effects meta-analysis was performed on effect sizes generated from IC tasks, which included rewarded and non-rewarded inhibition trials. Moderator analyses were conducted on clinical samples (vs “healthy controls”), task type (go/no-go vs stop signal vs Flanker vs Simon vs Stroop vs Anti-saccade), reward type (monetary vs points vs other), and age (adults vs children). The prospect of reward for successful inhibition significantly improved IC (SMD = 0.429, 95% CI = 0.288, 0.570, I2 = 96.7%) compared with no reward conditions/groups. This finding was robust against influential cases and outliers. The significant effect was present across all IC tasks. There was no evidence of the effect moderated by type of reward, age, or clinical samples. Moderator analyses did not resolve the considerable heterogeneity. The findings suggest that IC is a transient state that fluctuates in response to motivations driven by reward. Future research might examine the potential of improving IC through rewards as a behavioural intervention.
Highlights
Inhibitory control (IC) is defined as “theability to change, suppress or delay a response that is no longer required under the current circumstances” (Logan et al, 1984) and is thought to be a core component of executive functioning and impulsive responding (Bickel et al, 2012)
Analyses indicated the effect of reward on IC was not moderated by clinical sample or type of reward used
Task type was a significant moderator of the effect of reward on IC, as the effect size was considerably larger in studies which utilised a Stroop task
Summary
Inhibitory control (IC) is defined as “the (in)ability to change, suppress or delay a response that is no longer required under the current circumstances” (Logan et al, 1984) and is thought to be a core component of executive functioning and impulsive responding (Bickel et al, 2012). Computerised tasks have been developed for the assessment and operationalisation of IC in the laboratory settings, with the most common being the “stop signal” and “go/no-go (GNG) tasks.” While these tasks measure slightly different forms of reactive IC (action cancellation vs action restraint; see Eagle et al, 2008), their component parts are similar. The inability to inhibit the prepotent response following presentation of the “stop signal” or “no-go” cue can be measured using commission errors (i.e., making a motor response to the arbitrary cue), or stop signal reaction time (SSRT: the unobserved latency of inhibition—see Band et al, 2003) Other tasks, such as the Stroop (1935) and Flanker tasks (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974), measure the Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
