Abstract

Incentives are usually expected to increase motivation and cognitive control and to thereby improve performance. A small but growing number of studies have begun to investigate whether the effects of incentive on cognitive performance differ for younger vs. older adults. Most have used attention and cognitive control paradigms, trial-wise implementation of incentive condition, and gain incentives (reward), with only a very few investigating the effects of loss incentives. The present study takes a complementary approach: We tested younger and older adults in a working memory paradigm with loss incentives implemented session-wide (between subjects). We also included self-report measures to ask how loss incentive affected participants’ perceptions of the mental demand of the task, as well as their perceived effort, frustration, motivation, distraction, and metacognitive judgments of how well they had performed. This allowed us to test the disparate predictions of different theoretical views: the intuitive hypothesis that incentive should increase motivation and performance, the motivational shift proposal that older adults are especially motivated to avoid losses (Freund and Ebner, 2005), a heuristic “positivity effect” perspective that older adults ignore losses (Brassen et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2017), and a more nuanced view that suggests that when negative information is unavoidable and increases perceived costs, older adults may instead disengage from the situation (Charles, 2010; Hess, 2014). The results seemed most consistent with the more nuanced view of the positivity effect. While neither group showed incentive-related performance differences, both younger and older adults reported greater perceived demand and frustration under loss incentive, especially in the most challenging conditions. Loss incentive increased the accuracy of immediate metacognitive judgments, but reduced the accuracy of later, more global judgments of competency for older adults. Self-report measures suggested that the loss incentive manipulation was distracting to young adults and demotivating for older adults. The results suggest a need for caution in generalizing from existing studies to everyday life, and that additional studies parameterizing critical aspects of task design and incentive manipulation are needed to fully understand how incentives affect cognition and motivation in younger and older adults.

Highlights

  • The enthusiasm for this Research Topic in Frontiers reflects the rising interest in the last 10 years on the effects of monetary incentives on cognition

  • Loss incentive did not affect Letter Number Sequencing (LNS) performance, F(1, 159) = 1.27, p = 0.262, η2p = 0.008, nor did it interact with age, F(1, 159) = 0.56, p = 0.455, η2p = 0.003, or set size, F(4, 159) = 1.26, p = 0.281, η2p = 0.008 (Figure 1)

  • We replicated commonly observed set size and age effects and interactions: Accuracy decreased as set size increased, F(4, 159) = 879.29, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.84; older adults showed lower accuracy compared to young adults, F(1, 159) = 67.80, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.29; and older adults’ accuracy decreased at earlier set sizes than young adults’, F(4, 159) = 26.88, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.14

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The enthusiasm for this Research Topic in Frontiers reflects the rising interest in the last 10 years on the effects of monetary incentives on cognition. Most studies have built on the reinforcement learning literature and implemented incentives on a within-subjects, trial-wise basis (i.e., comparing performance on rewarded vs unrewarded trials). Trial-wise incentive manipulations likely translate well to real-world reinforcement learning and value-based decision-making (e.g., after repeated exposures, one learns that Restaurant A is more likely to produce a rewarding experience than Restaurant B). In these cases, as well as in studies examining the prioritization of high- vs low-value items in episodic memory (Castel et al, 2002; Cohen et al, 2016), incentive valence and magnitude attach to specific items, actions, or decision options

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.