Abstract
Human beings are cognitive misers. One facet of this effort avoidance is the reluctance to voluntarily switch tasks when repeating the same task is allowed. Yet participants voluntarily switch despite the resulting costs. This paradox might be resolved if the individual switching ability or sensitivity is considered. Here, we investigated whether the voluntary switch rate (VSR) is governed by the objective or the subjective (introspective) switch costs. Three experiments were conducted utilizing voluntary task switching with forced and free task choices intermixed. In Experiments 1 and 3, objective switch costs were measured on forced tasks, and subjective switch costs were calculated from (introspectively) estimated reaction times in a separate phase. In Experiment 2, objective and subjective costs were measured in the same phase. In Experiments 2 and 3, we additionally manipulated the forced switch rate. Results show that objective and subjective switch costs were lower in blocks with higher forced switch rates. The objective switch costs predicted VSR in Experiments 1 and (partially) 3. The subjective switch costs predicted the VSR only in Experiment 3 (the lower the costs, the higher the VSR). Hence, the present study offers first insight into under which circumstances introspection guides decision-making during voluntary task switching. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
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.