The Experts below are selected from a list of 16542 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
W. Todd Maddox - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Chronic motivational state interacts with task Reward Structure in dynamic decision-making
Cognitive psychology, 2015Co-Authors: Jessica A. Cooper, Darrell A. Worthy, W. Todd MaddoxAbstract:Research distinguishes between a habitual, model-free system motivated toward immediately Rewarding actions, and a goal-directed, model-based system motivated toward actions that improve future state. We examined the balance of processing in these two systems during state-based decision-making. We tested a regulatory fit hypothesis (Maddox & Markman, 2010) that predicts that global trait motivation affects the balance of habitual- vs. goal-directed processing but only through its interaction with the task framing as gain-maximization or loss-minimization. We found support for the hypothesis that a match between an individual’s chronic motivational state and the task framing enhances goal-directed processing, and thus state-based decision-making. Specifically, chronic promotion-focused individuals under gain-maximization and chronic prevention-focused individuals under loss-minimization both showed enhanced state-based decision-making. Computational modeling indicates that individuals in a match between global chronic motivational state and local task Reward Structure engaged more goal-directed processing, whereas those in a mismatch engaged more habitual processing.
-
What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus.
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2009Co-Authors: Darrell A. Worthy, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd MaddoxAbstract:Previous research (Markman, Maddox, & Worthy, 2006) suggests that pressure leads to choking when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an explicit rule, but it leads to excelling when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an implicit strategy. In this article, we relate social pressure to regulatory focus theory. We propose that the effects of pressure on performance arise because pressure induces a prevention focus that interacts with the more local Reward Structure of the task. To test this hypothesis, we repeated previous research, but using a losses Reward Structure, so that participants under pressure were in a regulatory fit. We also successfully replicated previous results by using a gains Reward Structure. In contrast with participants who attempted to maximize gains on each trial, participants who attempted to minimize losses choked on the implicit-learning task but excelled on the explicit-learning task. The results suggest a three-way interaction between pressure level, task type, and Reward Structure.
-
Stereotype threat reinterpreted as a regulatory mismatch.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 2009Co-Authors: Lisa R. Grimm, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. BaldwinAbstract:This research documents performance decrements resulting from the activation of a negative taskrelevant stereotype. The authors combine a number of strands of work to identify causes of stereotype threat in a way that allows them to reverse the effects and improve the performance of individuals with negative task-relevant stereotypes. The authors draw on prior work suggesting that negative stereotypes induce a prevention focus and on other research suggesting that people exhibit greater flexibility when their regulatory focus matches the Reward Structure of the task. This work suggests that stereotype threat effects emerge from a prevention focus combined with tasks that have an explicit or implicit gains Reward Structure. The authors find flexible performance can be induced in individuals who have a negative task-relevant stereotype by use of a losses Reward Structure. The authors demonstrate the interaction of stereotypes and the Reward Structure of the task with chronic stereotypes and Graduate Record Examination math problems (Experiment 1), and with primed stereotypes and a category learning task (Experiments 2A and 2B). The authors discuss implications of this research for other work on stereotype threat.
-
Differential Effects of Regulatory Fit on Category Learning.
Journal of experimental social psychology, 2008Co-Authors: Lisa R. Grimm, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. BaldwinAbstract:Abstract Motivation affects the degree to which people engage in tasks as well as the processes that they bring to bear. We explore the proposal that a fit between a person’s situationally induced self-regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task that they are pursuing supports greater flexibility in processing than does a mismatch between regulatory focus and Reward Structure. In two experiments, we prime regulatory focus and manipulate task Reward Structure. Our participants perform a rule-based learning task whose solution requires flexible strategy testing as well as an information-integration task for which flexible strategy use hinders learning. Across two experiments, we predict and obtain a three-way interaction between regulatory focus, Reward Structure, and task. Relative to a mismatch, a match leads to better rule-based task performance, but worse performance on the information-integration task. We relate these findings to other work on motivation and choking under pressure.
-
A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning
Memory & Cognition, 2006Co-Authors: W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. Baldwin, Arthur B. MarkmanAbstract:This article builds a bridge between research on regulatory focus in motivation and classification learning. It tests the hypothesis that a fit between the situational regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task leads to greater cognitive flexibility than does a mismatch between situational focus and the Reward Structure and that the fit between the regulatory-focus-induced processing characteristics and the nature of the environment influences performance. In Experiment 1, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be advantageous and examined both gains (Experiment 1A) and losses (Experiment 1B) Reward Structures. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be disadvantageous. In Experiment 2, we used a gains Reward Structure, and in Experiment 3, we used a losses Reward Structure. As was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was advantageous, the participants in a regulatory fit showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Also as was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was disadvantageous, the participants in a regulatory mismatch showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Implications for current theories of motivation and classification learning are discussed.
Arthur B. Markman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus.
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2009Co-Authors: Darrell A. Worthy, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd MaddoxAbstract:Previous research (Markman, Maddox, & Worthy, 2006) suggests that pressure leads to choking when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an explicit rule, but it leads to excelling when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an implicit strategy. In this article, we relate social pressure to regulatory focus theory. We propose that the effects of pressure on performance arise because pressure induces a prevention focus that interacts with the more local Reward Structure of the task. To test this hypothesis, we repeated previous research, but using a losses Reward Structure, so that participants under pressure were in a regulatory fit. We also successfully replicated previous results by using a gains Reward Structure. In contrast with participants who attempted to maximize gains on each trial, participants who attempted to minimize losses choked on the implicit-learning task but excelled on the explicit-learning task. The results suggest a three-way interaction between pressure level, task type, and Reward Structure.
-
Stereotype threat reinterpreted as a regulatory mismatch.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 2009Co-Authors: Lisa R. Grimm, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. BaldwinAbstract:This research documents performance decrements resulting from the activation of a negative taskrelevant stereotype. The authors combine a number of strands of work to identify causes of stereotype threat in a way that allows them to reverse the effects and improve the performance of individuals with negative task-relevant stereotypes. The authors draw on prior work suggesting that negative stereotypes induce a prevention focus and on other research suggesting that people exhibit greater flexibility when their regulatory focus matches the Reward Structure of the task. This work suggests that stereotype threat effects emerge from a prevention focus combined with tasks that have an explicit or implicit gains Reward Structure. The authors find flexible performance can be induced in individuals who have a negative task-relevant stereotype by use of a losses Reward Structure. The authors demonstrate the interaction of stereotypes and the Reward Structure of the task with chronic stereotypes and Graduate Record Examination math problems (Experiment 1), and with primed stereotypes and a category learning task (Experiments 2A and 2B). The authors discuss implications of this research for other work on stereotype threat.
-
Differential Effects of Regulatory Fit on Category Learning.
Journal of experimental social psychology, 2008Co-Authors: Lisa R. Grimm, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. BaldwinAbstract:Abstract Motivation affects the degree to which people engage in tasks as well as the processes that they bring to bear. We explore the proposal that a fit between a person’s situationally induced self-regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task that they are pursuing supports greater flexibility in processing than does a mismatch between regulatory focus and Reward Structure. In two experiments, we prime regulatory focus and manipulate task Reward Structure. Our participants perform a rule-based learning task whose solution requires flexible strategy testing as well as an information-integration task for which flexible strategy use hinders learning. Across two experiments, we predict and obtain a three-way interaction between regulatory focus, Reward Structure, and task. Relative to a mismatch, a match leads to better rule-based task performance, but worse performance on the information-integration task. We relate these findings to other work on motivation and choking under pressure.
-
A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning
Memory & Cognition, 2006Co-Authors: W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. Baldwin, Arthur B. MarkmanAbstract:This article builds a bridge between research on regulatory focus in motivation and classification learning. It tests the hypothesis that a fit between the situational regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task leads to greater cognitive flexibility than does a mismatch between situational focus and the Reward Structure and that the fit between the regulatory-focus-induced processing characteristics and the nature of the environment influences performance. In Experiment 1, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be advantageous and examined both gains (Experiment 1A) and losses (Experiment 1B) Reward Structures. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be disadvantageous. In Experiment 2, we used a gains Reward Structure, and in Experiment 3, we used a losses Reward Structure. As was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was advantageous, the participants in a regulatory fit showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Also as was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was disadvantageous, the participants in a regulatory mismatch showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Implications for current theories of motivation and classification learning are discussed.
-
A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning
Memory & Cognition, 2006Co-Authors: W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. Baldwin, Arthur B. MarkmanAbstract:This article builds a bridge between research on regulatory focus in motivation and classification learning. It tests the hypothesis that a fit between the situational regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task leads to greater cognitive flexibility than does a mismatch between situational focus and the Reward Structure and that the fit between the regulatory-focus-induced processing characteristics and the nature of the environment influences performance. In Experiment 1, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be advantageous and examined both gains (Experiment 1A) and losses (Experiment 1B) Reward Structures. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be disadvantageous. In Experiment 2, we used a gains Reward Structure, and in Experiment 3, we used a losses Reward Structure. As was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was advantageous, the participants in a regulatory fit showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Also as was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was disadvantageous, the participants in a regulatory mismatch showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Implications for current theories of motivation and classification learning are discussed.
Grant C. Baldwin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Stereotype threat reinterpreted as a regulatory mismatch.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 2009Co-Authors: Lisa R. Grimm, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. BaldwinAbstract:This research documents performance decrements resulting from the activation of a negative taskrelevant stereotype. The authors combine a number of strands of work to identify causes of stereotype threat in a way that allows them to reverse the effects and improve the performance of individuals with negative task-relevant stereotypes. The authors draw on prior work suggesting that negative stereotypes induce a prevention focus and on other research suggesting that people exhibit greater flexibility when their regulatory focus matches the Reward Structure of the task. This work suggests that stereotype threat effects emerge from a prevention focus combined with tasks that have an explicit or implicit gains Reward Structure. The authors find flexible performance can be induced in individuals who have a negative task-relevant stereotype by use of a losses Reward Structure. The authors demonstrate the interaction of stereotypes and the Reward Structure of the task with chronic stereotypes and Graduate Record Examination math problems (Experiment 1), and with primed stereotypes and a category learning task (Experiments 2A and 2B). The authors discuss implications of this research for other work on stereotype threat.
-
Differential Effects of Regulatory Fit on Category Learning.
Journal of experimental social psychology, 2008Co-Authors: Lisa R. Grimm, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. BaldwinAbstract:Abstract Motivation affects the degree to which people engage in tasks as well as the processes that they bring to bear. We explore the proposal that a fit between a person’s situationally induced self-regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task that they are pursuing supports greater flexibility in processing than does a mismatch between regulatory focus and Reward Structure. In two experiments, we prime regulatory focus and manipulate task Reward Structure. Our participants perform a rule-based learning task whose solution requires flexible strategy testing as well as an information-integration task for which flexible strategy use hinders learning. Across two experiments, we predict and obtain a three-way interaction between regulatory focus, Reward Structure, and task. Relative to a mismatch, a match leads to better rule-based task performance, but worse performance on the information-integration task. We relate these findings to other work on motivation and choking under pressure.
-
A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning
Memory & Cognition, 2006Co-Authors: W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. Baldwin, Arthur B. MarkmanAbstract:This article builds a bridge between research on regulatory focus in motivation and classification learning. It tests the hypothesis that a fit between the situational regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task leads to greater cognitive flexibility than does a mismatch between situational focus and the Reward Structure and that the fit between the regulatory-focus-induced processing characteristics and the nature of the environment influences performance. In Experiment 1, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be advantageous and examined both gains (Experiment 1A) and losses (Experiment 1B) Reward Structures. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be disadvantageous. In Experiment 2, we used a gains Reward Structure, and in Experiment 3, we used a losses Reward Structure. As was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was advantageous, the participants in a regulatory fit showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Also as was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was disadvantageous, the participants in a regulatory mismatch showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Implications for current theories of motivation and classification learning are discussed.
-
A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning
Memory & Cognition, 2006Co-Authors: W. Todd Maddox, Grant C. Baldwin, Arthur B. MarkmanAbstract:This article builds a bridge between research on regulatory focus in motivation and classification learning. It tests the hypothesis that a fit between the situational regulatory focus and the Reward Structure of the task leads to greater cognitive flexibility than does a mismatch between situational focus and the Reward Structure and that the fit between the regulatory-focus-induced processing characteristics and the nature of the environment influences performance. In Experiment 1, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be advantageous and examined both gains (Experiment 1A) and losses (Experiment 1B) Reward Structures. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be disadvantageous. In Experiment 2, we used a gains Reward Structure, and in Experiment 3, we used a losses Reward Structure. As was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was advantageous, the participants in a regulatory fit showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Also as was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was disadvantageous, the participants in a regulatory mismatch showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Implications for current theories of motivation and classification learning are discussed.
Norman Miller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias the role of Reward Structure and social orientation
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1992Co-Authors: Ann B Bettencourt, Marilynn B. Brewer, Marian Rogers Croak, Norman MillerAbstract:Abstract Two studies report a test of aspects of Brewer and Miller's (1984) model of the effects of cooperative contact on intergroup discrimination. Study 1 tested the hypothesis that conditions promoting an interpersonal orientation during contact would reduce ingroup bias between experimentally created social categories more than contact under conditions of task orientation. Subjects were randomly categorized as “overestimators” and “underestimators” and then assigned to teams composed of members of both categories. Teams engaged in a cooperative problem-solving task under conditions of interteam cooperation verus competition and under instructional conditions that promoted an interpersonal or task focus or with no such instructions. Results indicated that interteam Reward Structure and social orientation had additive and parallel effects on post-contact ingroup bias. Ingroup favoritism in Reward allocations and evaluation of members of subjects' own team was least under conditions of interteam cooperation and interpersonal orientation, and these effects generalized to members of other teams. Study 2, using a scenario rating methodology, verified the assumption that the effects of interteam Reward Structure (competition versus cooperation) are mediated by the relationship between Reward Structure and task orientation.
-
Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias: The role of Reward Structure and social orientation ☆
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1992Co-Authors: B. Ann Bettencourt, Marilynn B. Brewer, Marian Rogers Croak, Norman MillerAbstract:Abstract Two studies report a test of aspects of Brewer and Miller's (1984) model of the effects of cooperative contact on intergroup discrimination. Study 1 tested the hypothesis that conditions promoting an interpersonal orientation during contact would reduce ingroup bias between experimentally created social categories more than contact under conditions of task orientation. Subjects were randomly categorized as “overestimators” and “underestimators” and then assigned to teams composed of members of both categories. Teams engaged in a cooperative problem-solving task under conditions of interteam cooperation verus competition and under instructional conditions that promoted an interpersonal or task focus or with no such instructions. Results indicated that interteam Reward Structure and social orientation had additive and parallel effects on post-contact ingroup bias. Ingroup favoritism in Reward allocations and evaluation of members of subjects' own team was least under conditions of interteam cooperation and interpersonal orientation, and these effects generalized to members of other teams. Study 2, using a scenario rating methodology, verified the assumption that the effects of interteam Reward Structure (competition versus cooperation) are mediated by the relationship between Reward Structure and task orientation.
Darrell A. Worthy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Chronic motivational state interacts with task Reward Structure in dynamic decision-making
Cognitive psychology, 2015Co-Authors: Jessica A. Cooper, Darrell A. Worthy, W. Todd MaddoxAbstract:Research distinguishes between a habitual, model-free system motivated toward immediately Rewarding actions, and a goal-directed, model-based system motivated toward actions that improve future state. We examined the balance of processing in these two systems during state-based decision-making. We tested a regulatory fit hypothesis (Maddox & Markman, 2010) that predicts that global trait motivation affects the balance of habitual- vs. goal-directed processing but only through its interaction with the task framing as gain-maximization or loss-minimization. We found support for the hypothesis that a match between an individual’s chronic motivational state and the task framing enhances goal-directed processing, and thus state-based decision-making. Specifically, chronic promotion-focused individuals under gain-maximization and chronic prevention-focused individuals under loss-minimization both showed enhanced state-based decision-making. Computational modeling indicates that individuals in a match between global chronic motivational state and local task Reward Structure engaged more goal-directed processing, whereas those in a mismatch engaged more habitual processing.
-
What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus.
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2009Co-Authors: Darrell A. Worthy, Arthur B. Markman, W. Todd MaddoxAbstract:Previous research (Markman, Maddox, & Worthy, 2006) suggests that pressure leads to choking when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an explicit rule, but it leads to excelling when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an implicit strategy. In this article, we relate social pressure to regulatory focus theory. We propose that the effects of pressure on performance arise because pressure induces a prevention focus that interacts with the more local Reward Structure of the task. To test this hypothesis, we repeated previous research, but using a losses Reward Structure, so that participants under pressure were in a regulatory fit. We also successfully replicated previous results by using a gains Reward Structure. In contrast with participants who attempted to maximize gains on each trial, participants who attempted to minimize losses choked on the implicit-learning task but excelled on the explicit-learning task. The results suggest a three-way interaction between pressure level, task type, and Reward Structure.
