The unpleasantness of thinking: A meta-analytic review of the association between mental effort and negative affect.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1037/bul0000443
Louise David, Eliana Vassena, Erik Bijleveld
{"title":"The unpleasantness of thinking: A meta-analytic review of the association between mental effort and negative affect.","authors":"Louise David, Eliana Vassena, Erik Bijleveld","doi":"10.1037/bul0000443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Influential theories in psychology, neuroscience, and economics assume that the exertion of mental effort should feel aversive. Yet, this assumption is usually untested, and it is challenged by casual observations and previous studies. Here, we meta-analyze (a) whether mental effort is generally experienced as aversive and (b) whether the association between mental effort and aversive feelings depends on population and task characteristics. We meta-analyzed a set of 170 studies (from 125 articles published in 2019-2020; 358 different tasks; 4,670 unique subjects). These studies were conducted in a variety of populations (e.g., health care employees, military employees, amateur athletes, college students; data were collected in 29 different countries) and used a variety of tasks (e.g., equipment testing tasks, virtual reality tasks, cognitive performance tasks). Despite this diversity, these studies had one crucial common feature: All used the NASA Task Load Index to examine participants' experiences of effort and negative affect. As expected, we found a strong positive association between mental effort and negative affect. Surprisingly, just one of our 15 moderators had a significant effect (effort felt somewhat less aversive in studies from Asia vs. Europe and North America). Overall, mental effort felt aversive in different types of tasks (e.g., tasks with and without feedback), in different types of populations (e.g., university-educated populations and non-university-educated populations), and on different continents. Supporting theories that conceptualize effort as a cost, we suggest that mental effort is inherently aversive. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000443","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Influential theories in psychology, neuroscience, and economics assume that the exertion of mental effort should feel aversive. Yet, this assumption is usually untested, and it is challenged by casual observations and previous studies. Here, we meta-analyze (a) whether mental effort is generally experienced as aversive and (b) whether the association between mental effort and aversive feelings depends on population and task characteristics. We meta-analyzed a set of 170 studies (from 125 articles published in 2019-2020; 358 different tasks; 4,670 unique subjects). These studies were conducted in a variety of populations (e.g., health care employees, military employees, amateur athletes, college students; data were collected in 29 different countries) and used a variety of tasks (e.g., equipment testing tasks, virtual reality tasks, cognitive performance tasks). Despite this diversity, these studies had one crucial common feature: All used the NASA Task Load Index to examine participants' experiences of effort and negative affect. As expected, we found a strong positive association between mental effort and negative affect. Surprisingly, just one of our 15 moderators had a significant effect (effort felt somewhat less aversive in studies from Asia vs. Europe and North America). Overall, mental effort felt aversive in different types of tasks (e.g., tasks with and without feedback), in different types of populations (e.g., university-educated populations and non-university-educated populations), and on different continents. Supporting theories that conceptualize effort as a cost, we suggest that mental effort is inherently aversive. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

思考的不愉快:对脑力劳动与负面情绪之间关系的元分析回顾。
心理学、神经科学和经济学中具有影响力的理论认为,付出脑力劳动应该会产生厌恶感。然而,这一假设通常未经验证,而且受到偶然观察和以往研究的质疑。在此,我们对以下两个问题进行了元分析:(a) 脑力付出是否普遍具有厌恶感;(b) 脑力付出与厌恶感之间的关联是否取决于人群和任务特征。我们对一组 170 项研究进行了元分析(来自 2019-2020 年发表的 125 篇文章;358 项不同任务;4,670 名受试者)。这些研究针对不同人群(如医护人员、军人、业余运动员、大学生;数据在 29 个不同国家收集),使用不同任务(如设备测试任务、虚拟现实任务、认知表现任务)。尽管存在多样性,但这些研究都有一个重要的共同特点:所有研究都使用了 NASA 任务负荷指数(NASA Task Load Index)来考察参与者的努力体验和负面情绪。不出所料,我们发现脑力劳动与消极情绪之间有很强的正相关性。令人惊讶的是,在我们的 15 个调节因子中,只有一个具有显著影响(亚洲的研究与欧洲和北美的研究相比,努力的厌恶感略低)。总体而言,在不同类型的任务(如有反馈和无反馈的任务)、不同类型的人群(如受过大学教育的人群和未受过大学教育的人群)以及不同大洲,脑力劳动都会产生厌恶感。我们认为,脑力劳动在本质上是厌恶性的,这支持了将努力概念化为一种成本的理论。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信