你能预演一下吗?对长期大麻使用者和非使用者潜在绩效成本和努力的敏感性。

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Lisa R Fournier, Shikha Prashad, Hannah Mouradian, Andrew Y Paek
{"title":"你能预演一下吗?对长期大麻使用者和非使用者潜在绩效成本和努力的敏感性。","authors":"Lisa R Fournier, Shikha Prashad, Hannah Mouradian, Andrew Y Paek","doi":"10.1007/s00426-025-02139-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examined whether those who chronically use cannabis (chronic users), compared to those who do not use cannabis (non-users), tend to precrastinate (start or complete a subgoal as soon as possible) and engage in reactive (vs. proactive) decision-making incurring greater potential costs in task performance and perhaps costs in cognitive and physical effort. Participants walked down a hallway and retrieved two full cups of water (one near and one far from their starting position) in the order of their choice and carried both back to their start location with the goal of not spilling. First-cup choice (near or far) and attributions of first-cup choice were recorded. Counter to expectations, chronic users tended to choose the far cup first (i.e., avoided precrastination), the more efficient choice, and this tendency was not different from non-users. Participants' attributions confirmed that those who chose the far cup first likely engaged in proactive decision-making while those who chose the near cup first likely engaged in reactive decision-making. Additionally, chronic users and non-users utilized proactive control in the AX-Continuous Performance Task even though chronic users had lower short-term and working memory span scores. These results contradict research suggesting chronic users (vs. non-users) are more impulsive, lack inhibitory control, tend to invest physical effort regardless of reward, and tend not to invest cognitive effort for reward. We suggest that chronic cannabis use may not impair decision making as profoundly as previously thought if individuals are motivated by potential consequences of their decisions in tasks with low memory demand.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 4","pages":"129"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Will you precrastinate? Sensitivity to potential performance costs and effort in chronic cannabis users and non-users.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa R Fournier, Shikha Prashad, Hannah Mouradian, Andrew Y Paek\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-025-02139-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We examined whether those who chronically use cannabis (chronic users), compared to those who do not use cannabis (non-users), tend to precrastinate (start or complete a subgoal as soon as possible) and engage in reactive (vs. proactive) decision-making incurring greater potential costs in task performance and perhaps costs in cognitive and physical effort. Participants walked down a hallway and retrieved two full cups of water (one near and one far from their starting position) in the order of their choice and carried both back to their start location with the goal of not spilling. First-cup choice (near or far) and attributions of first-cup choice were recorded. Counter to expectations, chronic users tended to choose the far cup first (i.e., avoided precrastination), the more efficient choice, and this tendency was not different from non-users. Participants' attributions confirmed that those who chose the far cup first likely engaged in proactive decision-making while those who chose the near cup first likely engaged in reactive decision-making. Additionally, chronic users and non-users utilized proactive control in the AX-Continuous Performance Task even though chronic users had lower short-term and working memory span scores. These results contradict research suggesting chronic users (vs. non-users) are more impulsive, lack inhibitory control, tend to invest physical effort regardless of reward, and tend not to invest cognitive effort for reward. We suggest that chronic cannabis use may not impair decision making as profoundly as previously thought if individuals are motivated by potential consequences of their decisions in tasks with low memory demand.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"volume\":\"89 4\",\"pages\":\"129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02139-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02139-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了那些长期使用大麻的人(长期使用者),与那些不使用大麻的人(非使用者)相比,是否倾向于提前(尽快开始或完成一个子目标),并参与被动(与主动)决策,从而在任务表现上产生更大的潜在成本,也许在认知和体力上也会产生成本。参与者沿着走廊走,按照他们选择的顺序取两杯水(一杯离他们的起始位置近,一杯离他们的起始位置远),并带着这两杯水回到他们的起始位置,目的是不把水洒出来。记录第一杯选择(近或远)和第一杯选择的归因。与预期相反,长期用户倾向于首先选择远杯(即避免提前),这是更有效的选择,这种倾向与非用户没有什么不同。参与者的归因证实了那些先选择远杯子的人可能会做出积极的决策,而那些先选择近杯子的人可能会做出被动的决策。此外,尽管长期使用者的短期记忆和工作记忆广度得分较低,但长期使用者和非长期使用者在ax -连续性能任务中都使用了主动控制。这些结果与一些研究结果相矛盾,这些研究表明,长期用户(与非用户相比)更冲动,缺乏抑制控制,倾向于不顾奖励而投入体力劳动,并且倾向于不为奖励而投入认知努力。我们认为,长期使用大麻可能不会像之前认为的那样严重损害决策,如果个人是受到他们在低记忆需求任务中决策的潜在后果的激励。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Will you precrastinate? Sensitivity to potential performance costs and effort in chronic cannabis users and non-users.

We examined whether those who chronically use cannabis (chronic users), compared to those who do not use cannabis (non-users), tend to precrastinate (start or complete a subgoal as soon as possible) and engage in reactive (vs. proactive) decision-making incurring greater potential costs in task performance and perhaps costs in cognitive and physical effort. Participants walked down a hallway and retrieved two full cups of water (one near and one far from their starting position) in the order of their choice and carried both back to their start location with the goal of not spilling. First-cup choice (near or far) and attributions of first-cup choice were recorded. Counter to expectations, chronic users tended to choose the far cup first (i.e., avoided precrastination), the more efficient choice, and this tendency was not different from non-users. Participants' attributions confirmed that those who chose the far cup first likely engaged in proactive decision-making while those who chose the near cup first likely engaged in reactive decision-making. Additionally, chronic users and non-users utilized proactive control in the AX-Continuous Performance Task even though chronic users had lower short-term and working memory span scores. These results contradict research suggesting chronic users (vs. non-users) are more impulsive, lack inhibitory control, tend to invest physical effort regardless of reward, and tend not to invest cognitive effort for reward. We suggest that chronic cannabis use may not impair decision making as profoundly as previously thought if individuals are motivated by potential consequences of their decisions in tasks with low memory demand.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信