自我耗竭和潜在调节因子的受试者内部测试。

IF 1.9 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Journal of General Psychology Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-11 DOI:10.1080/00221309.2021.1922341
Dustin P Calvillo, Katie Rodriguez, Theresa Ngan Nguyen
{"title":"自我耗竭和潜在调节因子的受试者内部测试。","authors":"Dustin P Calvillo,&nbsp;Katie Rodriguez,&nbsp;Theresa Ngan Nguyen","doi":"10.1080/00221309.2021.1922341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ego depletion, the finding that initial exertion of self-control hinders performance on subsequent self-control tasks, has become a controversial topic. There have been discrepant results from empirical studies and different conclusions drawn from meta-analyses and multilab studies. We examined ego depletion and three potential moderators in a preregistered experiment using a within-subjects design in order to overcome limitations of the standard between-subjects design. In two sessions separated by 1 week, participants (<i>N</i> = 214) completed an ego depletion or control version of a Stroop task. Each Stroop task was followed by manipulation check questions and an antisaccade task. Participants also completed measures of lay theory of willpower, trait self-control, and action orientation. There was no significant evidence for ego depletion, and Bayes factors strongly favored the null hypotheses that there was no difference in antisaccade performance (accuracy or response time) after ego depletion and control Stroop tasks. Additionally, lay theory willpower, trait self-control, and action orientation were not significantly related to ego depletion effects. Exploratory between-subjects comparisons that omitted participants who responded at lower than chance accuracy levels, however, found significant ego depletion effects. These results provide further evidence that ego depletion effects are elusive.</p>","PeriodicalId":47581,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00221309.2021.1922341","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A within-subjects test of ego depletion and potential moderators.\",\"authors\":\"Dustin P Calvillo,&nbsp;Katie Rodriguez,&nbsp;Theresa Ngan Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00221309.2021.1922341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ego depletion, the finding that initial exertion of self-control hinders performance on subsequent self-control tasks, has become a controversial topic. There have been discrepant results from empirical studies and different conclusions drawn from meta-analyses and multilab studies. We examined ego depletion and three potential moderators in a preregistered experiment using a within-subjects design in order to overcome limitations of the standard between-subjects design. In two sessions separated by 1 week, participants (<i>N</i> = 214) completed an ego depletion or control version of a Stroop task. Each Stroop task was followed by manipulation check questions and an antisaccade task. Participants also completed measures of lay theory of willpower, trait self-control, and action orientation. There was no significant evidence for ego depletion, and Bayes factors strongly favored the null hypotheses that there was no difference in antisaccade performance (accuracy or response time) after ego depletion and control Stroop tasks. Additionally, lay theory willpower, trait self-control, and action orientation were not significantly related to ego depletion effects. Exploratory between-subjects comparisons that omitted participants who responded at lower than chance accuracy levels, however, found significant ego depletion effects. These results provide further evidence that ego depletion effects are elusive.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00221309.2021.1922341\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2021.1922341\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2021.1922341","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

自我损耗,即最初的自我控制会阻碍随后的自我控制任务的表现,已经成为一个有争议的话题。实证研究的结果存在差异,荟萃分析和多实验室研究得出的结论也存在差异。为了克服标准受试者间设计的局限性,我们使用受试者内设计在预注册实验中检查了自我消耗和三个潜在的调节因子。在间隔一周的两个阶段中,参与者(N = 214)完成了自我消耗或对照版本的Stroop任务。每个Stroop任务之后是操作检查问题和反扫视任务。参与者还完成了意志力理论、特质自我控制和行动导向的测试。没有显著的证据表明自我耗尽,贝叶斯因子强烈支持零假设,即自我耗尽和控制Stroop任务后的反扫视性能(准确性或反应时间)没有差异。此外,理论意志力、特质自我控制和行动取向与自我耗竭效应无显著相关。然而,探索性的受试者间比较忽略了那些反应准确性低于偶然水平的参与者,发现了显著的自我消耗效应。这些结果进一步证明了自我耗竭效应是难以捉摸的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A within-subjects test of ego depletion and potential moderators.

Ego depletion, the finding that initial exertion of self-control hinders performance on subsequent self-control tasks, has become a controversial topic. There have been discrepant results from empirical studies and different conclusions drawn from meta-analyses and multilab studies. We examined ego depletion and three potential moderators in a preregistered experiment using a within-subjects design in order to overcome limitations of the standard between-subjects design. In two sessions separated by 1 week, participants (N = 214) completed an ego depletion or control version of a Stroop task. Each Stroop task was followed by manipulation check questions and an antisaccade task. Participants also completed measures of lay theory of willpower, trait self-control, and action orientation. There was no significant evidence for ego depletion, and Bayes factors strongly favored the null hypotheses that there was no difference in antisaccade performance (accuracy or response time) after ego depletion and control Stroop tasks. Additionally, lay theory willpower, trait self-control, and action orientation were not significantly related to ego depletion effects. Exploratory between-subjects comparisons that omitted participants who responded at lower than chance accuracy levels, however, found significant ego depletion effects. These results provide further evidence that ego depletion effects are elusive.

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
Journal of General Psychology
Journal of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Psychology publishes human and animal research reflecting various methodological approaches in all areas of experimental psychology. It covers traditional topics such as physiological and comparative psychology, sensation, perception, learning, and motivation, as well as more diverse topics such as cognition, memory, language, aging, and substance abuse, or mathematical, statistical, methodological, and other theoretical investigations. The journal especially features studies that establish functional relationships, involve a series of integrated experiments, or contribute to the development of new theoretical insights or practical applications.
×
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