End-state comfort meets pre-crastination
- 28 Downloads
Research on motor planning has revealed two seemingly contradictory phenomena. One is the end-state comfort effect, the tendency to grasp objects in physically awkward ways for the sake of comfortable or easy-to-control final postures (Rosenbaum et al., Attention and Performance XIII: Motor representation and control, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1990). The other is pre-crastination, the tendency to hasten the completion of tasks even at the expense of extra physical effort (Rosenbaum et al., Psychol Sci 25:1487–1496, 2014). End-state comfort seems to reflect emphasis on final states, whereas pre-crastination seems to reflect emphasis on initial states. How can both effects exist? We sought to resolve this seeming conflict by noting, first, that the effects have been tested in different contexts. End-state comfort has been tested with grasping, whereas pre-crastination has been tested with walking plus grasping. Second, both effects may reflect planning that aids aiming, as already demonstrated for end-state comfort but not yet tested for pre-crastination. We tested the two effects in a single walk-and-grasp task and found that demands on aiming influenced both effects, although precrastination was not fully influenced by changes in the demands of aiming. We conclude that end-state comfort and precrastination are both aiming-related, but that precrastination also reflects a desire to hasten early task completion.
Supported by a UCR COR grant to the first author. We thank the undergraduate research assistants who helped with data collection, Iman Feghhi and David Funder for helpful comments, and Wilfried Kunde and two anonymous reviewers who helped us improve the article.
- Fournier, L. R., Coder, E., Kogan, C., Raghunath, N., Taddese, E., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018a). Which task will we choose first? Precrastination and cognitive load in task ordering. Attention, Perception & Performance. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1633-5 (Published on-line in advance of paper publication).Google Scholar
- Fraley, R. C., & Vazire, S. (2014). The N-pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. PLoS ONE. 9(10).Google Scholar
- Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Richtel, M. (2014). Sometimes, early birds are too early. New York Times. page BU3. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/business/sometimes-early-birds-are-too-early.html?src=twr&_r=1.
- Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J., & Jorgensen, M. (1990). Constraints for action selection: Overhand versus underhand grips. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and Performance XIII: Motor representation and control (pp. 321–342). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum, D. A., Vaughan, J., Jorgensen, M. J., Barnes, H. J., & Stewart, E. (1993). Plans for object manipulation. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV—A silver jubilee: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 803–820). Cambridge: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
- Sauerberger, K. S., Funder, D. C., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). Pre-crastination as an individual difference (in preparation) Google Scholar
- Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (Second Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Walsh, M. M., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2009). Deciding how to act is not achieved by watching mental movies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1481–1489.Google Scholar