Cognitive control under high threat: the effect of shock on the congruency sequence effect
- 183 Downloads
The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to the reduced distractor interference following conflict trials compared to following non-conflict trials. According to the affective account, the enhancement of cognitive control necessary to resolve the negative affect caused by conflict drives the CSE. Research supporting this view has shown that the induction of negative affect leads to increases in the CSE. In contrast, the dual competition model predicts that the processing of task-irrelevant high-threatening stimuli consumes the resources required for cognitive control, reducing the CSE. To test the impact of threat on the CSE, the present study examined the modulation of the CSE in the threatening context induced by electric shocks. Participants were to perform two Simon tasks or two flanker-compatibility tasks both under threat of shock and without such threat. Consistent with the dual competition model, the CSE obtained in the safe context disappeared under the threat of shock, regardless of whether participants performed stimulus-based conflict tasks or response-based conflict tasks. This paper discusses the implications of this finding in relation to the CSE’s driving motivation, aiming to reconcile these discrepant results with previous findings supporting the affective account.
KeywordsNegative affect Cognitive control Electric shock Congruency sequence effect
This research was supported by the Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-2015M3C7A1031969).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Birk, J. L., Rogers, A. H., Shahane, A. D., & Urry, H. (2018). The heart of control: Proactive cognitive control training limits anxious cardiac arousal under stress. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 64–78.Google Scholar
- Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366.Google Scholar
- Dignath, D., & Eder, A. B. (2015). Stimulus conflict triggers behavioral avoidance. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(4), 822–836.Google Scholar
- Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2015). Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 255–260.Google Scholar
- Eder, A. B., Dignath, D., Erle, T. M., & Wiemer, J. (2017). Shocking action: Facilitative effects of punishing electric shocks on action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(8), 1204–1215.Google Scholar
- Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.Google Scholar
- Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.Google Scholar
- Fischer, R., Ventura-Bort, C., Hamm, A., & Weymar, M. (2018). Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) enhances conflict-triggered adjustment of cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18, 680–693.Google Scholar
- Fritz, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: Conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 311–317.Google Scholar
- Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480.Google Scholar
- Gray, J. R. (2001). Emotional modulation of cognitive control: Approach–withdrawal states double-dissociate spatial from verbal two-back task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 436–452.Google Scholar
- Jeong H., & Cho Y. S. (2019). The Effects of Induced and Trait Anxieties on Implicit Emotion Regulation in Non-pathological Individuals. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105(1), 3–46.Google Scholar
- Osinsky, R., Alexander, N., Gebhardt, H., & Hennig, J. (2010). Trait anxiety and dynamic adjustments in conflict processing. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(3), 372–381.Google Scholar
- Plessow, F., Fischer, R., Kirschbaum, C., & Goschke, T. (2011). Inflexibly focused under stress: Acute psychosocial stress increases shielding of action goals at the expense of reduced cognitive flexibility with increasing time lag to the stressor. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3218–3227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco, NY: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, R. E., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
- van Steenbergen, H. (2015). Affective modulation of cognitive control: A biobehavioral perspective. In G. H. E. Gendolloa, M. Tops, & S. L. Koole (Eds.), Handbook of biobehavioral approaches to self-regulation (Vol. 31, pp. 89–107). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus-and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 328–333.Google Scholar