Advertisement

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 173–187 | Cite as

Self-control and its influence on global/local processing: An investigation of the role of frontal alpha asymmetry and dispositional approach tendencies

  • Brent Pitchford
  • Karen M. ArnellEmail author
Article

Abstract

People often inhibit or override their dominant response tendencies in order to complete tasks successfully. Exerting such self-control has been shown to influence attentional breadth differently depending on approach-motivated tendencies, as indexed by individuals’ behavioral activation system (BAS) scores. Approach motivation and attentional breadth have previously been associated with frontal alpha asymmetry (i.e., lateralized cortical activity in the frontal regions) where greater left-frontal activation is associated with greater approach motivation and reduced attentional breadth. The process model of self-control posits that exercising self-control leads to a subsequent increase in approach behavior in high BAS individuals, and this could be due to a shift towards left-hemisphere-frontal processing. This was the first study to examine both frontal asymmetry and attentional breadth before and after exercising self-control in low and high BAS individuals. Greater BAS, and greater difficulty exercising self-control, both positively related to more narrowed attentional breadth after completing the manipulation relative to before, but only after exercising self-control. However, breadth of attention and changes in attentional breadth were unrelated to frontal asymmetry, suggesting that the influence of self-control on individuals’ attentional breadth was not due to changes in frontal activation patterns.

Keywords

Attention Electrophysiology Cognitive Attentional control 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by a Canadian Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) to the first author, and by a grant from NSERC to the second author. This work was presented in October 2018 at the annual meeting of the Vision Sciences Society meeting in St. Pete Beach, United States of America..

References

  1. Allen, J. J. B., Coan, J. A., & Nazarian, M. (2004). Issues and assumptions on the road from raw signals to metrics of frontal EEG asymmetry in emotion. Biological Psychology, 67(1/2), 183–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.007 Google Scholar
  2. Boksem, M. A. S., Kostermans, E., Tops, M., & De Cremer, D. D. (2012). Individual differences in asymmetric resting-state frontal cortical activity modulate ERPS and performance in a global-local attention task. Federation of European Psychophysiology Societies, 26(2), 51–62.  https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000067 Google Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366.  https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.4.356 Google Scholar
  4. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 Google Scholar
  5. Chamberlain, R., Van der Hallen, R., Huygelier, H., Van de Cruys, S., & Wagemans, J. (2017). Local-global processing bias is not a unitary individual difference in visual processing. Vision Research, 141, 247–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2017.01.008 Google Scholar
  6. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (2003). Frontal EEG asymmetry and the behavioral activation and inhibition systems. Psychophysiology, 40(1), 106–114.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.00011 Google Scholar
  7. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (2004). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological Psychology, 67, 7–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.002 Google Scholar
  8. Crowell, A., Kelley, N. J., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2014). Trait approach motivation moderates the aftereffects of self-control. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(112), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01112 Google Scholar
  9. Dale, G., & Arnell, K. M. (2011). An investigation of the reliability and relationships among global-local processing measures. Journal of Vision, 11(11), 149–149.  https://doi.org/10.1167/11.11.149 Google Scholar
  10. Dale, G., & Arnell, K. M. (2013). Investigating the stability of and relationships among global/local processing measures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 394–406.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0416-7 Google Scholar
  11. Dale, G., & Arnell, K. M. (2014). Lost in the forest, stuck in the trees: Dispositional global/local bias is resistant to exposure to high and low spatial frequencies. PLOS ONE, (7),  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098625
  12. De Pascalis, V., Cozzuto, G., Caprara, G. V., & Alessandri, G. (2013). Relations among EEG-alpha asymmetry, BIS/BAS, and dispositional optimism. Biological Psychology, 94(1), 198–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.016 Google Scholar
  13. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component anlaysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 Google Scholar
  15. Domachowska, I., Heitmann, C., Deutsch, R., Goschke, T., Scherbaum, S., & Bolte, A. 2016. Approach-motivated positive affect reduces breadth of attention: Registered replication report of Gable and Harmon-Jones (2008). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67(Special Issue: Confirmatory), 50–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.003 Google Scholar
  16. Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 259–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004.A Google Scholar
  17. Düsing, R., Tops, M., Radtke, E. L., Kuhl, J., & Quirin, M. (2016). Relative frontal brain asymmetry and cortisol release after social stress: The role of action orientation. Biological Psychology, 115, 86–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.01.012 Google Scholar
  18. Fecteau, S., Knoch, D., Fregni, F., Sultani, N., Boggio, P., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2007). Diminishing risk-taking behavior by modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex: A direct current stimulation study. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(46), 12500–12505.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3283-07.2007 Google Scholar
  19. Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., Ozelsel, A., & Denzler, M. (2006). Enactment of approach and avoidance behavior influences the scope of perceptual and conceptual attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 133–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.02.004 Google Scholar
  20. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000238 Google Scholar
  21. Fregni, F., Orsati, F., Pedrosa, W., Fecteau, S., Tome, F. A. M., Nitsche, M. A., . . . Boggio, P. S. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex modulates the desire for specific foods. Appetite, 51(1), 34–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.016 Google Scholar
  22. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 875–893.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020495 Google Scholar
  23. Fröber, K., Stürmer, B., Frömer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). The role of affective evaluation in conflict adaptation: An LRP study. Brain and Cognition, 116(May), 9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.05.003 Google Scholar
  24. Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Approach-motivated positive affect reduces breadth of attention. Psychological Science, 19(5), 476–482.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02112.x Google Scholar
  25. Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011). Attentional consequences of pregoal and postgoal positive affects. Emotion, 11(6), 1358–1367.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025611 Google Scholar
  26. Gable, P. A., Mechin, N. C., Hicks, J. A., & Adams, D. L. (2015). Supervisory control system and frontal asymmetry: Neurophysiological traits of emotion-based impulsivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(10), 1310–1315.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv017 Google Scholar
  27. Gable, P. A., Mechin, N. C., & Neal, L. B. (2016). Booze cues and attentional narrowing: Neural correlates of virtual alcohol myopia. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 30(3), 377–382.  https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000130 Google Scholar
  28. Gable, P. A., Poole, B. D., & Cook, M. S. (2013). Asymmetrical hemisphere activation enhances global-local processing. Brain and Cognition, 83(3), 337–341.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.09.012 Google Scholar
  29. Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13(1), 34–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00406 Google Scholar
  30. Grimshaw, G. M., Foster, J. J., & Corballis, P. M. (2014). Frontal and parietal EEG asymmetries interact to predict attentional bias to threat. Brain and Cognition, 90, 76–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.06.008 Google Scholar
  31. Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (1997). Behavioral activation sensitivity and resting frontal EEG asymmetry: Covariation of putative indicators related to risk for mood disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 159–163.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.159 Google Scholar
  32. Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (1998). Anger and frontal brain activity: EEG asymmetry consistent with approach motivation despite negative affective valence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1310–1316.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1310 Google Scholar
  33. Harmon-Jones, E., & Gable, P. A. (2009). Neural activity underlying the effect of approach-motivated positive affect on narrowed attention. Psychological Science, 20(4), 406–409.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02302.x Google Scholar
  34. Harmon-Jones, E., & Gable, P. A. (2018). On the role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in approach and withdrawal motivation: An updated review of the evidence. Psychophysiology, 55(1.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12879
  35. Harmon-Jones, E., Lueck, L., Fearn, M., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2013). The effect of personal relevance action and approach-related action expectation on relative left frontal cortical activity. Psychological Science, 17(5), 434–440.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01724.x Google Scholar
  36. Harmon-Jones, E., Price, T. F., & Gable, P. A. (2012). The influence of affective states on cognitive broadening/narrowing: Considering the importance of motivational intensity. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 314–327.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2012.00073 Google Scholar
  37. Hicks, J. A., Friedman, R. S., Gable, P. A., & Davis, W. E. (2012). Interactive effects of approach motivational intensity and alcohol cues on the scope of perceptual attention. Addiction, 107(6), 1074-1080.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03781.x Google Scholar
  38. Hofmann, W., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everyday life. Psychological Science, 23(6), 582–588.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612437426 Google Scholar
  39. Hughes, D. M., Yates, M. J., Morton, E. E., & Smillie, L. D. (2014). Asymmetric frontal cortical activity predicts effort expenditure for reward. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(7), 1015–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu149 Google Scholar
  40. Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 450–463.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454134 Google Scholar
  41. Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 127–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009 Google Scholar
  42. Juergensen, J., & Demaree, H. A. (2015). Approach-motivated positive affect and emotion regulation alter global-local focus and food choice. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 580–588.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9472-3 Google Scholar
  43. Kelley, N. J., Hortensius, R., Schutter, D. J. L. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2017). The relationship of approach/avoidance motivation and asymmetric frontal cortical activity: A review of studies manipulating frontal asymmetry. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 119, 19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.03.001 Google Scholar
  44. Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 24–38.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.24 Google Scholar
  45. Kimchi, R., & Palmer, S. E. (1982). Form and texture in hierarchically constructed patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(4), 521–35.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.521 Google Scholar
  46. Kinchla, R. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (1979). The order of visual processing: “Top-down,” “bottom-up,” or “middle-out”. Perception & Psychophysics, 25(3), 225–231.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202991 Google Scholar
  47. Liu, L., Zhang, G., Zhou, R., & Wang, Z. (2014). Motivational intensity modulates attentional scope: Evidence from behavioral and ERP studies, Experimental Brain Research, 232, 3291–3300,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4014-x Google Scholar
  48. Liu, Y., Wang, Z., Quan, S., & Li, M. (2017). The effect of positive affect on conflict resolution: Modulated by approach-motivational intensity. Cognition and Emotion, 31(1), 69–82.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1081874 Google Scholar
  49. Nash, K., Inzlicht, M., & McGregor, I. (2012). Approach-related left prefrontal EEG asymmetry predicts muted error-related negativity. Biological Psychology, 91(1), 96–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.05.005 Google Scholar
  50. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3 Google Scholar
  51. Neal, L. B., & Gable, P. A. (2017). Regulatory control and impulsivity relate to resting frontal activity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(9), 1377–1383.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx080 Google Scholar
  52. Paquet, L., & Merikle, P. M. (1984). Global precedence: The effect of exposure duration. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38(1), 45–53.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080783 Google Scholar
  53. Pérez-Edgar, K., Kujawa, A., Nelson, S. K., Cole, C., & Zapp, D. J. (2013). The relation between electroencephalogram asymmetry and attention biases to threat at baseline and under stress. Brain and Cognition, 82, 337–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.009 Google Scholar
  54. Pizzagalli, D. A., Sherwood, R. J., Henriques, J. B., & Davidson, R. J. (2005). Frontal brain asymmetry and reward responsiveness. Psychological Science, 16(10), 805–813.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01618.x Google Scholar
  55. Price, T. F., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). The effect of embodied emotive states on cognitive categorization. Emotion, 10(6), 934–938.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019809 Google Scholar
  56. Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M., Meyer, T., Smulders, F. T. Y., & Smeets, T. (2015). The functional role of individual-alpha based frontal asymmetry in stress responding. Biological Psychology, 104, 75–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.014 Google Scholar
  57. Renaud, P., & Blondin, J.-P. (1997). The stress of Stroop performance: Physiological and emotional responses to color-word interference, task pacing, and pacing speed. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 27, 87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(97)00049-4 Google Scholar
  58. Schmeichel, B. J., Crowell, A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2016). Exercising self-control increases relative left frontal cortical activation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(2), 282–288.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv112 Google Scholar
  59. Schmeichel, B. J., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). Exercising self-control increases approach motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 162–173.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019797 Google Scholar
  60. Shields, G. S., & Moons, W. G. (2016). Avoidance-related EEG asymmetry predicts circulating interleukin-6. Emotion, 16(2), 150–154.  https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000120 Google Scholar
  61. Spielberg, J. M., Miller, G. A., Warren, S. L., Engels, A. S., Crocker, L. D., Sutton, B. P., & Heller, W. (2012). Trait motivation moderates neural activation associated with goal pursuit. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(2), 308–22.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0088-8 Google Scholar
  62. Spielberg, J. M., Stewart, J. L., Levin, R. L., Miller, G. A., & Heller, W. (2010). Prefrontal cortex, emotion, and approach/withdrawl motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 135–153.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00064.x.Prefrontal Google Scholar
  63. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651 Google Scholar
  64. Tomarken, A. J., Davidson, R. J., Wheeler, R. E., & Doss, R. C. (1992a). Individual differences in anterior brain asymmetry and fundamental dimensions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 676–687.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.676 Google Scholar
  65. Tomarken, A. J., Davidson, R. J., Wheeler, R. E., & Kinney, L. (1992b). Psychometric properties of resting anterior EEG asymmetry: Temporal stability and internal consistency. Psychophysiology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1992.tb02034.x
  66. Wacker, J., Chavanon, M. L., & Stemmler, G. (2010). Resting EEG signatures of agentic extraversion: New results and meta-analytic integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 167–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.004 Google Scholar
  67. Wagner, D. D., Altman, M., Boswell, R. G., Kelley, W. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (2013). Self-regulatory depletion enhances neural responses to rewards and impairs top-down control. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2262–2271.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613492985 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations