Advertisement

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 7, pp 2304–2319 | Cite as

Control used and control felt: Two sides of the agency coin

  • Cory A. PottsEmail author
  • Richard A. Carlson
Time for Action: Reaching for a Better Understanding of the Dynamics of Cognition
  • 128 Downloads

Abstract

Agency has been defined as the sense of ownership and control of our actions, and the metacognition of agency has now been examined in a number of studies. Here we examined the relations between task demands, the feeling of being in control, and the feeling of using control. As task demands increase, we might feel as if we use a lot of control while feeling little control over the task. It therefore seems possible that the amount of control one feels they have used and how much in control one feels are separable components of the metacognition of control. In two experiments, we manipulated task demands and assessed these two aspects of metacognition. The source of task demand differed for the two experiments. In Experiment 1, we manipulated task demands by varying the sizes of targets in an aiming task. As predicted, we found that reports of control used increased, while reports of control felt decreased, for more difficult aiming conditions. In Experiment 2, we found a similar relation using a different source of demand: response conflict. We connect these reports of control to previous investigations of task demand and agency, as well as prominent conceptions of cognitive control.

Keywords

Agency Metacognition Control Aiming Conflict 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Matti Vuorre, Stephen Agauas, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions on the manuscript. We also thank guest editors Joo-Hyun Song and Tim Welsh for organizing this special issue of Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. Finally, we thank Sophie Paolizzi, Lisa Stevenson, Nancy Dennis, Bob Sainburg, and Brad Wyble for illuminating discussions.

Open Practices Statement

The data and supplemental material for these experiments are available via Open Science Framework at: https://osf.io/q263x/?view_only=a11b00d98ee54cea946ad02968c73db9

Neither of the experiments was preregistered.

Author contributions

Both authors contributed to designing the study, analyzing the data, and writing the manuscript. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Declaration of Conflicting interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship and publication of this article.

References

  1. Augustyn, J. S., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2005). Metacognitive control of action: Preparation for aiming reflects knowledge of Fitts’s law. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 911-916.Google Scholar
  2. Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 237-242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambon, V., & Haggard, P. (2012). Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition, 125(3), 441-451.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambon, V., Sidarus, N., & Haggard, P. (2014). From action intentions to action effects: how does the sense of agency come about?. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 320.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Damen, T. G., Dijksterhuis, A., & Baaren, R. B. V. (2014a). On the other hand: nondominant hand use increases sense of agency. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(6), 680-683.Google Scholar
  7. Damen, T. G., van Baaren, R. B., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2014b). You should read this! Perceiving and acting upon action primes influences one's sense of agency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 21-26.Google Scholar
  8. Demanet, J., Muhle-Karbe, P. S., Lynn, M. T., Blotenberg, I., & Brass, M. (2013). Power to the will: how exerting physical effort boosts the sense of agency. Cognition, 129(3), 574-578.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2015). Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 255-260.Google Scholar
  10. Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2011). If it’s hard to read… try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research, 75(5), 376-383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn, T. L., Lutes, D. J., & Risko, E. F. (2016). Metacognitive evaluation in the avoidance of demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(9), 1372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott, D., Hansen, S., Grierson, L. E., Lyons, J., Bennett, S. J., & Hayes, S. J. (2010). Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1023.Google Scholar
  13. Elliott, D., Helsen, W. F., & Chua, R. (2001). A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 342.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Erikson, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: a continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception and Psychophysics, 25, 249-263.Google Scholar
  16. Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W. T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: a rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113(3), 461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haggard, P., Clark, S., & Kalogeras, J. (2002). Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 5(4), 382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hon, N. (2017). Attention and the sense of agency: A review and some thoughts on the matter. Consciousness and Cognition, 56, 30-36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hon, N., Poh, J. H., & Soon, C. S. (2013). Preoccupied minds feel less control: sense of agency is modulated by cognitive load. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(2), 556-561.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard, E. E., Edwards, S. G., & Bayliss, A. P. (2016). Physical and mental effort disrupts the implicit sense of agency. Cognition, 157, 114-125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy, P., Miele, D. B., & Metcalfe, J. (2014). The cognitive antecedents and motivational consequences of the feeling of being in the zone. Consciousness and Cognition, 30, 48-61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirsch, W., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2016). Spatial action-effect binding. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(1), 133-142.Google Scholar
  24. Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665.Google Scholar
  25. Metcalfe, J., & Greene, M. J. (2007). Metacognition of agency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 184.Google Scholar
  26. Metcalfe, J., Eich, T. S., & Castel, A. D. (2010). Metacognition of agency across the lifespan. Cognition, 116(2), 267-282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Metcalfe, J., Eich, T. S., & Miele, D. B. (2013). Metacognition of agency: proximal action and distal outcome. Experimental Brain Research, 229(3), 485-496.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Metcalfe, J., Van Snellenberg, J. X., DeRosse, P., Balsam, P., & Malhotra, A. K. (2012). Judgements of agency in schizophrenia: an impairment in autonoetic metacognition. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 1391-1400.Google Scholar
  29. Minohara, R., Wen, W., Hamasaki, S., Maeda, T., Kato, M., Yamakawa, H., ... & Asama, H. (2016). Strength of intentional effort enhances the sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1165.Google Scholar
  30. Moore, J. W., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Sense of agency in health and disease: a review of cue integration approaches. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 59-68.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore, J. W., & Obhi, S. S. (2012). Intentional binding and the sense of agency: a review. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 546-561.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Morsella, E., Wilson, L. E., Berger, C. C., Honhongva, M., Gazzaley, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2009). Subjective aspects of cognitive control at different stages of processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(8), 1807-1824.Google Scholar
  34. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. Handbook of Positive Psychology, 195-206.Google Scholar
  35. Potts, C. A., Pastel, S., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). How are cognitive and physical difficulty compared?. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(2), 500-511.Google Scholar
  36. Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). The eureka error: Inadvertent plagiarism by misattributions of effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Renes, R. A., Van Haren, N. E., & Aarts, H. (2015). Attentional control and inferences of agency: Working memory load differentially modulates goal-based and prime-based agency experiences. Consciousness and Cognition, 38, 38-49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Resnicow, J. E., Salovey, P., & Repp, B. H. (2004). Is recognition of emotion in music performance an aspect of emotional intelligence?. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 145-158.Google Scholar
  39. Risko, E. F., & Dunn, T. L. (2015). Storing information in-the-world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61-74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sidarus, N., & Haggard, P. (2016). Difficult action decisions reduce the sense of agency: A study using the Eriksen flanker task. Acta Psychologica, 166, 1-11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sidarus, N., Vuorre, M., & Haggard, P. (2017). Integrating prospective and retrospective cues to the sense of agency: a multi-study investigation. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2017a(1).Google Scholar
  42. Sidarus, N., Vuorre, M., Metcalfe, J., & Haggard, P. (2017). Investigating the prospective sense of agency: effects of processing fluency, stimulus ambiguity, and response conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 545.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevenson, L. M., & Carlson, R. A. (2018). Consistency, not speed: temporal regularity as a metacognitive cue. Psychological Research, 1-11.Google Scholar
  44. Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). Beyond the comparator model: a multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 219-239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Voss, M. (2013). The experience of agency: an interplay between prediction and postdiction. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 127.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Cues to agency: Time can tell. Agency and Joint Attention, 54, 256.Google Scholar
  48. Vastano, R., Pozzo, T., & Brass, M. (2017). The action congruency effect on the feelings of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 51, 212-222.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. von Holst, E., & Mittelstaedt, H. (1950). Das reafferenzprinzip. Naturwissenschaften, 37(20), 464-476.Google Scholar
  50. Vuorre, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2016). The relation between the sense of agency and the experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition, 43, 133-142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2016). Divided attention and processes underlying sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Wenke, D., Fleming, S. M., & Haggard, P. (2010). Subliminal priming of actions influences sense of control over effects of action. Cognition, 115(1), 26-38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Woodworth, R. S. (1899). Accuracy of voluntary movement. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 3(3), i.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations