scholarly journals An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 661-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kurzban ◽  
Angela Duckworth ◽  
Joseph W. Kable ◽  
Justus Myers
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Opportunity Cost ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Alternative Explanation ◽  
Mental Representations ◽  
Cost Model ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Over Time ◽  
And Task

AbstractWhy does performing certain tasks cause the aversive experience of mental effort and concomitant deterioration in task performance? One explanation posits a physical resource that is depleted over time. We propose an alternative explanation that centers on mental representations of the costs and benefits associated with task performance. Specifically, certain computational mechanisms, especially those associated with executive function, can be deployed for only a limited number of simultaneous tasks at any given moment. Consequently, the deployment of these computational mechanisms carries an opportunity cost – that is, the next-best use to which these systems might be put. We argue that the phenomenology of effort can be understood as the felt output of these cost/benefit computations. In turn, the subjective experience of effort motivates reduced deployment of these computational mechanisms in the service of the present task. These opportunity cost representations, then, together with other cost/benefit calculations, determine effort expended and, everything else equal, result in performance reductions. In making our case for this position, we review alternative explanations for both the phenomenology of effort associated with these tasks and for performance reductions over time. Likewise, we review the broad range of relevant empirical results from across sub-disciplines, especially psychology and neuroscience. We hope that our proposal will help to build links among the diverse fields that have been addressing similar questions from different perspectives, and we emphasize ways in which alternative models might be empirically distinguished.

scholarly journals I Can See It in Your Eyes: Gaze as an Implicit Cue of Uncanniness and Task Performance in Repeated Interactions With Robots

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Perugia ◽  
Maike Paetzel-Prüsmann ◽  
Madelene Alanenpää ◽  
Ginevra Castellano
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Implicit Measure ◽  
Gaze Behavior ◽  
Gaze Patterns ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
People’S Perception ◽  
Perception Of Robots ◽  
Over Time ◽  
And Task

Over the past years, extensive research has been dedicated to developing robust platforms and data-driven dialog models to support long-term human-robot interactions. However, little is known about how people's perception of robots and engagement with them develop over time and how these can be accurately assessed through implicit and continuous measurement techniques. In this paper, we explore this by involving participants in three interaction sessions with multiple days of zero exposure in between. Each session consists of a joint task with a robot as well as two short social chats with it before and after the task. We measure participants' gaze patterns with a wearable eye-tracker and gauge their perception of the robot and engagement with it and the joint task using questionnaires. Results disclose that aversion of gaze in a social chat is an indicator of a robot's uncanniness and that the more people gaze at the robot in a joint task, the worse they perform. In contrast with most HRI literature, our results show that gaze toward an object of shared attention, rather than gaze toward a robotic partner, is the most meaningful predictor of engagement in a joint task. Furthermore, the analyses of gaze patterns in repeated interactions disclose that people's mutual gaze in a social chat develops congruently with their perceptions of the robot over time. These are key findings for the HRI community as they entail that gaze behavior can be used as an implicit measure of people's perception of robots in a social chat and of their engagement and task performance in a joint task.

The effect of opportunity costs on mental fatigue in labor/leisure tradeoffs

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Dora ◽  
Madelon van Hooff ◽  
Sabine A. E. Geurts ◽  
Michiel A. J. Kompier ◽  
Erik Bijleveld
Keyword(s):  
Opportunity Cost ◽  
Cost Model ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Mental Fatigue ◽  
Current Level ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Total N ◽  
Paid Labor ◽  
Current Task

Most people experience the feeling of mental fatigue on a daily basis. Previous research shows that mental fatigue impacts information processing and decision making. However, the proximal causes of mental fatigue are not yet well understood. In this research, we test the opportunity cost model of mental fatigue, which proposes that people become more fatigued when the next-best alternative to the current task is higher in value. In three preregistered experiments (total N = 300), participants repeatedly reported their current level of fatigue and chose to perform a paid labor task vs an unpaid leisure task. In Study 1, all participants were offered the same labor/leisure choice. In Studies 2 and 3, we manipulated the opportunity costs of a labor task through the value of an alternative leisure task. In all studies, we found that people were more likely to choose for leisure as they became more fatigued. We did not find that the manipulated leisure value influenced the amount of fatigue participants experienced nor the likelihood to choose for leisure. However, in exploratory analyses, we found (and replicated) that participants who reported to value the leisure task more got more fatigued during labor and less fatigued during leisure. Collectively, these results provide cautious support for the opportunity cost model, but they also show that cost-benefit analyses relating to labor and leisure tasks are fleeting.

Cost-benefit models as the next, best option for understanding subjective effort

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 707-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kurzban ◽  
Angela Duckworth ◽  
Joseph W. Kable ◽  
Justus Myers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Opportunity Cost ◽  
Cost Model ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Target Article

AbstractThe commentaries on our target article are surprisingly sympathetic to our overall approach to explaining subjective effort, though disagreement with particulars inevitably emerged. Here, in our response, we first review the few disagreements concerning the basic structure of our proposal, highlighting areas in which little or no resistance was voiced. Opposition to the assumptions that underlie our opportunity cost model is noticeably limited. Areas of genuine disagreement, however, include: (1) the inputs to and outputs of the relevant decision-making systems; (2) how to interpret data regarding individual differences in performance; (3) how to explain persistence on tasks that give rise to the sensation of subjective effort; and (4) the details of the relevant neuropsychological systems. Throughout we point to empirical issues raised by the commentaries and suggest research that will be useful in arbitrating points of disagreement.

Maximising utility does not promote survival

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 685-685
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Cohen ◽  
Lauren L. Saling
Keyword(s):  
Opportunity Cost ◽  
Cost Model ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Over Time

AbstractWe argue that maximising utility does not promote survival. Hence, there is no reason to expect people to modulate effort according to a task's opportunity costs. There is also no reason why our evaluation of the marginal opportunity costs of tasks should predictably rise with repetition. Thus, the opportunity cost model cannot explain why tasks typically become harder over time.

On the link between mind wandering and task performance over time

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 14-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Thomson ◽  
Paul Seli ◽  
Derek Besner ◽  
Daniel Smilek
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Over Time ◽  
And Task

HIV/AIDS, Life Expectancy, and the Opportunity Cost Model of Civil War

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (10) ◽  
pp. 2130-2157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Kustra
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Opportunity Cost ◽  
Cost Model ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Civilian Life ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Hiv Aids

This article views death in battle as an opportunity cost whose size is determined by the number of years a rebel would have lived as a civilian. As civilian life expectancy declines, this opportunity cost does too, increasing the probability of rebellion. This theory is tested with a tragic natural experiment: the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Using male circumcision rates as an instrument for life expectancy, the analysis shows that a one-year increase in life expectancy decreases the probability of civil war by 2.6 percentage points. This supports the theory that opportunity costs are important determinants of conflict onset and that nonpecuniary opportunity costs should be taken into account. This article concludes by noting that cost–benefit analyses of public health interventions should include decreases in the probability of civil war, and the attendant benefits in terms of lives saved and material damage prevented, in their calculations.

Costs and Benefits of GIS in Business

2011 ◽  
pp. 56-79
Author(s):  
James Pick
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Geographic Information ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Productivity Paradox ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Over Time

This chapter examines the costs and benefits of geographic information systems (GIS). It focuses on the research questions of what components to include in GIS cost-benefit (C-B) analysis, what distinguishes GIS C-B analysis from non-spatial C-B analysis, what methods to use, and how to invest in GIS systems in order to obtain net payoffs over time. It categorizes costs and benefits of GISs. It considers the topics of systems analysis sub-steps in cost-benefit analysis, the feasibility decision, stakeholders and externalities, and the importance of timing and timeliness in investing in GIS and assessing payoffs. It examines the C-B aspects of a well-known GIS case study of Sears Roebuck’s delivery system. The literature on the value of investment in IT and productivity paradox is analyzed for its relevance to GIS investment. The major findings are, first, that the costs and benefits of a GIS can be estimated through modifications of standard non-spatial IS methods. Second, the key factors that differentiate GIS cost-benefit analysis from that of non-spatial IS are more extensive analyses of the costs of data acquisition, need to pro-rate the GIS costs and benefits for tightly linked combinations of GIS and other systems and technologies, and need for improved techniques to estimate the costs and benefits of the GIS’s visualization features.

scholarly journals Do aligned bodies align minds? The partners’ body alignment as a constraint on spatial perspective use.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexia Galati ◽  
Angelina Symeonidou ◽  
Marios N Avraamides
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Spatial Ability ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Route Description ◽  
High Level ◽  
East West ◽  
Over Time ◽  
And Task

In a direction-giving task, we examine whether a high-level constraint–the task partners’ relative body alignment–influences spatial language use and task accuracy. In 32 pairs, task partners interacted in two conditions: for one route description, direction givers (DGs) and direction followers (DFs) sat side-by-side (aligned condition), and for another they sat opposite one another (counter-aligned condition). After each description, DFs drew the route on a map. When pairs were counter-aligned (vs. aligned), DGs increased their use of expressions from a survey perspective, using more frequently terms such as east-west. When counter-aligned, DFs also used more words per conversational turn, which was taken to reflect the increased difficulty of coordinating in that condition. Still, in terms of task performance, the accuracy of DFs’ drawings was unaffected by the partners’ body alignment or spatial language use; it was only predicted by the DGs’ spatial ability. We argue that, because direction-giving emphasizes accuracy, task partners invest in strategies that contribute to mutual understanding (e.g., recaps of the route by the DF at the end, evidenced by shifts in language use over time). Thus, body alignment in direction-giving impacts coordination difficulty and spatial language use, but it does not singularly influence task performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document