Attentional flexibility during approach and avoidance motivational states: The role of context in shifts of attentional breadth.

Abstract

In the present studies, we aimed to understand how approach and avoidance states affect attentional flexibility by examining attentional shifts on a trial-by-trial basis. We also examined how a novel construct in this area, task context, might interact with motivation to influence attentional flexibility. Participants completed a modified composite letter task in which the ratio of global to local targets was varied by block, making different levels of attentional focus beneficial to performance on different blocks. Study 1 demonstrated that, in the absence of a motivation manipulation, switch costs were lowest on blocks with an even ratio of global and local trials and were higher on blocks with an uneven ratio. Other participants completed the task while viewing pictures (Studies 2 and 3) and assuming arm positions (Studies 2 and 4) to induce approach, avoidance, and neutral motivational states. Avoidance motivation reduced switch costs in evenly proportioned contexts, whereas approach motivation reduced switch costs in mostly global contexts. Additionally, approach motivation imparted a similar switch cost magnitude across different contexts, whereas avoidance and neutral states led to variable switch costs depending on the context. Subsequent analyses revealed that these effects were driven largely by faster switching to local targets on mostly global blocks in the approach condition. These findings suggest that avoidance facilitates attentional shifts when switches are frequent, whereas approach facilitates responding to rare or unexpected local stimuli. The main implication of these results is that motivation has different effects on attentional shifts depending on the context.

Neural Correlates of Attentional Flexibility during Approach and Avoidance Motivation

“…Given that all subjects who indicated noticing the ratio changes did so only after a fairly leading question, it is unlikely that subjects adopted a conscious task strategy in response to the changing global-local ratios. Furthermore, the percentage of subjects who noticed (37%) was similar to the percentage from the original behavioral study [ 5 ] (32%), and in that study, excluding the noticing subjects from analyses did not alter the results.…”

“…One such process is attentional flexibility, which refers to the ability to shift attention between different objects or levels of focus. This paper extends our previous behavioral work, which established the differential effects of approach and avoidance motivation on attentional flexibility [ 5 ], by examining the neural systems that underlie how approach and avoidance motivation affect attentional flexibility.…”

“…Participants completed a modified version of the composite letter task, in which the ratio of global to local targets changes across blocks of trials [ 5 ]. In this task, participants were presented with a large letter composed of several smaller letters (e.g.…”

“…One potential moderator of the seeming instability of the effects of approach and avoidance on attentional flexibility is variation in task demands. To investigate this possibility, we conducted a series of behavioral studies that added an additional factor beyond previous studies of motivation and attention: task context [ 5 ]. Accordingly, our participants completed a global-local composite letter task in which they had to switch between attending global and local features of a stimulus.…”

An Integrative Framework of Stress, Attention, and Visuomotor Performance

“…Approach motivation (also referred to as promotion focus) involves an individual working toward a desirable end goal (i.e., winning a game, or achieving a medal), whereas avoidance motivation (also known as prevention focus) involves someone trying to avoid undesirable end states (i.e., avoiding being last or making a mistake; see Maddox et al, 2010). Interestingly, these motivational states have been associated with differences in decision making and response selection (Markman et al, 2005), as well as attentional flexibility (Calcott and Berkman, 2014). As such, it may be the avoidance orientation adopted by an individual experiencing a threat state that leads to disrupted attention (see Jones et al, 2009).…”