The social transmission of metacontrol policies: Mechanisms underlying the interpersonal transfer of persistence and flexibility

Abstract

Humans often face binary cognitive-control dilemmas, with the choice between persistence and flexibility being a crucial one. Tackling these dilemmas requires metacontrol, i.e., the control of the current cognitive-control policy. As predicted from functional, psychometric, neuroscientific, and modeling approaches, interindividual variability in metacontrol biases towards persistence or flexibility could be demonstrated in metacontrol-sensitive tasks. These biases covary systematically with genetic predispositions regarding mesofrontal and nigrostriatal dopaminergic functioning and the individualistic or collectivistic nature of the cultural background. However, there is also evidence for mood- and meditation-induced intraindividual variability (with negative mood and focused-attention meditation being associated with a bias towards persistence, and positive mood and open-monitoring meditation being associated with a bias towards flexibility), suggesting that genetic and cultural factors do not determine metacontrol settings entirely. We suggest a theoretical framework that explains how genetic predisposition and cultural learning can lead to the implementation of metacontrol defaults, which however can be shifted towards persistence or flexibility by situational factors.

Exploring the effect of microdosing psychedelics on creativity in an open-label natural setting

“…According to this view, creativity tasks can be assumed to draw on two distinct, presumably opposing cognitive processes: flexibility is characterized by broadening the attentional scope, which enables individuals to generate many divergent ideas, while persistence is associated with a narrower attentional scope, thus allowing individuals to focus on one creative idea at a time Hommel 2015). Some of the previous empirical dissociations of persistence and flexibility were related to dopaminergic functioning, such as in behavioral-genetics studies demonstrating that polymorphisms supporting efficient dopaminergic functioning in the frontal cortex promote persistence while polymorphisms supporting striatal dopaminergic functioning promote flexibility (e.g., Reuter, Roth, Holve and Hennig, 2006;Zabelina, Colzato, Beeman and Hommel, 2016; for an overview, see Hommel and Colzato, 2017). This strengthens the view that frontal and striatal dopaminergic pathways are involved in persistence and flexibility.…”

Exploring the effect of microdosing psychedelics on creativity in an open-label natural setting

“…According to this view, creativity tasks can be assumed to draw on two distinct, presumably opposing cognitive processes: flexibility is characterized by broadening the attentional scope, which enables individuals to generate many divergent ideas, while persistence is associated with a narrower attentional scope, thus allowing individuals to focus on one creative idea at a time (De Dreu et al 2008; Hommel 2015). Some of the previous empirical dissociations of persistence and flexibility were related to dopaminergic functioning, such as in behavioral genetic studies demonstrating that polymorphisms supporting efficient dopaminergic functioning in the frontal cortex promote persistence while polymorphisms supporting striatal dopaminergic functioning promote flexibility (e.g., Reuter et al 2006; Zabelina et al 2016; for an overview, see Hommel and Colzato 2017). This strengthens the view that frontal and striatal dopaminergic pathways are involved in persistence and flexibility.…”

Rumination impairs the control of stimulus-induced retrieval of irrelevant information, but not attention, control, or response selection in general

“…Persistence and flexibility have been considered two antagonistic metacontrol strategies (i.e., strategies that control cognitive control; Goschke, 2003;Cools & d'Esposito, 2011) that can be considered as the extreme poles of a common metacontrol dimension (Hommel, 2015). Changing tasks and environmental conditions require continuous readjustments of the balance between persistence and flexibility, which induces intraindividual variability (Akbari Chermahini & Hommel, 2010;Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004;Herd et al, 2014;Müller et al, 2007), and people differ systematically with respect to the efficiency of the degree to which this balance can be achieved (Arbula, Capizzi, Lombardo, & Vallesi, 2016;Babcock & Vallesi, 2017; for a review, see Hommel & Colzato, 2017b).…”