The Impact of Pain on Subsequent Effort and Cognitive Performance

Abstract. Theoretical accounts of pain and empirical evidence indicate that pain and cognitive control share common neurocognitive processes. Numerous studies have examined the interactions between pain and cognitive performance when they occur simultaneously, typically showing analgesic effects on task performance and impaired performance due to pain. However, the sequential impact of pain on cognitive control and effort remains less clear. This study investigated the influence of a first task, including painful vs. non-painful thermal stimuli, on effort-related cardiac response and performance in a subsequent moderately difficult cognitive task. Drawing on the hypothesis that experiencing pain should recruit cognitive resources (such as attention and working memory) and reduce perceived ability, we predicted lower task performance and/or stronger compensatory effort in the subsequent cognitive task after the painful than after the non-painful first task. Results support our predictions regarding the effect of pain on subsequent cognitive performance, which was moderately lower after the painful task. However, such a decrease in task proficiency was not associated with a comparable decrease in perceived capacity or increase in effort-related cardiac reactivity. Nevertheless, further correlational analyses indicated that effort and perceived capacity were significantly related to pain ratings. Moderate pain was associated with stronger effort during the cognitive task, whereas high pain led to disengagement, that is, a low effort. Moreover, in line with our predictions, higher pain ratings were associated with a lower self-reported capacity to perform the cognitive task. We discuss these findings regarding the relationship between effort and performance, the impact of fatigue on motivation, and interindividual variability in these after-effects.

The Past, Present, and Future of Ego Depletion

Abstract. At the center of social psychology just a few years ago, ego depletion is now widely seen as a controversial topic, one of the chief victims of the replication crisis. Despite over 600 studies of apparent support, many are now asking if ego depletion is even real. Here, we comment on the articles included in this Special Issue: Ego Depletion and Self-Control: Conceptual and Empirical Advances. Specifically, we delineate the contributions and limitations of these articles by embedding them in a brief history of ego depletion, describing the current state of uncertainty about ego depletion’s scientific status, and outlining necessary steps for the study of ego depletion to have a healthy future. To us, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is not what it suggests about ego depletion, but what it suggests about social psychology more broadly. If the mere existence of ego depletion is seriously doubted by many, what can be confidently regarded as real in social psychology? By increasing the precision of our theories, continuously validating our manipulations and measures, and practicing the full suite of open science practices, we have the potential to identify legitimate and robust effects and build a cumulative and trustworthy psychological science.

Affect and cognitive control: Insights from research on effort mobilization

We present theory and research on effort mobilization that is relevant for understanding the role of affect in cognitive control. We posit that cognitive control and effort are closely related and introduce motivational intensity theory and supporting empirical evidence mainly based on cardiovascular measures of effort. Most important, we discuss the role of affect in the context of effort mobilization and cognitive control from different perspectives. We first present theories predicting affective influences on effort, namely the mood-behavior-model and the implicit-affect-primes-effort model, and supporting empirical evidence. Second, we discuss further implications of the resource conservation principle highlighting the aversive aspect of effort and review evidence for the impact of value and its affective component on effort and cognitive control. Finally, we present a recent integration of the neural mechanisms underlying both effort and cognitive control. We conclude that affective processes are necessary and instrumental for both effort mobilization and cognitive control.