Scribd
Upload
31 views2 pages

Sona 25 Debrief

Uploaded by

Albert Yan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views2 pages

Sona 25 Debrief

Uploaded by

Albert Yan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SONA-25 Debrief:

1. What are the research questions?

We are investigating the conditions under which people become distracted while performing
tasks. Specifically, we're curious about how the level of distractibility changes when certain
signals suggesting rewards are available, and what happens when those signals suddenly
change

2. How does this study extend previous research on this topic?

This study builds upon prior research indicating that stimuli predicting high rewards tend to
distract individuals more than those predicting low rewards. This effect occurs even when the
high-reward stimulus may not yield any reward due to individuals failing to look at the target
stimulus (Watson et al., 2019). Here, we investigated whether altering a stimulus' reward
value towards the end of the experiment would continue to distract individuals, particularly
when the stimulus that previously predicted a low reward now predicts high reward.

3. What are some potential real-world implications of this research?

This research delves into the factors influencing distractions during task performance,
particularly focusing on the impact of reward-related stimuli. In our daily lives, we encounter
numerous cues signalling potential rewards, such as advertisements or Instagram
notifications. Understanding how and when these stimuli can divert our attention from crucial
tasks, like driving, is crucial.

Moreover, this study explores the role of attentional flexibility in responding to changes in
reward-related cues, shedding light on how individuals adjust their focus in dynamic
environments. For instance, what may be considered rewarding at one moment, such as
checking social media, may not be as important later when focusing on studying for an
important exam. This necessitates individuals to swiftly adapt their attentional priorities
based on the context.

4. Briefly describe a potential issue (e.g., ethical, practical) or limitation of the study
(e.g., design, ecological validity).

Consistent with previous work in this area, participants will receive performance-based pay at
the end of the experiment. The study revolves around attention to reward-related stimuli,
making incentivization crucial as the monetary reward serves to motivate participants'
behaviour. However, offering performance-based pay could potentially introduce an
additional incentive for participation in the study.

To address any concerns regarding undue inducement, the details of performance-based pay
are not disclosed in the project description on SONA. Instead, they are explicitly outlined
only in the informed consent form and subsequent instructions provided to participants. This
approach ensures transparency and mitigates the risk of participants being influenced solely
by the prospect of monetary compensation when deciding to participate in the study.
5. Briefly describe the study methodology (e.g., design, dependent/ independent
variables, materials).

The study employed a between-subjects design, where participants were randomly assigned
to either the variable reward group or the constant reward group during the completion of a
visual search task using an eye tracker. In this task, participants had to identify a target shape
among distractors on the screen. Within the task, participants were exposed to two coloured
distractors—one colour predicted high rewards, while another predicted low rewards.

In the constant reward group, participants consistently received a fixed number of points
associated with the high-value distractor and a different fixed number of points associated
with the low-value distractor throughout the task.

Conversely, participants in the variable reward group received fluctuating point values for
both the high-value and low-value distractors. However, the average points awarded for the
high-value distractor matched those given to the high-value stimulus in the constant group,
while the average points awarded for the low-value distractor matched those given to the
lowvalue stimulus in the constant group.

To assess the impact of these reward manipulations on attentional control, a reversal phase
was implemented, wherein the initially high-value distractor became associated with low
rewards, and vice versa. This allowed researchers to examine how participants adjusted their
attentional strategies when reward contingencies changed.

6. Further reading (i.e., a reference to a reading/s related to the current study for
curious students).

Pearson, D., Watson, P., Albertella, L., & Le Pelley, M. E. (2022). Attentional economics
links value-modulated attentional capture and decision-making. Nature Reviews Psychology,
1(6), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00053-z

Watson, P., Pearson, D., Wiers, R. W., & Le Pelley, M. E. (2019). Prioritizing pleasure
and pain: Attentional capture by reward-related and punishment-related stimuli. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 26, 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.12.002

You might also like