To Do It or to Let an Automatic Tool Do It? The Priority of Control Over Effort

被引:16
作者
Osiurak, Francois [1 ]
Wagner, Clara [1 ]
Djerbi, Sara [1 ]
Navarro, Jordan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lyon 2, Inst Psychol, Lab Etud Mecanismes Cognitifs EA 30, F-69676 Bron, France
关键词
automatic tool use; decision making; principle of least effort; physical and cognitive effort; need for control; boredom; FREE FOOD; PROBLEM-SEEKING; LEAST-EFFORT; OBJECT USE; PREFERENCE; BEHAVIOR; WORK; RATS; TECHNOLOGY; MOTIVATION;
D O I
10.1027/1618-3169/a000219
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The aim of the present study is to provide experimental data relevant to the issue of what leads humans to use automatic tools. Two answers can be offered. The first is that humans strive to minimize physical and/or cognitive effort (principle of least effort). The second is that humans tend to keep their perceived control over the environment (principle of more control). These two factors certainly play a role, but the question raised here is to what do people give priority in situations wherein both manual and automatic actions take the same time - minimizing effort or keeping perceived control? To answer that question, we built four experiments in which participants were confronted with a recurring choice between performing a task manually (physical effort) or in a semi-automatic way (cognitive effort) versus using an automatic tool that completes the task for them (no effort). In this latter condition, participants were required to follow the progression of the automatic tool step by step. Our results showed that participants favored the manual or semi-automatic condition over the automatic condition. However, when they were offered the opportunity to perform recreational tasks in parallel, the shift toward manual condition disappeared. The findings give support to the idea that people give priority to keeping control over minimizing effort.
引用
收藏
页码:453 / 468
页数:16
相关论文
共 74 条
[1]   Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations [J].
Acee, Taylor W. ;
Kim, Hyunjin ;
Kim, Hyunjin J. ;
Kim, Jung-In ;
Chu, Hsiang-Ning R. ;
Kim, Myoungsook ;
Cho, YoonJung ;
Wicker, Frank W. .
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 35 (01) :17-27
[2]   THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR [J].
AJZEN, I .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1991, 50 (02) :179-211
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2003, COGNITION TOOL USE F
[4]  
[Anonymous], J APPL SOCIAL PSYCHO
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1990, ADAPTIVE CHARACTER T
[6]  
ATNIP G, 1973, B PSYCHONOMIC SOC, V2, P153
[7]  
Beck BenjaminB., 1980, Animal Tool Use Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals
[8]  
Berlyne D. E., 1960, CONFLICT AROUSAL CUR, DOI DOI 10.1037/11164-000
[9]   EFFECTS OF HEIGHTENED AROUSAL ON HUMAN EXPLORATORY-BEHAVIOR [J].
BERLYNE, DE ;
LEWIS, JL .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1963, 17 (04) :398-410
[10]   Anticipation of cognitive demand during decision-making [J].
Botvinick, Matthew M. ;
Rosen, Zev B. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, 2009, 73 (06) :835-842