Task Construal Influences Estimations of the Environment

People’s characteristics can affect their perception of the physical environment, and the judgments and estimates they make about their surroundings. Estimates of the environment change based on observers’ metabolic state, physical properties, and the potential effort they would need to exert for a certain action. The functional role of such scaling is to provide agents with information on possible actions and their energetic costs. Combining actions with costs facilitates both higher-level planning (e.g., choosing an optimal running speed on a marathon) as well as planning on lower levels of an action hierarchy, such as determining the best movement trajectories for energy-efficient action. Recently, some of the findings on reported effects of effort on perception have been challenged as arising from task demands—participants guessing the purpose of the experimental manipulation and adjusting their estimates as a result. Arguably however, the failed replications used overly distracting cover stories which may have introduced task demands of their own, and masked other effects. The current study tested the generality of effects of potential effort on height and distance perception, employing effective yet not distracting cover stories. Four experiments attempted to identify conditions under which anticipated effort may systematically change perceptual estimates. Experiment 1 found that height estimates were not influenced by the effort required to place objects of different weights onto surfaces of varying heights. Experiments 2, 3 used two different effort manipulations (walking vs. hopping; and carrying an empty vs. a heavy backpack, respectively) and found that these did not influence estimates of distance (to be) traveled. Experiment 4 also used backpack weight to manipulate effort but critically, unlike Exp. 1–3 it did not employ a cover story and participants did not traverse distances after giving estimates. In contrast with the first three experiments, distances in the final experiment were estimated as longer when participants were encumbered by a backpack. Combined, these results suggest that the measured effects on the estimation of distance were due to how participants construed the task rather than being of a perceptual nature

Sharing of mental effort in a joint task

Previous research has shown that when people engage in a joint task, they tend to minimize the total required effort. This is the case even when minimizing total effort increases the amount of effort individuals would need to expend. This tendency towards co-efficiency has previously been investigated in the motor domain. The aim of the current experiments was to investigate whether these findings extend to the sharing of mental effort. Five experiments were conducted using a multiple-object tracking task and two used a memory-based task. The first two experiments confirmed that, individually, participants prefer easier tasks. The following three experiments manipulated task difficulty for a participant and their ostensible partner and measured preferences for different difficulty combinations. Our findings provide support for egoistic effort distribution strategies, with participants mostly minimizing their own effort

Moral Judgments in Trolley Like Dilemmas: An Eye-Tracking Study

Previous research suggests that participants may be susceptible to confirmation bias after making decisions in moraldilemmas. We manipulated the type of moral dilemmas (personal or impersonal) and the framing of the question promptingparticipants to respond (emphasizing saving five people or sacrificing one person). The actors in the dilemmas were representedby a series of silhouettes. Eye tracking data revealed that both manipulations had an effect on participants’ gaze. Furtheranalysis of utilitarian choices has shown that there were no framing effects of the prompting question when the dilemmas wereimpersonal. The data suggests that participants’ subsequent gaze patterns are sensitive to both how the situation is describedand the framing of their hypothetical actions. Taken together, our results provide some support to the claim that confirmationbias may arise after making moral decisions

Task Construal Influences Estimations of the Environment

People’s characteristics can affect their perception of the physical environment, and the judgments and estimates they make about their surroundings. Estimates of the environment change based on observers’ metabolic state, physical properties, and the potential effort they would need to exert for a certain action. The functional role of such scaling is to provide agents with information on possible actions and their energetic costs. Combining actions with costs facilitates both higher-level planning (e.g., choosing an optimal running speed on a marathon) as well as planning on lower levels of an action hierarchy, such as determining the best movement trajectories for energy-efficient action. Recently, some of the findings on reported effects of effort on perception have been challenged as arising from task demands—participants guessing the purpose of the experimental manipulation and adjusting their estimates as a result. Arguably however, the failed replications used overly distracting cover stories which may have introduced task demands of their own, and masked other effects. The current study tested the generality of effects of potential effort on height and distance perception, employing effective yet not distracting cover stories. Four experiments attempted to identify conditions under which anticipated effort may systematically change perceptual estimates. Experiment 1 found that height estimates were not influenced by the effort required to place objects of different weights onto surfaces of varying heights. Experiments 2, 3 used two different effort manipulations (walking vs. hopping; and carrying an empty vs. a heavy backpack, respectively) and found that these did not influence estimates of distance (to be) traveled. Experiment 4 also used backpack weight to manipulate effort but critically, unlike Exp. 1–3 it did not employ a cover story and participants did not traverse distances after giving estimates. In contrast with the first three experiments, distances in the final experiment were estimated as longer when participants were encumbered by a backpack. Combined, these results suggest that the measured effects on the estimation of distance were due to how participants construed the task rather than being of a perceptual nature.Published versionEuropean Research Counci