Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Apr;22(4):337-349.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007. Epub 2018 Feb 21.

The Effort Paradox: Effort Is Both Costly and Valued

Affiliations
Review

The Effort Paradox: Effort Is Both Costly and Valued

Michael Inzlicht et al. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Apr.

Abstract

According to prominent models in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and economics, effort (be it physical or mental) is costly: when given a choice, humans and non-human animals alike tend to avoid effort. Here, we suggest that the opposite is also true and review extensive evidence that effort can also add value. Not only can the same outcomes be more rewarding if we apply more (not less) effort, sometimes we select options precisely because they require effort. Given the increasing recognition of effort's role in motivation, cognitive control, and value-based decision-making, considering this neglected side of effort will not only improve formal computational models, but also provide clues about how to promote sustained mental effort across time.

Keywords: cognitive control; cognitive dissonance; decision-making; effort; learned industriousness; need for cognition; value.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure I.
Figure I.. Two Alternative Formulations for the Positive Valuation of Effort.
Previous work has suggested that the expected value of effort (EVprev; dark blue lines) is the difference between the expected product of investing that amount of effort (i.e., the likelihood of reaching your goal multiplied by the incentives received when the goal is reached; dark green lines) and the cost of exerting that same intensity of effort (red lines). The individual can (in principle) select their optimal effort investment by locating the effort intensity that maximizes their EV (unbroken vertical arrow). This framework can accommodate two alternate ways of valuing effort (shown in green broken lines): (A) as an amplification in the value of the product of effort with increasing effort intensity (from dark green to light green values), and/or (B) as a positive value that increases with effort intensity (counteracting effort costs), separate from the positive value expected as the product of effort. Effort’s reward function is assumed to be linear in this example, but the actual forms of this function and the cost function remain to be determined. Each of these alterations results in an alternate set of EV values (EValt; broken blue lines) and corresponding changes in the optimal level of effort.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kurzban R (2016) T0068e sense of effort. Curr. Opin. Psychol 7, 67–70
    1. Dreisbach G and Fischer R (2015) Conflicts as aversive sig-nals for control adaptation. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci 24, 255–260
    1. Saunders B et al. (2016) The emotive nature of conflict moni-toring in the medial prefrontal cortex. Int. J. Psychophysiol 119, 31–40 - PubMed
    1. Kool W et al. (2010) Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen 139, 665–682 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect 19, 25–42

Publication types