Abstract
Stress-induced performance degradation in high-pressure situations has been documented empirically and generated different explanations. The existing theories often assume the distinction between implicit and explicit processing but speculate differently on the impact that high-pressure situations have on their interaction. Although few attempts have been made so far at clarifying these underlying processes mechanistically (e.g., computationally), this paper proposes a detailed, mechanistic, and process-based account based on the Clarion cognitive architecture. This account incorporates facets of existing theories, but explores motivation, metacognition, and their effects on performance degradation. This account has been applied to different tasks that have previously suggested different explanations. These tasks were simulated within the Clarion cognitive architecture and results matched well with human data. Utilizing data from different tasks, we come up with a unified model of stress-induced performance degradation in high-pressure situations, which shows a unified, motivation-based, mechanistic account of these phenomena is possible, thus shedding light on the phenomena and pointing to mechanistic explanations of other related phenomena.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
It should be noted that, while we refer to processing in terms of explicitness or implicitness based on the Clarion framework [32, 34], this duality has been referred to with different terms by various researchers from different areas of psychology (often with slightly different meanings). We hope that our theoretical framework (Clarion, as will be discussed) can provide some mechanistic interpretations and thus clarification to these terms.
Accessibility here refers to the direct and immediate availability of mental content for the major operations that are responsible for, or concomitant with, consciousness, such as introspection, forming higher-order thoughts, and verbal reporting, as well as meta-level control and manipulation.
Participants were told that they would be assigned a “modular arithmetic score” based on a combination of speed and accuracy and if they could improve that score by 20% relative to the proceeding block, they would receive $5. Participants were informed that they had been randomly paired with another individual and both had to improve to be rewarded the $5; they were told that their partner had already improved by the required amount. Participants were also told that they would be videotaped so that math professors could examine their performance.
Analysis of response times suggested that changes in accuracy during the task were not a function of a trade-off between accuracy and speed [4].
The division step was actually only “pseudo-division,” since the goal was simply to check for divisibility and not to actually perform the division.
The six possible states are as follows:• Detect the need for borrow operations• Perform the borrow operation (if needed)• Perform first-column subtraction• Perform second-column subtraction•Combine columns and perform divisibility check• Deliver the response (true or false)
Note that the bottom level had the ability to choose “do not know” at every step, allowing progressing explicitly to the correct solution.
Stereotypic errors were defined as misclassifying a tool as a gun when primed with a black face, or a gun as a tool when primed with a white face.
References
Anderson JR, Lebiere C. The atomic components of thought. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
Ashcraft M, Kirk E. The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001;130:224–37.
Beilock S, Carr T. On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001;130:701–25.
Beilock S, Kulp C, Holt L, Carr T. More on the fragility of performance: choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004;133:584–600.
Braver TS, Krug MK, Chiew KS, et al. Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2014;14:443–72.
Bretz S, Sun R. Two models of moral judgment. Cogn Sci. 2018;42(S1):4–37.
Carver C, Scheier M. On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
Dai DY, Sternberg RJ, editors. Motivation, emotion, and cognition: integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2004.
Dancy CL, Ritter FE, Berry K, Klein LC. Using a cognitive architecture with a physiological substrate to represent effects of psychological stress on cognition. Comput Math Organ Theory. 2015;21(1):90–114.
Dunton BC, Fazio RH. An individual difference measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1997;23:316–26.
Eysenck MW, Derakshan N, Santos R, Calvo MG. Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion. 2007;7(2):336–53.
Furst AJ, Hitch G. Separate roles for executive and phonological components of working memory in mental arithmetic. Mem Cogn. 2000;28:774–82.
Humphreys MS, Revelle W. Personality, motivation, and performance: a theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychol Rev. 1984;91(2):153–84.
Jacoby LL. A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. J Mem Lang. 1991;30:513–41.
Lambert A, Payne B, Jacoby L, Shaffer L, Chasteen A, Khan S. Stereotypes as dominant responses: on the “social facilitation” of prejudice in anticipated public contexts. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:277–95.
Lewis B, Linder D. Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1997;23:937–44.
Maddox WT, Markman AB. The motivation-cognition interface in learning and decision making. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2010;19(2):106–10.
Morgado P, Cerqueira JJ. The impact of stress on cognition and motivation. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12:326.
Morris LW, Liebert RM. Relationship of cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety to physiological arousal and academic performance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1970;35(3):332–7.
Navon D. Resources—a theoretical soup stone? Psychol Rev. 1984;91:216–34.
Padmala S, Sambuco N, Codispoti M, Pessoa L. Attentional capture by simultaneous pleasant and unpleasant emotional distractors. Emotion. 2018;18(8):1189–94.
Parro C, Dixon ML, Christoff K. The neural basis of motivational influences on cognitive control. Hum Brain Mapp. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1101/113126.
Payne K. Prejudice and perception: the role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:181–92.
Pessoa L. Cognitive-motivational interactions: beyond boxes-and-arrows models of the mind-brain. Motiv Sci. 2017;3(3):287–303.
Reber A. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1989;118:219–35.
Reiss S. Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic desires. Rev Gen Psychol. 2004;8(3):179–93.
Rumelhart D, McClelland J, The PDP Research Group. Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructures of cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1986.
Shiffrin R, Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing II. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:127–90.
Sloman A. Motives, mechanisms and emotions. Emot Cogn. 1987;1:217–34.
Smillie LD, Pickering AD, Jackson CJ. The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: implications for personality measurement. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10:320–35.
Spielberger CC, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R. State-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychology Press; 1970.
Sun R. Duality of the mind. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002.
Sun R. Motivational representations within a computational cognitive architecture. Cogn Comput. 2009;1:91–103.
Sun R. Anatomy of the mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.
Sun R, Matthews R (2005) Exploring the interaction of implicit and explicit processes to facilitate individual skill learning. Technical report, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Sun R, Merrill E, Peterson T. From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: a bottom-up model of skill learning. Cogn Sci. 2001;25:203–44.
Sun R, Slusarz P, Terry C. The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: a dual-process approach. Psychol Rev. 2005;112:159–92.
Sun R, Wilson N, Lynch M. Emotion: a unified mechanistic interpretation from a cognitive architecture. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(1):1–14.
Toates F. Motivational systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
Tohill J, Holyoak K. The impact of anxiety on analogical reasoning. Think Reason. 2000;6:27–40.
Watkins C (1989) Learning with delayed rewards. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Wilson N, Sun R, Mathews R. A motivationally based simulation of performance degradation under pressure. Neural Netw. 2009;22:502–8.
Wilson N, Sun R, Mathews R (2010) A motivationally based computational interpretation of social anxiety induced stereotype Bias. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Worthy DA, Markman AB, Maddox WT. What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009;16:344–9. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.344.
Yee DM, Braver TS. Interactions of motivation and cognitive control. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018;19:83–90.
Yerkes RM, Dodson JD. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. J Comp Neurol Psychol. 1908;18:459–82.
Zajonc RB. Social facilitation. Science. 1965;149:269–74.
Acknowledgments
We thank Sebastien Helie for his help.
Funding
This study was funded (in part) by ARI grants W74V8H-05-K-0002 and W911NF-17-1-0236.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, N.R., Sun, R. A Mechanistic Account of Stress-Induced Performance Degradation. Cogn Comput 13, 207–227 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-020-09725-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-020-09725-5