Effective effort regulation is central for self-control and has been a focus of psychological research for many decades. It is well established that challenging cognitive tasks, which impose self-control demands due to their complexity, are perceived as more effortful and require greater physiological activation than simpler tasks. However, the experience and allocation of effort during a task, whether easy or difficult, likely depends on more than these inherent self-control demands. Another key factor is boredom, which can arise during task execution. Yet, the role of boredom and the interplay with perceived task difficulty over time remains underexamined.

 

Based on these considerations, Radtke et al. (2024) aim to examine how boredom and task difficulty influence both subjective and objective measures of effort. They propose that subjective cognitive effort consists of both boredom-related and difficulty-related components, hypothesizing that both factors together more accurately predict objective effort allocation than task difficulty alone. The proposed study will use a within-subject design, in which participants perform two versions of the Stroop task: an easy version with only congruent trials and a hard version. Thought probes during the task will track subjective boredom, fatigue, perceived difficulty, and effort. Phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation will serve as an objective index of cognitive effort, while a subsequent flanker task will assess effects on secondary task performance. 

 

The authors predict that the easy Stroop version will result in lower perceived difficulty but higher boredom, as well as fewer errors and faster reaction times compared to the hard version. Over time, boredom and perceived effort due to boredom are expected to increase, while perceived task difficulty and effort attributed to difficulty are anticipated to decrease. Linear Mixed Models will be employed to determine whether phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation can be predicted by effort attributed to boredom, difficulty, or both. This innovative approach combines objective and subjective measures and promises to deepen our understanding of the cognitive demands posed by boredom, with significant implications for research on effort regulation and motivation. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by four expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly Journals:
 

 
References

Radtke, V., Wolff, W., & Martarelli, C. S. (2024). How effortful is boredom? Studying self-control demands through pupillometry. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/38qz4

Cognitive models ascribe a pivotal role to cognitive biases in the development and maintenance of mental disorders. For instance, attentional biases that prioritize the processing of threat-related stimuli have been suggested to be causally involved in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), which is marked by pathological worry. Therefore, these biases have garnered significant interest as potential diagnostic indicator and as targets for modification.

 

The idea that attention bias modification (ABM) can serve as a therapeutic intervention for GAD and other disorders was fueled by a seminal study by Hazen et al. (2009). In this study, 23 individuals experiencing high levels of worry underwent a computerized attentional retraining of threat stimuli (ARTS) or placebo control training during five training sessions. Relative to control, attention retraining was found to reduce preferential attention to threat, as well as depression and anxiety symptoms. However, as Pond et al. (2024) highlight in their review of the literature, the evidence endorsing the efficacy of ABM in alleviating anxiety disorders is still inconclusive. Moreover, some researchers contend that early positive findings might have been inflated due to demand effects.

 

Based on these considerations, Pond et al. (2024) propose a direct replication of Hazen et al. (2009) by subjecting a high-worry sample to five sessions of ARTS or placebo control. Departing from the frequentist analyses used in the original study, the authors will employ Bayesian analyses that allow more nuanced interpretation of the results, allowing consideration of evidence in support of the null hypothesis. The sampling plan will adhere to a Bayesian stopping rule, whereby the maximal sample size will be set at n=200. Furthermore, the authors extend the original study by addressing potential demand effects. For this purpose, they include a measure of phenomenological control (i.e., the ability to generate experiences align with the expectancies of a given situation) and evaluate its potential moderating impact on the attention bias training.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/5f7u9
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Hazen, R. A., Vasey, M. W., & Schmidt, N. B. (2009). Attentional retraining: A randomized clinical trial for pathological worry. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.004 

 

2. Pond, N., Meeten, F., Clarke, P., Notebaert, L., & Scott, R. B. (2024). The efficacy of attentional bias modification for anxiety: A registered replication. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5f7u9