Action Dominance

The Performance Effects of Multiple Action Demands and the Benefits of an Inaction Focus

Dolores Albarracin, Wei Wang, Kathleen C. McCulloch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Four experiments uncovered an action dominance error by which people’s natural focus on actions hinders appropriate responses to social and nonsocial stimuli. This surprising error comprises higher rates of both omission (misses) and commission (false alarms) when, in responding to action and inaction demands, people have higher numbers of action targets. The action dominance error was verified over four experiments using an analog that required responses to words and to target individuals. Experiments 1 and 2 tested our hypotheses and distinguished the action error effect from the effects of practicing action or inaction responses. Experiment 3 linked the error to the greater cognitive load imposed by the higher proportion of action over inaction targets. Furthermore, Experiment 4 demonstrated that (a) there is a default tendency to pay more attention to action (vs. inaction) targets and (b) shifting focus to inaction targets reduces the action dominance error.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)996-1007
Number of pages12
JournalPersonality and social psychology bulletin
Volume44
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Keywords

  • action goals
  • focus
  • goals
  • inaction
  • motivation
  • performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Action Dominance : The Performance Effects of Multiple Action Demands and the Benefits of an Inaction Focus. / Albarracin, Dolores; Wang, Wei; McCulloch, Kathleen C.

In: Personality and social psychology bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 7, 01.07.2018, p. 996-1007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{afc55056fd8e46b6acf1568c7311ed59,
title = "Action Dominance: The Performance Effects of Multiple Action Demands and the Benefits of an Inaction Focus",
abstract = "Four experiments uncovered an action dominance error by which people’s natural focus on actions hinders appropriate responses to social and nonsocial stimuli. This surprising error comprises higher rates of both omission (misses) and commission (false alarms) when, in responding to action and inaction demands, people have higher numbers of action targets. The action dominance error was verified over four experiments using an analog that required responses to words and to target individuals. Experiments 1 and 2 tested our hypotheses and distinguished the action error effect from the effects of practicing action or inaction responses. Experiment 3 linked the error to the greater cognitive load imposed by the higher proportion of action over inaction targets. Furthermore, Experiment 4 demonstrated that (a) there is a default tendency to pay more attention to action (vs. inaction) targets and (b) shifting focus to inaction targets reduces the action dominance error.",
keywords = "action goals, focus, goals, inaction, motivation, performance",
author = "Dolores Albarracin and Wei Wang and McCulloch, {Kathleen C.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0146167218756031",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "996--1007",
journal = "Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin",
issn = "0146-1672",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Action Dominance

T2 - The Performance Effects of Multiple Action Demands and the Benefits of an Inaction Focus

AU - Albarracin, Dolores

AU - Wang, Wei

AU - McCulloch, Kathleen C.

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Four experiments uncovered an action dominance error by which people’s natural focus on actions hinders appropriate responses to social and nonsocial stimuli. This surprising error comprises higher rates of both omission (misses) and commission (false alarms) when, in responding to action and inaction demands, people have higher numbers of action targets. The action dominance error was verified over four experiments using an analog that required responses to words and to target individuals. Experiments 1 and 2 tested our hypotheses and distinguished the action error effect from the effects of practicing action or inaction responses. Experiment 3 linked the error to the greater cognitive load imposed by the higher proportion of action over inaction targets. Furthermore, Experiment 4 demonstrated that (a) there is a default tendency to pay more attention to action (vs. inaction) targets and (b) shifting focus to inaction targets reduces the action dominance error.

AB - Four experiments uncovered an action dominance error by which people’s natural focus on actions hinders appropriate responses to social and nonsocial stimuli. This surprising error comprises higher rates of both omission (misses) and commission (false alarms) when, in responding to action and inaction demands, people have higher numbers of action targets. The action dominance error was verified over four experiments using an analog that required responses to words and to target individuals. Experiments 1 and 2 tested our hypotheses and distinguished the action error effect from the effects of practicing action or inaction responses. Experiment 3 linked the error to the greater cognitive load imposed by the higher proportion of action over inaction targets. Furthermore, Experiment 4 demonstrated that (a) there is a default tendency to pay more attention to action (vs. inaction) targets and (b) shifting focus to inaction targets reduces the action dominance error.

KW - action goals

KW - focus

KW - goals

KW - inaction

KW - motivation

KW - performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044028624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044028624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0146167218756031

DO - 10.1177/0146167218756031

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 996

EP - 1007

JO - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

JF - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SN - 0146-1672

IS - 7

ER -