Cited by 121Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

I endeavor to make it: Effort increases valuation of subsequent monetary reward

Ma, Qingguo, Meng, Liang, Wang, Lei, Shen, Qiang·2014·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

Although it is commonly accepted that the amount of effort we put into accomplishing a task would exert an influence on subsequent reward processing and outcome evaluation, whether effort is incorporated as a cost or it would increase the valuation of concomitant reward is still under debate. In this study, EEGs were recorded while subjects performed calculation tasks that required different amount of effort, correct responses of which were followed by either no reward or fixed compensation. Results showed that high effort induced larger differentiated FRN responses to the reward and non-reward discrepancy across two experimental conditions. Furthermore, P300 manifested valence effect during reward feedback, with more positive amplitudes for reward than for non-reward only in the high effort condition. These results suggest that effort might increase subjective evaluation toward subsequent reward.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.11.045

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In initiation experiments, the more painful the shocks subjects endured to join a group, the more strongly they felt towards the group.

    “The more painful these shocks were, the more strongly the subjects felt towards the group (Gerard & Mathewson, 1966, see also Aronson & Mills, 1959, Ma, Meng, Wang, & Shen, 2014).”

    From Conative Dissonance (2026) · cites this paper as Ma, Meng, Wang, & Shen, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, Q., Meng, L., Wang, L., & Shen, Q.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Shen, Qiang
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
261
Pages
1-7
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072361256
Cited by
121
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (71371167, 71071135)
  • State Education Ministry of China (2013Z51)
  • Social Science Association of Zhejiang Province
  • Open Research Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning of Beijing Normal University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
effort, reward valuation, monetary rewards, feedback-related negativity, P300, reward valence, effort cost, outcome measurement, calculation tasks
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Choice Behavior, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Reward, Event-Related Potentials, P300, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review