CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,381Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and InterventionsCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 487 of the 489 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance

Open access
Kurzban, Robert, Duckworth, Angela, Kable, Joseph W., Myers, Justus·2013·Behavioral and Brain Sciences
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x12003196PMC PMC3856320
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Why does performing certain tasks cause the aversive experience of mental effort and concomitant deterioration in task performance? One explanation posits a physical resource that is depleted over time. We propose an alternative explanation that centers on mental representations of the costs and benefits associated with task performance. Specifically, certain computational mechanisms, especially those associated with executive function, can be deployed for only a limited number of simultaneous tasks at any given moment. Consequently, the deployment of these computational mechanisms carries an opportunity cost – that is, the next-best use to which these systems might be put. We argue that the phenomenology of effort can be understood as the felt output of these cost/benefit computations. In turn, the subjective experience of effort motivates reduced deployment of these computational mechanisms in the service of the present task. These opportunity cost representations, then, together with other cost/benefit calculations, determine effort expended and, everything else equal, result in performance reductions. In making our case for this position, we review alternative explanations for both the phenomenology of effort associated with these tasks and for performance reductions over time. Likewise, we review the broad range of relevant empirical results from across sub-disciplines, especially psychology and neuroscience. We hope that our proposal will help to build links among the diverse fields that have been addressing similar questions from different perspectives, and we emphasize ways in which alternative models might be empirically distinguished.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x12003196

Cites

487 of 487 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Items 201–400 of 487

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 489 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Kurzban, 2007, The Psychology of Joss Whedon: An unauthorized exploration of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly, 7
  2. Tops, 2004, To stress or relax: Neurochemical aspects of activity and rest, Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 32
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Arai, 1912, Mental fatigue
  5. Baddeley, 1974, Recent advances in learning and motivation, vol. 8, 47
  6. Gallistel, 1990, The organization of learning: Learning, development, and conceptual change
  7. Scerbo M. W. & Holcomb J. R. (1993). Effects of signal conspicuity and time on boredom in vigilance. Paper presented at the First Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia, February 25–26, 1993.
  8. Lynn M. & McCall M. (2000) Beyond gratitude and gratuity: A meta-analytic review of the predictors of restaurant tipping. Unpublished manuscript, School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,381

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
ORCID
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2013-12
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
661-679
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
DOI
10.1017/s0140525x12003196
PMC
PMC3856320
OpenAlex
W2164682760
Cited by
1,381
References
489
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 132 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 119 · 2022: 108 · 2021: 138 · 2020: 133 · 2019: 128 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 97 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 8
FWCI
36.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 3 d)
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (K01AG033182)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH101111)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA029149, R01DA029149)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
subjective effort, cognitive effort, task performance, opportunity cost, executive function, cognitive resource allocation, effort aversion
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Mental Fatigue, Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance

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