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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“According to the opportunity cost model (Kurzban et al., 2013), the experienced costs of effort invested in a task are weighed against alternative opportunities.”
From Worth the Effort: the Start and Stick to Desirable Difficulties (S2D2) Framework (2023) · cites this paper as Kurzban et al., 2013
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
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.1998.712192 · Cited by 27,225
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2004.842673 · Cited by 25,268
Artificial intelligence: a modern approach
Kumar, D. A., Balasubramanian, S., Byeon, D. H., & Manerkar, P. G. V. (1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1577 · Cited by 22,191
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,563
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & AU (1986) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001 · Cited by 15,686
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Kurzban, 2007, The Psychology of Joss Whedon: An unauthorized exploration of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly, 7
- Tops, 2004, To stress or relax: Neurochemical aspects of activity and rest, Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 32
- 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 · DOI · Paper page
- Arai, 1912, Mental fatigue
- Baddeley, 1974, Recent advances in learning and motivation, vol. 8, 47
- Gallistel, 1990, The organization of learning: Learning, development, and conceptual change
- 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.
- 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
Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms
Andreasen, N. C. (1982) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t12696-000 · Cited by 1,888
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002 · Cited by 1,502
Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort
Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031526 · Cited by 1,077
Motivation and cognitive control: from behavior to neural mechanism
Botvinick, M., & Braver, T. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015044 · Cited by 909
Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: A review
van der Wel, P., & van Steenbergen, H. (2018) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y · Cited by 1,055
Metadata
- Authors
- Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- 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
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
