Cited by 327Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

When goals conflict with values: Counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli.

Open access
Le Pelley, Mike E., Pearson, Daniel, Griffiths, Oren, Beesley, Tom·2015·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Attention provides the gateway to cognition, by selecting certain stimuli for further analysis. Recent research demonstrates that whether a stimulus captures attention is not determined solely by its physical properties, but is malleable, being influenced by our previous experience of rewards obtained by attending to that stimulus. Here we show that this influence of reward learning on attention extends to task-irrelevant stimuli. In a visual search task, certain stimuli signaled the magnitude of available reward, but reward delivery was not contingent on responding to those stimuli. Indeed, any attentional capture by these critical distractor stimuli led to a reduction in the reward obtained. Nevertheless, distractors signaling large reward produced greater attentional and oculomotor capture than those signaling small reward. This counterproductive capture by task-irrelevant stimuli is important because it demonstrates how external reward structures can produce patterns of behavior that conflict with task demands, and similar processes may underlie problematic behavior directed toward real-world rewards.

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 · 10.1037/xge0000037

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • These studies demonstrated that a reward-signaling stimulus demanded attention irrespective of it being detrimental to task performance and reward payout.

    “These studies instead demonstrated that a reward-signaling stimulus demanded attention irrespective of it being detrimental to task performance and reward payout (e.g., Le Pelley et al., 2015; Failing et al., 2015; Failing & Theeuwes, 2017).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Le Pelley et al., 2015

  • Other studies observed no such learning under conditions in which attentional suppression would have been the appropriate response that also would have led to more reward payout.

    “However, other studies observed no such learning under conditions in which attentional suppression would have been the appropriate response that also would have led to more reward payout.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Le Pelley et al., 2015

  • A distinction between Pavlovian and instrumental associations has been demonstrated in behavioral studies.

    “A distinction between both has been demonstrated in behavioral studies (Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009; Le Pelley et al., 2015; see also Chelazzi et al., 2013)”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Le Pelley et al., 2015

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. In H. Davis & H. Hurwirtz (Eds.), Operant-Pavlovian Interactions (pp. 67-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Le Pelley, M. E. (2010). Attention and human associative learning. In C. J. Mitchell & M. E. Le Pelley (Eds.), Attention and Associative Learning: From Brain to Behaviour (pp. 187-215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Le Pelley, M. E., Pearson, D., Griffiths, O., & Beesley, T.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2015-02
Volume
144
Issue
1
Pages
158-171
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2125474002
Cited by
327
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 2
FWCI
12.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (FT100100260)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
attentional capture, oculomotor capture, reward learning, task-irrelevant distractors, visual search, reward magnitude, counterproductive behavior, extrinsic rewards
MeSH terms
Problem Behavior, Adolescent, Association Learning, Attention, Color Perception, Conflict, Psychological, Cues, Female, Goals, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time, Reward, Saccades, Social Values, Students, 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