This experimental procedure is based on the task interruption and resumption paradigm and is developed to test the activation and pursuit of cognitive goals. Our procedure, tests the activation of cognitive goals by first interrupting participants during a task and then measuring task resumption. Because a high task resumption rate is an indication of goal pursuit.
The challenge is that pursuing a cognitive goal can be a very efficient process, so we introduce a cognitive distraction during the interruption stage, to prevent automatic goal pursuit from happening. Begin by escorting the participant to the testing computer. Ask them to read basic descriptions of the overall survey procedure and to complete the online consent form.
Then inform them that they should click the continue button to proceed after every page. On the screen present the participant with an important notice message on the screen, and inform them that at some time during the session they will be interrupted briefly, but suddenly by the natural typing task designed to measure participants'natural typing speeds. Through the instructions on the screen, inform the participant that this task will involve typing nonsense words with no meaning.
Then show a question asking whether the participant has carefully read all the information about the interruption. Have them select Yes and Continue to proceed to the next page. Then present an overview of the three tasks that the participant would supposedly be doing and provide a brief description and the expected duration of each task.
Make sure that all tasks have the same duration. Note, the next part of the study is designed to activate the cognitive goal being tested. Show instructions to the participant that indicate they will now start the Relationship Conflict Task.
Then on the following page, ask them to recall a recent relationship conflict that they had with someone they are close to and fill in the open-ended question. On the same screen, below the text box, ask questions about the relationship conflict such as, with whom and how intense the conflict was? To ensure that the participant comes up with a specific conflict as oppose to general dissatisfaction in a relationship.
Manipulate high or low causal uncertainty by asking the participant to elaborate on the recent relationship conflict. With the focus on high or low causal uncertainty, respectively. Then ask manipulation check questions using seven point scales so that participants can indicate how certain or uncertain they feel about the reason behind the conflict.
Next inform the participant that they will start the Picture Impression Task. In which they will see five pairs of pictures and that for each pair, they must identify one thing that makes the pictures either similar or different from one another. Note, similarity focus involves abstract thinking while difference focus involves concrete thinking.
Then show the participant an incomplete image to make the screen appear as if the first pair of pictures of the Picture Impression Task is being loaded without showing any parts of the pictures. After two to three seconds, have the screen automatically proceed to a different page to start the task interruption procedure. Instruct the participant to complete the Natural-Typing Task by clicking the Start button and typing the 49 nonsense words presented on the screen.
After clicking Continue, inform the participant that instead of completing all tasks as originally planned, they must choose between resuming the interrupted second task, Picture Impression or completing the third task, Humor Evaluation. On the same screen, show the task descriptions and remind the participant that both tasks will take 2 minutes and involve five trials to prevent them from choosing the task that simply seems easier or quicker to finish. Finally, conclude the session by allowing the participant complete the task of their choice and by asking demographic questions of interest.
Then debrief the participant about the study. Overall, participants'task resumption patterns differed between the high versus low causal uncertainty condition. These results revealed a significant interaction between causal uncertainty and task control construer in predicting the rate of task resumption.
The percentage of participants that resumed the task was affected by the interaction. Specifically, in the high causal uncertainty condition the task resumption rate was greater if the interrupted task was about similarity versus difference focus. This procedure was used in previous research to test whether causal uncertainty activates the goal to think more abstractly.
However, we do believe that this can be adapted to test other kinds of cognitive goals. For example, if somebody developed an educational software that promotes creative thinking, this procedure can be modified to test whether the software does what it's supposed to do by simply changing some of the tasks in the study. There are some important things to consider when adapting this procedure.
First, researchers should make sure that the interrupted task is perceived by participants as an activity that can either fulfill or not fulfill the cognitive goal that's being tested. Second, researchers should also make sure that the alternative task that the participants can choose instead of resuming, is seen as something that is inherently more enjoyable. That way, they can make the case that the observed task resumption is indeed a result of goal pursuit.
This is also important because task resumption rate is generally high, even without a cognitive goal. This is because people have a natural tendency to want to complete things, which can potentially lead to a ceiling effect. Running plenty of pilot tests to ensure that these conditions have been met, is critical for a successful adaptation.
And with these proper adaptations this procedure can be highly versatile.
