Relating Subjective Workload and Effort to Performance During Stable and Shifting Task Demands: A Multilevel Approach

Abstract

Interrelations between subsystems in control theories of self-regulation are frequently studied at the between- person level, despite being within-person phenomena. The current study models within-person variations of comparator, effector, and output subsystems through relationships in subjective workload, subjective effort, and objective performance on a complex decision-making task during stable and shifting task demands. Effects are examined at both immediate and downstream time points. Results provided mixed support for the proposed subsystem interrelationships, fully supporting the model during stable task demands, partially supporting it following an increase in task demands, but not supporting the model following a decrease in task demands. Results indicate dynamic within-person relationships between self-regulatory subsystem indicators and task performance, underscoring the importance of using longitudinal, multilevel approaches for disaggregating within-person and between-person components.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

APTIMA (2007). DDD v4.0 scenario writing guide: Revision 2. Woburn, MA: APTIMA.

Bliese

P. D.

Ployhart

R. E.

(2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 362–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442802237116

Brown

S. P.

Leigh

T. W.

(1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.81.4.358

Cox-Fuenzalida

L.-E.

(2007). Effect of workload history on task performance. Human Factors, 49(2), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X312496

Cumming

R. W.

Croft

P. G.

(1973). Human information processing under varying task demand. Ergonomics, 16(5), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137308924548

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356

Goldberg

R. A.

Stewart

M. R.

(1980). Memory overload or expectancy effect? ‘Hysteresis’ revisited. Ergonomics, 23(12), 1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138008924824

Grech

M. R.

Neal

Yeo

Humphreys

Smith

(2009). An examination of the relationship between workload and fatigue within and across consecutive days of work: Is the relationship static or dynamic? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014952

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Hancock

Peter A.

Meshkati

(Eds.), Advances in Psychology (vol. 52, pp. 139–183). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01664115(08)62386-9

10.

Hockey

G. R. J.

(1986). A state control theory of adaptation and individual differences in stress management. In Hockey

G. R. J.

Gaillard

A. W. K.

Coles

M. G. H.

(Eds.), Energetics and Human Information Processing (pp. 285–298). Springer, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4448-0_19

11.

Kanfer

Ackerman

(1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657

12.

Karoly

(1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 23–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323

13.

Matthews

M. L.

(1986). The influence of visual workload history on visual performance. Human Factors, 28(6), 623–632.

14.

Moroney

W. F.

Biers

D. W.

Eggemeier

F. T.

(1995). Some measurement and methodological considerations in the application of subjective workload measurement techniques. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0501_6

15.

Mracek

D. L.

Arsenault

M. L.

Day

E. A.

Hardy

J. H.

Terry

R. A.

(2014). A multilevel approach to relating subjective workload to performance after shifts in task demand. Human Factors, 56(8), 1401–1413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814533964

16.

Norman

D. A.

Bobrow

D. G.

(1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3

17.

Powers

W. T.

(1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Hawthorn.

18.

Schmitz

Skinner

(1993). Perceived control, effort, and academic performance: Interindividual, intraindividual, and multivariate time-series analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.1010

19.

Selig

J. P.

Preacher

K. J.

(2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org

20.

Terborg

J. R.

Miller

H. E.

(1978). Motivation, behavior, and performance: A closer examination of goal setting and monetary incentives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.1.29

21.

Vancouver

J. B.

(2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.38

22.

Yeo

Neal

(2008). Subjective cognitive effort: A model of states, traits, and time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.617

23.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

Preacher

K. J.

(2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108327450