Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 227, Issue 1, pp 85–92

Action co-representation and social exclusion

Research Article

Abstract

Humans are thought to be able to form shared representations, considered a keystone of social cognition. However, whether and to what extent such representations are social in nature is still open for debate. In the present study, we address the question of whether action co-representation can be modulated by social attitudes, such as judgments about one’s own social status. Two groups of participants performed an Interactive Simon task after the experimental induction of a feeling of social inclusion or exclusion (ostracism) by means of a virtual ball tossing game. Results showed a compatibility effect in included, but not in excluded participants. This indicates that judgments about one’s own social status modulate action co-representation. We suggest that this modulation may occur by way of a redirection of one’s attentional focus away from others when one experiences social exclusion. This is a far-reaching issue given the increasing need for integration in modern society. Indeed, if integration fails, modern society fails also.

Keywords

Ostracism Interactive Simon Action co-representation 

References

  1. Ambrosini E, Blomberg O, Mandrigin A, Costantini M (2013) Social exclusion modulates pre-reflective interpersonal body representation. Psychol Res. doi:10.1007/s00426-012-0476-2
  2. Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D (1992) Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourgeois P, Hess U (2008) The impact of social context on mimicry. Biol Psychol 77:343–352. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.11.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer MB (2007) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer MB, Gardner W (1996) Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:83–93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardellicchio P, Sinigaglia C, Costantini M (2012) Grasping affordances with the other’s hand: a TMS study. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci (Epub ahead of print). doi:10.1093/scan/nss017
  7. Cardini F, Costantini M, Galati G, Romani GL, Ladavas E, Serino A (2011) Viewing one’s own face being touched modulates tactile perception: an fMRI study. J Cognit Neurosci 23:503–513. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter M (2009) Just how joint is joint action in infancy? Topics Cognit Sci 1:380–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chartrand TL, Bargh JA (1999) The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:893–910. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costantini M, Sinigaglia C (2012) Grasping affordance: a window onto social cognition. In: Seemann A (ed) Joint attention: new developments. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Costantini M, Ambrosini E, Sinigaglia C, Gallese V (2011a) Tool-use observation makes far objects ready-to-hand. Neuropsychologia 49:2658–2663. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.05.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costantini M, Committeri G, Sinigaglia C (2011b) Ready both to your and to my hands: mapping the action space of others. PLoS ONE 6:e17923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costantini M, Di Vacri A, Chiarelli AM, Ferri F, Romani GL, Merla A (2013) Studying social cognition using near-infrared spectroscopy: the case of social Simon effect. J Biomed Opt 18:25005. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.18.2.025005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferraro L, Iani C, Mariani M, Milanese N, Rubichi S (2011) Facilitation and interference components in the joint Simon task. Exp Brain Res 211:337–343. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2711-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frischen A, Tipper SP (2004) Orienting attention via observed gaze shift evokes longer term inhibitory effects: implications for social interactions, attention, and memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 133:516–533. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.516 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galati G, Committeri G, Spitoni G, Aprile T, Di Russo F, Pitzalis S, Pizzamiglio L (2008) A selective representation of the meaning of actions in the auditory mirror system. Neuroimage 40:1274–1286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galati G, Committeri G, Pitzalis S, Pelle G, Patria F, Fattori P, Galletti C (2011) Intentional signals during saccadic and reaching delays in the human posterior parietal cortex. Eur J Neurosci 34:1871–1885. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07885.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess YD, Pickett CL (2010) Social rejection and self- versus other-awareness. J Exp Soc Psychol 46:453–456. doi:10.1016/J.Jesp.2009.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hommel B (2011) The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychol 136:189–202. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hommel B, Musseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–878 (discussion 878–937)Google Scholar
  21. Hommel B, Colzato LS, van den Wildenberg WPM (2009) How social are task representations? Psychol Sci 20:794–798. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02367.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iani C, Anelli F, Nicoletti R, Arcuri L, Rubichi S (2011) The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action. Exp Brain Res 211:439–445. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2651-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A (1990) Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility–a model and taxonomy. Psychol Rev 97:253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kourtis D, Sebanz N, Knoblich G (2013) Predictive representation of other people’s actions in joint action planning: an EEG study. Soc Neurosci 8:31–42. doi:10.1080/17470919.2012.694823 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhbandner C, Pekrun R, Maier MA (2010) The role of positive and negative affect in the “mirroring” of other persons’ actions. Cognit Emot 24:1182–1190. doi:10.1080/02699930903119196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lakin JL, Chartrand TL, Arkin RM (2008) I am too just like you. Psychol Sci 19:816–822. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02162.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev 98:224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A (2001) Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev 108:291–310. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ondobaka S, de Lange FP, Newman-Norlund RD, Wiemers M, Bekkering H (2012) Interplay between action and movement intentions during social interaction. Psychol Sci 23:30–35. doi:10.1177/0956797611424163 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruys KI, Aarts H (2010) When competition merges people’s behavior: interdependency activates shared action representations. J Exp Soc Psychol 46:1130–1133. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2003) Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition 88:B11–B21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sebanz N, Bekkering H, Knoblich G (2006a) Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends Cognit Sci 10:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W, Wascher E (2006b) Twin peaks: an ERP study of action planning and control in co-acting individuals. J Cogn Neurosci 18(5):859–870Google Scholar
  34. Simon J, Rudell A (1967) Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. J Appl Psychol 51:300–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Brooks-Cole, MontereyGoogle Scholar
  36. Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur J Soc Psychol 1:149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas R, Press C, Haggard P (2006) Shared representations in body perception. Acta Psychol (Amst) 121:317–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tipper SP (2010) From observation to action simulation: the role of attention, eye-gaze, emotion, and body state. Q J Exp Psychol 63:2081–2105. doi:10.1080/17470211003624002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tipper S, Paul M, Hayes A (2006) Vision-for-action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychon Bull Rev 13:493–498. doi:10.3758/bf03193875 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tollefsen D (2005) Let’s pretend! Children and joint action. Philos Soc Sci 35:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tsai C–C, Kuo W-J, Jing J-T, Hung D, Tzeng O (2006) A common coding framework in self-other interaction: evidence from joint action task. Exp Brain Res 175:353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsai C–C, Kuo W-J, Hung DL, Tzeng OJL (2008) Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. J Cognit Neurosci 20:2015–2024. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. van Baaren RB, Maddux WW, Chartrand TL, de Bouter C, van Knippenberg A (2003) It takes two to mimic: behavioral consequences of self-construals. J Pers Soc Psychol 84:1093–1102. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1093 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Welsh TN, Ray MC, Weeks DJ, Dewey D, Elliott D (2009) Does Joe influence Fred’s action? Not if Fred has autism spectrum disorder. Brain Res Cognit Brain Res 1248:141–148Google Scholar
  46. Wilkowski BM, Robinson MD, Friesen CK (2009) Gaze-triggered orienting as a tool of the belongingness self-regulation system. Psychol Sci 20:495–501. doi:10.1111/J.1467-9280.2009.02321.X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams KD, Jarvis B (2006) Cyberball: a program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behav Res Methods 38:174–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams KD, Cheung CKT, Choi W (2000) Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the Internet. J Pers Soc Psychol 79:748–762. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zadro L, Williams KD, Richardson R (2004) How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. J Exp Soc Psychol 40:560CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience and ImagingUniversity of ChietiChietiItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Advanced Biomedical Technologies (ITAB)Foundation University G. d’AnnunzioChietiItaly

Personalised recommendations