No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task
People working together on a task must often represent the goals and salient items of their partner. The aim of the present study was to study the influence of joint task representations in an interference task in which the congruency relies on semantic identity. If task representations are shared between partners in a joint Stroop task (co-representation account), we hypothesized that items in the response set of one partner might influence performance of the other. In Experiment 1, pairs of participants sat side by side. Each participant was instructed to press one of two buttons to indicate which of two colors assigned to them was present, ignoring the text and responding only to the pixel color. There were three types of incongruent distractor words: names of colors from their own response set, names of colors from the other partner’s response set, and neutral words for colors not used as font colors. The results of Experiment 1 showed that when people were doing this task together, distractor words from the partner’s response set interfered more than neutral words and just as much as the words from their own response color set. However, in three follow-up experiments (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c), we found an elevated interference for the other response-set words even though no co-actor was present. The overall pattern of results across our study suggests that an alternative response set, regardless of whether it belonged to a co-actor or to a non-social no-go condition, evoked equal amounts of interference comparable to those of the own response set. Our findings are in line with a theory of common coding, in which all events—irrespective of their social nature—are represented and can influence behavior.
The research was funded by the Autonomous Province of Trento, Call “Grandi Progetti 2012”, project “Characterizing and improving brain mechanisms of attention—ATTEND”. The authors report no conflict of interests. We thank Maria Paraskevopoulou and Claudia Bonmassar for the assistance in data collection.
- Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 211–252.Google Scholar
- Dittrich, K., Bossert, M.-L., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2017). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: on the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1808–1823. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1207690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huguet, P., Dumas, F., & Monteil, J.-M. (2004). Competing for a desired reward in the stroop task: when attentional control is unconscious but effective versus conscious but ineffective. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 58(3), 153–167. doi: 10.1037/h0087441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Müller, B. C. N., Brass, M., Kühn, S., Tsai, C.-C., Nieuwboer, W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B. (2011). When Pinocchio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied. Action co-representation for non-biological agents. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1373–1377. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Neely, J. H., & Kahan, T. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation. In H. L. Roediger, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington, DC: US: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10394-005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sebanz, N., Voinov, P., & Knoblich, G. (2015). Spatial perspective taking in the context of joint action. Cognitive Processing, 16, S25-S25.Google Scholar
- Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: evidence for a nonspatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 186–195. doi: 10.1037/a0038548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado, A., del Pobil, Á. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1073–1077. doi: 10.1037/a0029493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- van Schie, H. T., van Waterschoot, B. M., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Understanding action beyond imitation: reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1493–1500. doi: 10.1037/a0011750.PubMedGoogle Scholar