Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 147–172

What is Shared in Joint Action? Issues of Co-representation, Response Conflict, and Agent Identification

  • Dorit Wenke
  • Silke Atmaca
  • Antje Holländer
  • Roman Liepelt
  • Pamela Baess
  • Wolfgang Prinz
Joint Action: What is Shared?

Abstract

When sharing a task with another person that requires turn taking, as in doubles games of table tennis, performance on the shared task is similar to performing the whole task alone. This has been taken to indicate that humans co-represent their partner’s task share, as if it were their own. Task co-representation allows prediction of the other’s responses when it is the other’s turn, and leads to response conflict in joint interference tasks. However, data from our lab cast doubt on the view that task co-representation and resulting response conflict are the only or even primary source of effects observed in task sharing. Recent findings furthermore suggest another potential source of interference in joint task performance that has been neglected so far: Self-other discrimination and conflict related to agent identification (i.e., determining whether it is “my” or the other’s turn). Based on these findings we propose that participants might not always co-represent what their partner is supposed to do, but instead co-represent that another agent is responsible for part of the task, and when it is his turn. We call this account the actor co-representation account.

References

  1. Aiello, J.R., and E.A. Douthitt. 2001. Social facilitation from Triplett to electronic performance monitoring. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice 5: 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amodio, D.M., and C.D. Frith. 2006. Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansorge, U., and P. Wühr. 2004. A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30: 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atmaca, S., N. Sebanz, W. Prinz, and G. Knoblich. 2008. Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience 3(3–4): 410–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atmaca, S., N. Sebanz, and G. Knoblich. (2011). The Joint Flanker Effect: Sharing tasks with Real and Imagined Co-Actors. Experimental Brain Research.Google Scholar
  6. Coles, M.G.H., G. Gratton, T.R. Bashore, C.W. Eriksen, and E. Donchin. 1985. A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11: 529–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, M.H. 1980. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 10: 85.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, M.H. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Jong, R., C.-C. Liang, and E. Lauber. 1994. Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20: 731–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enz, S. 2009. Empathie als mehrdimensionales Konstrukt im Kontext von sozialen Konflikten in Teamsituationen [Empathy as a multi-dimensional construct in the context of social conflicts and of team situations]. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  11. Eriksen, B.A., and C.W. Eriksen. 1974. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics 16: 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grice, R.G., and J.W. Gwynne. 1985. Temporal characteristics of noise conditions producing facilitation and interference. Perception and Psychophysics 37: 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guagnano, D., E. Rusconi, and C. Umiltà. 2010. Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of a confederate in action coding. Cognition 114: 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guerin, B. 1993. Social facilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holländer, A., Jung, C., & Prinz, W. (2011). Covert motor activity on NoGo trials in a task sharing paradigm: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Experimental Brain Research. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2688-x
  16. Hommel, B. 2000. The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes, ed. S. Monsell and J. Driver, 247–273. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hommel, B., J. Müsseler, G. Aschersleben, and W. Prinz. 2001. The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 849–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hommel, B., L.S. Colzato, and W.P.M. van den Wildenberg. 2009. How social are task representations? Psychological Science 20: 794–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kilner, J.M., C. Vargas, S. Duval, S.-J. Blakemore, and A. Sirigu. 2004. Motor activation prior to observation of a predicted movement. Nature Neuroscience 7: 1299–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koch, I., and A.M. Philipp. 2005. Effects of response selection on the task-repetition benefit in task switching. Memory & Cognition 33: 624–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kornblum, S., T. Hasbroucq, and A. Osman. 1990. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 97: 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kourtis, D., N. Sebanz, and G. Knoblich. 2010. Favouritism in the motor system: social interaction modulates action simulation. Biology Letters 6: 758–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lam, M.Y., and R. Chua. 2009. Influence of stimulus-response assignment on the joint-action correspondence effect. Psychological Research 74: 476–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leuthold, H., W. Sommer, and R. Ulrich. 2004. Preparing for action: Inferences from CNV and LRP. Journal of Psychopysiology 18: 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liepelt, R., D. Wenke, R. Fischer, & W. Prinz. 2010. Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, epub ahead of print, doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0314-3
  26. Lu, C.H., and R.W. Proctor. 1995. The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2: 174–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neill, W.T., L.A. Valdes, K.M. Terry, and D.S. Gorfein. 1992. Persistence of negative priming. II. Evidence for episodic trace retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 993–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Philipp, A.M., and W. Prinz. 2010. Evidence for a role of the responding agent in the joint compatibility effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63: 2159–2171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prinz, W. 1997. Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 9: 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramnani, N., and R.C. Miall. 2004. A system in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience 7: 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers, R.D., and S. Monsell. 1995. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruys, K.I., and H. Aarts. 2010. When competition merges people’s behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 1130–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanders, A.F., and J.M. Lamers. 2002. The Erisksen flanker effect revisited. Acta Psychologica 109: 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schuch, S., and I. Koch. 2003. The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 29: 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sebanz, N., and G. Knoblich. 2009. Prediction in joint action: what, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sebanz, N., G. Knoblich, and W. Prinz. 2003. Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition 88: B11–B21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sebanz, N., G. Knoblich, and W. Prinz. 2005. How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31: 1234–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sebanz, N., H. Bekkering, and G. Knoblich. 2006. Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sebanz, N., D. Rebbechi, G. Knoblich, W. Prinz, and C. Frith. 2007. Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing. Social Neuroscience 2: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon, J.R. 1990. The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective, ed. R.W. Proctor and T.G. Reeve. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  41. Simon, J.R., and A.P. Rudell. 1967. Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology 51: 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simon, J.R., J.V. Hinrichs, and J.L. Craft. 1970. Auditory S-R compatibility: Reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology 86: 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stürmer, B., H. Leuthold, E. Soetens, H. Schröter, and W. Sommer. 2002. Control over location-based response activation in the Simon Task: Behavioral and Electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28: 1345–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tagliabue, M., M. Zorzi, C. Umiltà, and Bassignani. 2000. The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: 648–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsai, C.C., W.J. Kuo, J. Jing, D.L. Hung, and O.J.L. Tzeng. 2006. A common coding framework in self-other interaction. Evidence from a joint action task. Experimental Brain Research 175: 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsai, C.C., W.J. Kuo, D.L. Hung, and O.J.L. Tzeng. 2008. Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(11): 2015–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Schie, H.T., R.B. Mars, M.G.H. Coles, and H. Bekkering. 2004. Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nature Neuroscience 7: 549–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vesper, C., S. Butterfill, G. Knoblich, and N. Sebanz. 2010. A minimal architecture for joint action. Neural Networks 23: 998–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Welsh, T.N. 2009. When 1 + 1 = 1: The unification of independent actors revealed through joint Simon effects in crossed and uncrossed effector conditions. Human Movement Science 28: 726–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Welsh, T.N., L. Higgins, M. Ray, and D.J. Weeks. 2007. Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Human Movement Science 26: 853–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wickens, C.D. 2002. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science 3(2): 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zajonc, R.B. 1965. Social facilitation. Science 149: 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, H., J. Zhang, and S. Kornblum. 1999. A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology 38: 386–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorit Wenke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Silke Atmaca
    • 1
  • Antje Holländer
    • 1
  • Roman Liepelt
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pamela Baess
    • 1
    • 4
  • Wolfgang Prinz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyHumboldt University at BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Junior Group “Neurocognition of Joint Action”, Department of PsychologyWestfalian Wilhelms-UniversityMünsterGermany
  4. 4.Low Temperature Lab, Brain Research UnitAalto University School of Research and TechnologyEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations