When two individuals alternate reaching responses to targets located in a visual display, reaction times are longer when responses are directed to where the co-actor just responded. Although an abundance of work has examined the many characteristics of this phenomenon it is not yet known why the effect occurs. In particular, some authors have argued that action representation mechanisms are central to the effect. However, here we present evidence in support of an account in which the representation of action is not necessary. First, the basic effect occurs even when participants cannot see their co-actor’s movement but, importantly, have their attention shifted to a target side via an attentional cue. Second, its time course is too short-lasting to function effectively as a component of action planning. Finally, unlike other joint action phenomena, the effect is not modulated by higher order mechanisms concerned with the personal attributes of a co-actor. Taken together, these results suggest that this particular joint action phenomenon is due to attentional rather than action mechanisms.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Debate surrounds the degree to which IOR is due to inhibition of attention as opposed to motor processes. However, most authors agree that an initial shift of attention occurs in order to induce IOR.
There is clearly an inherent difficulty in manipulating and operationalising (i.e., acting out) what is essentially a personality variable. We therefore based this aspect of our procedure on Hommel et al. (2009) who partly manipulated positive/negative interaction via a number of set phrases.
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.
Atkinson, M. A., Simpson, A., Skarratt, P. A., & Cole, G. G. (2014). Is social inhibition of return due to action co-representation? Acta Psychologica, 150(14), 85–93.
Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3, 410–420.
Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2012). Effects of a coactor’s focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1404–1415.
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1–2), 3–22.
Braun, D. A., Ortega, P. A., & Wolpert, D. M. (2011). Motor coordination: When two have to act as one. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 631–641.
Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2009). Appearance matters: Attentional orienting by new objects in the precuing paradigm. Visual Cognition, 17, 755–776.
Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2010). What the experimenter’s prime tells the observer’s brain. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1367–1376.
Cole, G., Skarratt, P., & Billing, R. (2012). Do action goals mediate social inhibition of return? Psychological Research, 76(6), 736–746.
Cole, G.G., Smith, D.T. & Atkinson, M.A. (2015). Mental state attribution and the gaze cueing effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(4), 1105–1115.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248–1260.
Doneva, S. P., & Cole, G. G. (2014). The role of attention in a joint-action effect. PLoS One, 9(3), e91336.
Eskritt, M., Donald, M., & Muir, D. (1998). Delayed imitation of complex behavioural sequences by 14- to 16-month olds. Early Development and Parenting, 7(4), 171–180.
Frischen, A., Loach, D., & Tipper, S. (2009). Seeing the world through another person’s eyes: Simulating selective attention via action observation. Cognition, 111(2), 212–218.
Galantucci, B., & Sebanz, N. (2009). Joint action: Current perspectives. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 255–259.
Gangitano, M., Mottaghy, F. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2004). Modulation of premotor mirror neuron activity during observation of unpredictable grasping movements. European Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 2193–2202.
Gazzola, V. V., Rizzolatti, G. G., Wicker, B. B., & Keysers, C. C. (2007). The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage, 35(4), 1674–1684.
Hayes, S. J., Hansen, S., & Elliott, D. (2010). Between-person effects on attention and action: Joe and Fred revisited. Psychological Research, 74(3), 302–312.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 49(3), 546–571.
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.
Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Ascherschleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001a). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.
Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godjin, R. (2001b). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.
Kilner, J., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13(6), 522–525.
Klein, R. M., & MacInnes, J. (1999). Inhibition of return is a foraging facilitator in visual search. Psychological Science, 10, 346–352.
Krüger, B., Bischoff, M., Blecker, C., Langhanns, C., Kindermann, S., Sauerbier, I., & Pilgramm, S. (2014). Parietal and premotor cortices: Activation reflects imitation accuracy during observation, delayed imitation and concurrent imitation. Neuroimage, 100, 39–50.
Kuhbandner, C., Pekrun, R., & Maier, M. A. (2010). The role of positive and negative affect in the ‘mirroring’ of other persons’ actions. Cognition and Emotion, 24(7), 1182–1190.
Lestou, V., Pollick, F., & Kourtzi, Z. (2008). Neural substrates for action understanding at different description levels in the human brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(2), 324–341.
Liepelt, R., Cramon, D., & Brass, M. (2008). What is matched in direct matching? Intention attribution modulates motor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(3), 578–591.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1994). Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behavior & Development, 17, 83–99.
Obhi, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Moving together: Toward understanding the mechanisms of joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 329–336.
Ondobaka, S., de Lange, F. P., Newman-Norlund, R. D., Wiemers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2012). Interplay between action and movement intentions during social interaction. Psychological Science, 23(1), 30–35.
Ondobaka, S., Newman-Norlund, R. D., de Lange, F. P., & Bekkering, H. (2013). Action recognition depends on observer’s level of action control and social personality traits. PLoS One, 8(11), e81392.
Paukner, A., Ferrari, P., & Suomi, S. (2011). Delayed imitation of lipsmacking gestures by infant rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). PLoS One, 6(12), e28848.
Paulus, M., & Moore, C. (2011). Whom to ask for help? Children’s developing understanding of other people’s action capabilities. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 593–600.
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. X, pp. 531–554). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rafal, R. D., Calabresi, P. A., Brennan, C. W., & Sciolto, T. K. (1989). Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(4), 673–685.
Reid, C., Wong, L., Pratt, J., Morgan, C., & Welsh, T. N. (2013). IOR effects in a social free-choice task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(4), 307–311.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.
Rogers, S. J., Young, G. S., Cook, I., Giolzetti, A., & Ozonoff, S. (2008). Deferred and immediate imitation in regressive and early onset autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 9, 449–457.
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.
Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 353–367.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.
Skarratt, P. A., Cole, G. G., & Kingstone, A. (2010). Social inhibition of return. Acta Psychologica, 134(1), 48–54.
Skarratt, P. A., Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2012). Visual cognition during real social interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–9.
Taylor, T. L., & Klein, R. M. (2000). Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1639–1656.
Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110, 124–129.
Vesper, C., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). Making oneself predictable: Reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 517–530.
Weger, U., Abrams, R., Law, M., & Pratt, J. (2008). Attending to objects: Endogenous cues can produce inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 16(5), 659–674.
Welsh, T. N., Elliot, D., Anson, J. G., Dhillon, V., Weeks, D. J., Lyons, J. L., & Chua, R. (2005). Does Joe influence Freds actions? Inhibition of return across different nervous systems. Neuroscience Letters, 385, 99–104.
Welsh, T. N., Lyons, J., Weeks, D. J., Anson, J. G., Chua, R., Mendoza, J., & Elliott, D. (2007). Within- and between-person inhibition of return: Observation is as good as performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 950–956.
Welsh, T. N., Manzone, J., & McDougall, L. (2014). Knowledge of response location alone is not sufficient to generate social inhibition of return. Acta Psychologica, 153(1), 153–159.
Welsh, T. N., McDougall, L. M., & Weeks, D. J. (2009a). The performance and observation of action shape future behaviour. Brain and Cognition, 71, 64–71.
Welsh, T. N., Ray, M. C., Weeks, D. J., Dewey, D., & Elliott, D. (2009b). Does Joe influence Fred’s action? Not if Fred has autism spectrum disorder. Brain Research, 1248, 141–148.
About this article
Cite this article
Doneva, S.P., Atkinson, M.A., Skarratt, P.A. et al. Action or attention in social inhibition of return?. Psychological Research 81, 43–54 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0738-x
- Stimulus Onset Asynchrony
- Simon Effect
- Mirror Neuron System
- Attentional Orienting
- Target Side