When a two-choice “Simon task” is distributed between two people, performance in the shared go/no-go task resembles performance in the whole task alone. This finding has been described as the joint Simon effect (JSE). Unlike the individual go/no-go task, not only is the typical joint Simon task shared with another person, but also the imperative stimuli dictate whose turn it is to respond. Therefore, in the current study, we asked whether removing the agent discrimination component of the joint Simon task influences co-representation. Participants performed the typical joint Simon task, which was compared to two turn-taking versions of the task. For these turn-taking tasks, pairs predictably alternated turns on consecutive trials, with their respective imperative stimulus presented either on 100% of their turns (fully predictable group) or on 83% of their turns (response-uncertainty group, 17% no-go catch trials). The JSE was absent in the fully predictable, turn-taking task, but emerged similarly under the response-uncertainty condition and the typical joint Simon task condition where there is both turn and response-execution-related uncertainty. These results demonstrate that conflict related to agent discrimination is likely not a critical factor driving the JSE, whereas conflict surrounding the need to execute a response (and hence the degree of preparation) appears fundamental to co-representation.
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.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
All three left-handed participants were female. One responded with her dominant left hand while the other two responded with their right hand.
The erroneous responses to catch trials were distributed across the experiment, with 26 responses in Block 1 (33.3% of errors), 14 responses in Block 2 (18.0% of errors), 21 responses in Block 3 (26.9% of errors), and 17 responses in Block 4 (21.8% of errors).
Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: Sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 371–385.
Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3(3–4), 410–420.
Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2015). My partner is also on my mind: Social context modulates the N1 response. Experimental Brain Research, 233(1), 105–113.
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), 1404–1405.
Böckler, A., & Sebanz, N. (2012). A co-actor’s focus of attention affects stimulus processing and task performance: An ERP study. Social Neuroscience, 7(6), 565–577.
Carlsen, A. N., Chua, R., Dakin, C. J., Sanderson, D. J., Inglis, J. T., & Franks, I. M. (2008). Startle reveals an absence of advance motor programming in a go/no-go task. Neuroscience Letters, 434, 61–65.
Carlsen, A. N., Chua, R., Inglis, J. T., Sanderson, D. J., & Franks, I. M. (2004). Can prepared responses be stored subcortically? Experimental Brain Research, 159(3), 301–309.
Dittrich, K., Bossert, M.-L., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2016). 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.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–9.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014a). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10.
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.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014b). The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(5), 1224–1230.
Elekes, F., Bródy, G., Halász, E., & Király, I. (2016). Enhanced encoding of the co-actor’s target stimuli during a shared non-motor task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(12), 2376–2389.
Eskenazi, T., Doerrfeld, A., Logan, G. D., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2013). Your words are my words: Effects of acting together on encoding. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 1026–1034.
Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114(3), 348–355.
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20(7), 794–798.
Iani, C., Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Arcuri, L., & Rubichi, S. (2011). The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 439–445.
Iani, C., Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., & Rubichi, S. (2014). The carry-over effect of competition in task-sharing: Evidence from the joint Simon task. PLoS One, 9(6), 1–8.
Lam, M. Y., & Chua, R. (2010). Influence of stimulus-response assignment on the joint-action correspondence effect. Psychological Research, 74(5), 476–480.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2(2), 174–207.
Maslovat, D., Carlsen, A. N., & Franks, I. M. (2012). Subcortical motor circuit excitability during simple and choice reaction time. Behavioral Neuroscience, 126(3), 499–503.
McClung, J. S., Jentzsch, I., & Reicher, S. D. (2013). Group membership affects spontaneous mental representation: Failure to represent the out-group in a joint action task. PLoS One, 8(11), 1–9.
Milanese, N., Iani, C., Sebanz, N., & Rubichi, S. (2011). Contextual determinants of the social-transfer-of-learning effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 415–422.
Müller, B. C. N., Kühn, S., van Baaren, R. B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 423–428.
Philipp, A. M., & Prinz, W. (2010). Evidence for a role of the responding agent in the joint compatibility effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11), 2159–2171.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.
Sebanz, N., Rebbechi, D., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Frith, C. (2007). Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing. Social Neuroscience, 2(2), 81–95.
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions towards the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176.
Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Jing, J. T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175(2), 353–362.
Vesper, C., Butterfill, S., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2010). A minimal architecture for joint action. Neural Networks, 23(8–9), 998–1003.
Welsh, T. N., Kiernan, D., Neyedli, H. F., Ray, M., Pratt, J., Potruff, A., & Weeks, D. J. (2013). Joint Simon effects in extrapersonal space. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(1), 1–5.
Wenke, D., Atmaca, S., Holländer, A., Liepelt, R., Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2011). What is shared in joint action? Issues of co-representation, response conflict, and agent identification. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(2), 147–172.
This research was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) award to NJH. We thank the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their thought provoking comments and suggestions.
This study was funded by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada awarded to Hodges (RGPIN-2016-04269).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
About this article
Cite this article
Karlinsky, A., Lam, M.Y., Chua, R. et al. Whose turn is it anyway? The moderating role of response-execution certainty on the joint Simon effect. Psychological Research 83, 833–841 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0901-7