Advertisement

Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators

  • Eva RiechelmannEmail author
  • Lisa Weller
  • Lynn Huestegge
  • Anne Böckler
  • Roland Pfister
Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Effect-based accounts of human action control have recently highlighted the possibility of representing one’s own actions in terms of anticipated changes in the behavior of social interaction partners. In contrast to action effects that pertain to the agent’s body or the agent’s physical environment, social action effects have been proposed to come with peculiarities inherent to their social nature. Here, we revisit the currently most prominent demonstration of such a peculiarity: the role of eye contact for action-effect learning in social contexts (Sato & Itakura, 2013, Cognition, 127, 383–390). In contrast to the previous demonstration of action-effect learning, a conceptual and a direct replication both yielded evidence for the absence of action-effect learning in the proposed design, irrespective of eye contact. Bayesian statistics supported this claim by demonstrating evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no effect. These results suggest a limited generalizability of the original findings—for example, due to limitations that are inherent in the proposed study design or due to cultural differences.

Keywords

Action control Social actions Effect anticipations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Atsushi Sato for providing us with the stimulus material of Sato and Itakura (2013), and for stimulating discussions regarding the present findings. We would like to thank Charlotte Erlinghagen and André Michael Interthal for data collection.

Funding

This research was funded by grants of the German Research Foundation to A.B. (GZ: BO4962/1-1), L.H. (HU 1847/7-1), and R.P. (PF 853, 2-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural variations in relationship rules. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 287–315.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598608247591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batki, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Connellan, J., & Ahluwalia, J. (2000). Is there an innate gaze module? Evidence from human neonates. Infant Behavior and Development, 23, 223–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00037-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2002). Automatic integration of non-perceptual action effect features: the case of the associative affective Simon effect. Psychological Research, 66, 166–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0090-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blais, C., Jack, R. E., Scheepers, C., Fiset, D., & Caldara, R. (2008). Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLOS ONE, 3, e3022.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., & Welsh, T. N. (2014). Catching eyes: Effects of social and nonsocial cues on attention capture. Psychological Science, 25, 720–727.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516147
  6. Dignath, D., Pfister, R., Eder, A. B., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2014). Representing the hyphen in action-effect associations: automatic acquisition and bidirectional retrieval of action-effect intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1701–1712.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000022 Google Scholar
  7. Eder, A. B., Rothermund, K., De Houwer, J., & Hommel, B. (2015). Directive and incentive functions of affective action consequences: An ideomotor approach. Psychological Research, 79, 630–649.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0590-4
  8. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229 Google Scholar
  9. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research, 68, 138–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0151-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flach, R., Press, C., Badets, A., & Heyes, C. (2010). Shaking hands: Priming by social action effects. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 739–749.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X484595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 694–724.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harleß, E. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens [The apparatus of the will]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 38, 50–73.Google Scholar
  13. Herbart, J. F. (1825). Psychologie als Wissenschaft neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik, und Mathematik. [Psychology as a science newly founded on experience, metaphysics, and mathematics]. Königsberg, Germany: Unzer.Google Scholar
  14. Herwig, A., & Horstmann, G. (2011). Action-effect associations revealed by eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 531–537.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0063-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffmann, J., Lenhard, A., Sebald, A., & Pfister, R. (2009). Movements or targets: What makes an action in action-effect learning? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 62, 2433–2449.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902922079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huestegge, L., & Kreutzfeldt, M. (2012). Action effects in saccade control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 198–203.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0215-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jack, R. E., Blais, C., Scheepers, C., Schyns, P. G., & Caldara, R. (2009). Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal. Current Biology, 19, 1543–1548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  19. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387 Google Scholar
  20. Kunde, W. (2004). Response priming by supraliminal and subliminal action effects. Psychological Research, 68, 91-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunde, W. (2006). Antezedente Effektrepräsentationen in der Verhaltenssteuerung [Antecedent effect representations in behavior control]. Psychologische Rundschau, 57, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunde, W., Lozo, L., & Neumann, R. (2011). Effect-based control of facial expressions: Evidence from action-effect compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 820–826.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0093-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kunde, W., Weller, L., & Pfister, R. (2018). Sociomotor action control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 917-931.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1316-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Langton, S. R., & Bruce, V. (1999). Reflexive visual orienting in response to the social attention of others. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 541–567.  https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macrae, C. N., Hood, B. M., Milne, A. B., Rowe, A. C., & Mason, M. F. (2002). Are you looking at me? Eye gaze and person perception. Psychological Science, 13, 460–464.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason, M. F., Hood, B. M., & Macrae, C. N. (2004). Look into my eyes: Gaze direction and person memory. Memory, 12, 637–643.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller, R. (2016). Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks? Psychological Research, 80, 464–486.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0670-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller, R., & Jung, M. L. (2018). Partner reactions and task set selection: Compatibility is more beneficial in the stronger task. Acta Psychologica, 185, 188–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nisbett, R. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently . . . and why. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369–378.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfeuffer, C. U., Kiesel, A., & Huestegge, L. (2016). A look into the future: Spontaneous anticipatory saccades reflect processes of anticipatory action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1530–1547.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pfister, R. (2019). Effect-based action control with body-related effects: Implications for empirical approaches to ideomotor action control. Psychological Review, 126(1), 153–161.  https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pfister, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate: anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science, 24, 2117–2121.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613489139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74–80.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0133-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfister, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Learning at any rate: Action-effect learning for stimulus-based actions. Psychological Research, 75(1), 61–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0288-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2013). Dissecting the response in response-effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 647–655.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3343-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pfister, R., Weller, L., Dignath, D., & Kunde, W. (2017). What or when? The impact of anticipated social action effects is driven by action-effect compatibility, not delay. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 79, 2132–2142.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1371-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riechelmann, E., Pieczykolan, A., Horstmann, G., Herwig, A., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Spatio-temporal dynamics of action-effect associations in oculomotor control. Acta Psychologica, 180, 130–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sato, A., & Itakura, S. (2013). Intersubjective action-effect binding: Eye contact modulates acquisition of bidirectional association between our and others’ actions. Cognition, 127, 383–390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Senju, A., & Hasegawa, T. (2005). Direct gaze captures visuospatial attention. Visual Cognition, 12, 127–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Senju, A., Hasegawa, T., & Tojo, Y. (2005). Does perceived direct gaze boost detection in adults and children with and without autism?: The stare-in-the-crowd effect revisited. Visual Cognition, 12, 1474–1496.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). The eye contact effect: Mechanisms and development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 127–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Senju, A., Vernetti, A., Kikuchi, Y., Akechi, H., Hasegawa, T., & Johnson, M. H. (2013). Cultural background modulates how we look at other persons’ gaze. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 131–136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025412465360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–974.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simons, D. J., & Rensink, R. A. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 16–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Way, B. M., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). Is there a genetic contribution to cultural differences? Collectivism, individualism and genetic markers of social sensitivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 203–211.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weller, L., Schwarz, K. A., Kunde, W., & Pfister, R. (2018). My mistake? Enhanced error processing for commanded compared to passively observed actions. Psychophysiology, 55, e13057.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2010). Does facial processing prioritize change detection? Change blindness illustrates costs and benefits of holistic processing. Psychological Science, 21, 1611–1615.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2011). On the timescale of stimulus-based action-effect learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 64, 1273–1289.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.546417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 358, 593–602.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Riechelmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lisa Weller
    • 1
  • Lynn Huestegge
    • 1
  • Anne Böckler
    • 1
  • Roland Pfister
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWürzburg UniversityWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations