Joint response–effect compatibility
When performing jointly on a task, human agents are assumed to represent their coactor’s share of this task, and research in various joint action paradigms has focused on representing the coactor’s stimulus–response assignments. Here we show that the response–effect (R–E) contingencies exploited by a coactor also affect performance, and thus might be represented as if they were used by oneself. Participants performed an R–E compatibility task, with keypresses producing spatially compatible or incompatible action effects. We did not observe any R–E compatibility effects when the task was performed in isolation (individual go–no-go). By contrast, small but reliable R–E compatibility effects emerged when the same task was performed in a joint setting. These results indicate that the knowledge of a coactor’s R–E contingencies can influence whether self-produced action effects are used for one’s own motor control.
KeywordsJoint action Motor control Action effects R–E compatibility
- Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2012). On the persistence of tool-based compatibility effects. Journal of Psychology, 220, 16–22.Google Scholar
- Knoblich, G., Butterfill, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 59–101). Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Pfister, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate: Anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797613489139
- 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. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0133-x
- Pfister, R., Pfeuffer, C., & Kunde, W. (2013). Perceiving by proxy: Effect-based action control with unperceivable effects. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar