Advertisement

Sense of Agency

  • Davood Gozli
Chapter
  • 308 Downloads

Abstract

The chapter begins with an overview of some of the principles and assumptions involved in causal understanding, in general, and sense of agency, in particular. Methods for assessing sense of agency are then reviewed, with particular reference to how they can influence the target of investigation. Several lines of experimental research are reviewed, which address the relationship between sense of agency and other factors, such as task-sharing, sensorimotor fluency, outcome evaluation, and free/forced choice. The findings fit within a framework that grounds sense of agency, with its multiple facets, in goal hierarchies.

Keywords

Sense of agency Sense of control Priming Illusion Intentional binding Ideomotor theory Intention Action 

References

  1. Anselme, P., & Güntürkün, O. (2018). How foraging works: Uncertainty magnifies food-seeking motivation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 1–106.Google Scholar
  2. Barlas, Z., Hockley, W. E., & Obhi, S. S. (2018). Effects of free choice and outcome valence on the sense of agency: Evidence from measures of intentional binding and feelings of control. Experimental Brain Research, 236(1), 129–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlas, Z., & Obhi, S. (2013). Freedom, choice, and the sense of agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 514.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berberian, B., Sarrazin, J. C., Le Blaye, P., & Haggard, P. (2012). Automation technology and sense of control: A window on human agency. PLoS One, 7, e34075.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 237–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borhani, K., Beck, B., & Haggard, P. (2017). Choosing, doing, and controlling: Implicit sense of agency over somatosensory events. Psychological Science, 28, 882–893.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caspar, E. A., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2018). Only giving orders? An experimental study of the sense of agency when giving or receiving commands. PLoS One, 13(9), e0204027.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caspar, E. A., Desantis, A., Dienes, Z., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2016). The sense of agency as tracking control. PLoS One, 11(10), e0163892.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambon, V., Domenech, P., Pacherie, E., Koechlin, E., Baraduc, P., & Farrer, C. (2011). What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding. PLoS One, 6(2), e17133.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambon, V., & Haggard, P. (2012). Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition, 125(3), 441–451.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambon, V., & Haggard, P. (2013). Premotor or ideomotor: How does the experience of action come about? In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dennett, D. C. (1984). Cognitive wheels: The frame problem in artificial intelligence. In C. Hookway (Ed.), Minds, machines and evolution (pp. 129–151). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dogge, M., Schaap, M., Custers, R., Wegner, D. M., & Aarts, H. (2012). When moving without volition: Implied self-causation enhances binding strength between involuntary actions and effects. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 501–506.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagleman, D. M. (2008). Human time perception and its illusions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 131–136.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ebert, J. P., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Time warp: Authorship shapes the perceived timing of actions and events. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 481–489.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Eitam, B., Kennedy, P. M., & Higgins, T. E. (2013). Motivation from control. Experimental Brain Research, 229, 475–284.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in the acquisition of action effects. Psychological Research, 68, 138–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ey, H. (1973). Bodily hallucinations. Treatise on hallucinations: I-II/Traite des hallucinations: I-II. Oxford, UK: Masson Et Cie.Google Scholar
  21. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frith, C. (2005). The self in action: Lessons from delusions of control. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 752–770.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Frith, C. D. (2014). Action, agency and responsibility. Neuropsychologia, 55, 137–142.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2007). The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J., & Warglien, M. (2018). From actions to effects: Three constraints on event mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1391.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Originally published in 1979).Google Scholar
  28. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gozli, D. G., Aslam, H., & Pratt, J. (2016). Visuospatial cueing by self-caused features: Orienting of attention and action-outcome associative learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gozli, D. G., & Brown, L. E. (2011). Agency and control for the integration of a virtual tool into the peripersonal space. Perception, 40, 1309–1319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gozli, D. G., & Deng, W. (2018). Building blocks of psychology: On remaking the unkept promises of early schools. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 1–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gozli, D. G., & Dolcini, N. (2018). Reaching into the unknown: Actions, goal hierarchies, and explorative agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 266.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gozli, D. G., & Gao, C. J. (2019). Hope, exploration, and equilibrated action schemes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, E41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gozli, D. G., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2016). Acting and anticipating: Impact of outcome-compatible distractor depends on response selection efficiency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 42, 1601–1614.Google Scholar
  35. Haggard, P., & Chambon, V. (2012). Sense of agency. Current Biology, 22, R390–R392.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Haggard, P., Clark, S., & Kalogeras, J. (2002). Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 382.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., Lazer, D., Redish, A. D., Couzin, I. D., & Cognitive Search Research Group. (2015). Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 46–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176–186.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Hommel, B. (2017). Goal-directed actions. In M. Waldmann (Ed.), Handbook of causal reasoning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hughes, G., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2013). Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 133–151.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature. Retrieved from https://librivox.org/treatise-of-human-nature-vol-1-by-david-humeGoogle Scholar
  44. Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(3), 188–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Janczyk, M., Dambacher, M., Bieleke, M., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). The benefit of no choice: Goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing. Psychological Research, 79, 206–220.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Kant, I. (1781/1998). In P. Guyer & A. Wood (Eds.), Critique of pure reason. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Karsh, N., & Eitam, B. (2015). I control therefore I do: Judgments of agency influence action selection. Cognition, 138, 122–131.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Kawabe, T. (2013). Inferring sense of agency from the quantitative aspect of action outcome. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(2), 407–412.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Kawabe, T., Roseboom, W., & Nishida, S. Y. (2013). The sense of agency is action–effect causality perception based on cross-modal grouping. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280, 2013.0991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kingstone, A., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2008). Cognitive ethology: A new approach for studying human cognition. British Journal of Psychology, 99(3), 317–340.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Kumar, D., & Srinivasan, N. (2014). Naturalizing sense of agency with a hierarchical event-control approach. PLoS One, 9, e92431.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kumar, D., & Srinivasan, N. (2017). Multi-scale control influences sense of agency: Investigating intentional binding using event-control approach. Consciousness and Cognition, 49, 1–14.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Libet, B., Wright, E. W., Jr., & Gleason, C. A. (1983). Preparation-or intention-to-act, in relation to pre-event potentials recorded at the vertex. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 56(4), 367–372.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105(1), 3–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mammen, J. (2017). A new logical foundation for psychology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Minohara, R., Wen, W., Hamasaki, S., Maeda, T., Kato, M., Yamakawa, H., … Asama, H. (2016). Strength of intentional effort enhances the sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1165.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moore, J. W., & Obhi, S. S. (2012). Intentional binding and the sense of agency: A review. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 546–561.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Moore, J. W., Wegner, D. M., & Haggard, P. (2009). Modulating the sense of agency with external cues. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 1056–1064.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Obhi, S. S., & Hall, P. (2011). Sense of agency and intentional binding in joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 655–662.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Obhi, S. S., Swiderski, K. M., & Brubacher, S. P. (2012). Induced power changes the sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1547–1550.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107, 179–217.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Powers, W. T. (1998). Making sense of behavior. Montclair, NJ: Benchmark Publications.Google Scholar
  67. Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2016). The mirror mechanism: A basic principle of brain function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(12), 757.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  69. Sidarus, N., Chambon, V., & Haggard, P. (2013). Priming of actions increases sense of control over unexpected outcomes. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1403–1411.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Sidarus, N., & Haggard, P. (2016). Difficult action decisions reduce the sense of agency: A study using the Eriksen flanker task. Acta Psychologica, 166, 1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smedslund, J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 185–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stetson, C., Cui, X., Montague, P. R., & Eagleman, D. M. (2006). Motor-sensory recalibration leads to an illusory reversal of action and sensation. Neuron, 51(5), 651–659.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Strother, L., House, K. A., & Obhi, S. S. (2010). Subjective agency and awareness of shared actions. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 12–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 219–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tafreshi, D., Slaney, K. L., & Neufeld, S. D. (2016). Quantification in psychology: Critical analysis of an unreflective practice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36(4), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Valsiner, J. (2017). From methodology to methods in human psychology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Watt, R., & Quinn, S. (2008). It depends what you do in the laboratory. British Journal of Psychology, 99(3), 351–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wen, W., & Haggard, P. (2018). Control changes the way we look at the world. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(4), 603–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2015a). The influence of action-outcome delay and arousal on sense of agency and the intentional binding effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 87–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2015b). The influence of goals on sense of control. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 83–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2016). Divided attention and processes underlying sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2017). The influence of performance on action-effect integration in sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 53, 89–98.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Wenke, D., Fleming, S. M., & Haggard, P. (2010). Subliminal priming of actions influences sense of control over effects of action. Cognition, 115(1), 26–38.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Wolpert, D. M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 209–216.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davood Gozli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MacauTaipaMacao

Personalised recommendations