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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anselme, P., & Güntürkün, O. (2018). How foraging works: Uncertainty magnifies food-seeking motivation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 1–106.
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.
Barlas, Z., & Obhi, S. (2013). Freedom, choice, and the sense of agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 514.
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.
Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 237–242.
Borhani, K., Beck, B., & Haggard, P. (2017). Choosing, doing, and controlling: Implicit sense of agency over somatosensory events. Psychological Science, 28, 882–893.
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.
Caspar, E. A., Desantis, A., Dienes, Z., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2016). The sense of agency as tracking control. PLoS One, 11(10), e0163892.
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.
Chambon, V., & Haggard, P. (2012). Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition, 125(3), 441–451.
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.
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.
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.
Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227–231.
Eagleman, D. M. (2008). Human time perception and its illusions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 131–136.
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.
Eitam, B., Kennedy, P. M., & Higgins, T. E. (2013). Motivation from control. Experimental Brain Research, 229, 475–284.
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in the acquisition of action effects. Psychological Research, 68, 138–154.
Ey, H. (1973). Bodily hallucinations. Treatise on hallucinations: I-II/Traite des hallucinations: I-II. Oxford, UK: Masson Et Cie.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Frith, C. (2005). The self in action: Lessons from delusions of control. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 752–770.
Frith, C. D. (2014). Action, agency and responsibility. Neuropsychologia, 55, 137–142.
Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2007). The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
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.
Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J., & Warglien, M. (2018). From actions to effects: Three constraints on event mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1391.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Originally published in 1979).
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.
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.
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.
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.
Gozli, D. G., & Dolcini, N. (2018). Reaching into the unknown: Actions, goal hierarchies, and explorative agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 266.
Gozli, D. G., & Gao, C. J. (2019). Hope, exploration, and equilibrated action schemes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, E41.
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.
Haggard, P., & Chambon, V. (2012). Sense of agency. Current Biology, 22, R390–R392.
Haggard, P., Clark, S., & Kalogeras, J. (2002). Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 382.
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11–26.
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.
Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59, 176–186.
Hommel, B. (2017). Goal-directed actions. In M. Waldmann (Ed.), Handbook of causal reasoning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature. Retrieved from https://librivox.org/treatise-of-human-nature-vol-1-by-david-hume
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(3), 188–196.
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.
Kant, I. (1781/1998). In P. Guyer & A. Wood (Eds.), Critique of pure reason. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Karsh, N., & Eitam, B. (2015). I control therefore I do: Judgments of agency influence action selection. Cognition, 138, 122–131.
Kawabe, T. (2013). Inferring sense of agency from the quantitative aspect of action outcome. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(2), 407–412.
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.
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.
Kumar, D., & Srinivasan, N. (2014). Naturalizing sense of agency with a hierarchical event-control approach. PLoS One, 9, e92431.
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.
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.
Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105(1), 3–46.
Mammen, J. (2017). A new logical foundation for psychology. New York, NY: Springer.
Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Moore, J. W., & Obhi, S. S. (2012). Intentional binding and the sense of agency: A review. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 546–561.
Moore, J. W., Wegner, D. M., & Haggard, P. (2009). Modulating the sense of agency with external cues. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 1056–1064.
Obhi, S. S., & Hall, P. (2011). Sense of agency and intentional binding in joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 655–662.
Obhi, S. S., Swiderski, K. M., & Brubacher, S. P. (2012). Induced power changes the sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1547–1550.
Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107, 179–217.
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.
Powers, W. T. (1998). Making sense of behavior. Montclair, NJ: Benchmark Publications.
Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2016). The mirror mechanism: A basic principle of brain function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(12), 757.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Sidarus, N., Chambon, V., & Haggard, P. (2013). Priming of actions increases sense of control over unexpected outcomes. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1403–1411.
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.
Smedslund, J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 185–195.
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.
Strother, L., House, K. A., & Obhi, S. S. (2010). Subjective agency and awareness of shared actions. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 12–20.
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.
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.
Valsiner, J. (2017). From methodology to methods in human psychology. New York, NY: Springer.
Watt, R., & Quinn, S. (2008). It depends what you do in the laboratory. British Journal of Psychology, 99(3), 351–354.
Wen, W., & Haggard, P. (2018). Control changes the way we look at the world. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(4), 603–619.
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.
Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2015b). The influence of goals on sense of control. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 83–90.
Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2016). Divided attention and processes underlying sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 35.
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.
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.
Wolpert, D. M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 209–216.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gozli, D. (2019). Sense of Agency. In: Experimental Psychology and Human Agency. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20422-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20422-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20421-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20422-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)